The University of Missouri at Columbia
Chemistry 205 - Introduction to Organic Chemistry - Fall Semester 2005

Teaching Evaluations - Overall Rating 2.8/4.0

Criteria of evaluation FS05
2050
FS04
2050
F03
205

Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions 3.07 1.90 3.12
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 3.79 3.61 3.86
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 2.67 1.89 2.65
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 2.17 1.21 2.10
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 2.70 2.19 2.62
Overall rating of the instructor 2.60 1.85 2.75
Your rating of how much you have learned 2.53 1.58 2.37
Overall rating of the course 2.60 1.60 2.50
Overall rating 2.81 1.98 2.75
Students Starting (Test 1) 123 100 110
Students Finishing (Final) 123 100 109
Student Retention 100% 100% 99%
Students Advancing (among stud. compl. course) 98% 98% 96%
Evaluations Returned 92 84 66
Eval's Ret'd by Percent of Students at EoS 75% 84% 61%
CIITN Level - 4 2
TAs 3 6 3
Online Notes N N N
Online Student Comments Y Y Y



QUESTIONS
1. List strong and weak features of the lecturer and include 
   suggestions for improvement.
2. Compare the lecturer to other you have had (especially with  
   those in science courses at this level ...)
3. List the strong and weak features of the overall course (not the
   lecturer) and include suggestions on how its quality might be improved.
4. Compare the course with the others you have taken.
5. Your overall rating of the course (circle letter grade)
6. My approximate GPA prior to the current semester was _____.
 


RESPONSES 
[Responses are complete and verbatim. Emphasis by way of bold face ours]

Student 1
1. Illogical order
2. More critical
3. Sequence lab and lecture better
4. Very different but requiring critical thought which is very good.
5. B
6. 2.7


-----needs formatting---







Student 1 1. He goes very quickly without explaining what he is doing. 2. Better than most. 3. Covers too much material 4. better than most 5. B 6. 3.2 Student 2 1. Great use of examples. Could use more electronic material for demonstrations. 2. He has done the best yet at helping me understand the material. 3. Labs followed lecture quite well. Labs could maybe use a recitation. 4. I thoroughly enjoyed it. 5. A 6. 3.95 Student 3 1. Any instructor who takes the time to learn his students’ names and match them with faces is awesome! He genuinely cares about how his students perform. 2. He’s friendly and approachable and very down to earth. The Chemistry Department would benefit greatly for getting more instructors like him. 3. It’s chemistry-makes it hard. 4. Easiest chemistry course, but still chemistry. 5. A 6. 3.3 Student 4 1. Test should be more relevant to problems in the book and in class- were much more different than what I had practiced. 2. Get me more interested in the material then any other lecturer. 3. Test- poor quality. Labs and lecture- good 4. Ok 5. B 6. 3.813 Student 5 1. Label notes on board. (what section/topic) 2. Above average 3. Left blank 4. Little more interesting 5. A 6. 3.4 Student 6 1. Lectures not organized- skips around in a list. Excitement- other examples are good. 2. Just different to follow and learn from. 3. Organic chemistry is a tough class. Lab is memorization that I will never need. 4. left blank) 5. C 6. 3.2 Student 7 1. Horrible expressions. Very offensive when talking and using expressions. Could Could have easily at had sexual harassment charges against him. 2. dr. Keller was the best. Glaser has been the worst. 3. Spend more time on amines and things at the end of the semester and less at the beginning. 4. left blank 5. C 6. 4.0 Student 8 1. I think he knows his stuff but does not convey to the class well. 2. He did not present the information in a way that was easy to follow. 3. They were fine 4. It was difficult. 5. C 6. 2.9 Student 9 1. Better notes would be great, like writing everything on the board. 2. left blank 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. D 6. 2.9 Student 10 1. Professor Glaser is very enthusiastic but he rambles easily and is hard to follow. His analogies don’t help. 2. He is pretty much the same as the other chemistry lectures I’ve had. 3. Too much information to learn properly. 4. left blank 5. C 6. 3.75 Student 11 1. It is very difficult to follow notes at a later date. Wish he would use powerpoint of some kind of notes where he could go back and refresh memory. 2. He is very enthusiastic about the subject. He does a great job of applying his lecturers to current events. 3. Notes online 4. Very interesting 5. A 6. 3.87 Student 12 1. Very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about material. Too much material for students to learn in one semester. 2. Very good and demanding 3. Too much material for one semester. 4. equal 5. A 6. 3.2 Student 13 1. left blank 2. left blank 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. B 6. left blank Student 14 1. He is very interested in his work and that rubs off on the students. He can talk on our level. Weak features- sometimes goes too fast, needs more office hours. 2. Much better. Actually cares about the students he teaches. 3. Nice labs 4. Great 5. A 6. 3.8 Student 15 1. Instructor was very enthusiastic about chemistry and enjoyed lecturing, but often got carried away and went through material very quickly. 2. Much better at lecturing and discussing topics with students than other instructors. 3. left blank 4. better 5. B 6. 3.5 Student 16 1. left blank 2. left blank 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. C 6. 3.2 Student 17 1. Good use of technology, notes disorganized. 2. Good 3. Overall good 4. Good 5. B 6. 3.8 Student 18 1. I like how he relates things to present day things, or how it can be useful to us. 2. Better, easier to understand. 3. Getting here every day can be challenging. 4. Good 5. B 6. 2.5 Student 19 1. Slow down to explain the points. 2. Worst lecturer I have had out of all chemistry professors. 3. Better explanation of material. 4. Worst of at MU 5. E 6. 3.5 Student 20 1. Strong- enthusiastic. Weak- hard to follow 2. NIA 3. NIA 4. Difficult 5. C 6. NIA Student 21 1. Use more step by step following and indicate which technique above the strx. 2. Okay 3. Make homework necessary 4. Ok 5. B 6. 2.5 Student 22 1. You assume that students get it right away when they do not. 2. You have done a good job. 3. I like the course as a whole, it is a good format. 4. Hard but good. 5. B 6. 3.3 Student 23 1. left blank 2. left blank 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. left blank 6. 3.0 Student 24 1. Points are not always clear and easy to understand but he is enthusiastic. 2. Less ability to relate subject matter. 3. Course itself is ok. 4. ok 5. C 6. 2.5 Student 25 1. Strong- got excited and usually very cheerful. Weak- went way too fast sometimes. He could slow things down a bit or use more examples. 2. It was about the same- just covered things a little too quickly and assumed we were following along. 3. It was pretty though but I expected that. 4. It was very difficult and took up lots of my time. 5. C 6. 3.86 Student 26 1. More of outlined notes maybe power point notes on black board. 2. Good, use good examples. 3. Make sure to not have 2 websites 4. One of the better Chemistry Courses. 5. B 6. 3.4 Student 27 1. left blank 2. Very interesting and different. 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. A 6. 2.6 Student 28 1. His expectations and evaluation were very fair. 2. He did a good job at balancing lectures and doing examples in class. 3. left blank 4. good 5. A 6. 3.3 Student 29 1. He was kind of scatter brained it seemed sometimes. More organization would have helped. 2. He was very enthusiastic about chemistry and wanted us to learn. 3. Good course, a lot of information with good labs. 4. left blank 5. A 6. 3.56 Student 30 1. He could take more questions and answer them better. 2. He is pretty clear though does not follow the book. 3. A stranger correlation between the lecture and the text. 4. It has been okay. 5. B 6. 3.1 Student 31 1. Very involved and interesting- fun to come to class. 2. More knowledgeable and excited to teach. 3. left blank 4. Learned more- material more interesting 5. A 6. left blank Student 32 1. He does not explain this clearly he just hopes you understand and goes on. 2. He is very smart, and not good at teaching the material. 3. The tests were not easy and not everything was covered in class. I thought the whole class was not good. 4. Worse than any others. 5. C 6. 3.2 Student 33 1. He knows what he is talking about, but his ability to translate to his students and the material is poor. 2. Not as well as Dr. Adams has done, not at all as prepared. 3. More points, extra assignments. 4. I learned the material, but I can’t say the class learned as well as I have. 5. B 6. 3.8 Student 34 1. Strong, knows his material. Weak, speaks too fast sometimes to be understood. 2. left blank 3. left blank 4. This is a very tough course in comparison. 5. C 6. 3.96 Student 35 1. Slow down, make lectures easier to follow. 2. Very enthusiastic but at times difficult to follow. 3. Interesting subject matter and reasonable work load. 4. left blank 5. B 6. 3.8 Student 36 1. Strong, follows book, no tricking. Ask more questions 2. All on board, no notes on power point. 3. left blank 4. not bad 5. B 6. 3.85 Student 37 1. Strong, enthusiasm. Weak, disorganized, confusing. Make more structured outlines. 2. More confusing/disorganized. 3. I learned a lot of information, good material. 4. More difficult than most. 5. B 6. 3.9 Student 38 1. Sometimes I got lost in the lectures, maybe from lack of understanding ot maybe because his thoughts weren’t organized. 2. I thought he was a good lecturer compared to my other professors. He has a lot of subject. 3. He was very helpful to answer questions. The course material was tough but not too unbearable. 4. Better than Chemistry 31 and 32. 5. B 6. 1.87 Student 39 1. left blank 2. Tanner of chemistry 32 was ideal in comparison. 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. D 6. 3.2 Student 40 1. Strong, enthusiasm for subject matter. Weak, went a little fast sometimes when. 2. left blank 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. C 6. left blank Student 41 1. He can be intimidating to students. He seems to taunt/embarrass them in front of the class, which makes students less likely to speak in lecture. 2. Typically, very interesting and he carries a fun and excited air. 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. A 6. 4.0 Student 42 1. Good at making things interesting and seem relevant. 2. left blank 3. sometimes embraces students humorously, I don’t think they like it. 4. left blank 5. A 6. 3.4 Student 43 1. A lot of times I felt like he drew a lot of structures on the board and he didn’t explain what they were or why he was drawing them. 2. Very enthusiastic, more than my past structures, but I often felt lost in lecture. 3. I wish the practice problems were more like the actual test questions. We are told if we practice the book problems, we will be prepared for the test and then the test questions are totally different. 4. about the same. 5. B 6. 3.3 Student 44 1. He didn’t stick to his outlines, he put on the board. Really what he lectured about was on any of the tests. 2. Most of the time the things he was talking about were way over my head and I couldn’t follow what he was trying to get out. 3. I don’t know what we were supposed to get out of this class. 4. It is the worst chemistry class I have ever taken. 5. E 6. 3.0 Student 45 1. Need to use technology to keep class interesting. Stop writing 60 structures on the board. Lecture was boring and subject matter made no sense. No continuity. Good enthusiasm and knowledge but we bounced around too much it was hard to follow. 2. Again very enthusiastic and knowledgeable but extremely hard to follow and to stay awake. 3. Better use of technology needed. Maybe lecture outline, I liked past exams for studying. Maybe we take home quizzes to help students better understand what you expect us to learn. 4. left blank 5. D 6. 3.8 Student 46 1. The discussions were hard to follow at times because I could not connect ideas within lecture. At times it seemed as if there were three or more separate lectures within the lecture. A more connected approach to lecture would be helpful. Also, teaching more concepts rather than individual examples before providing examples would be helpful. 2. left blank 3. Course was fine for chemistry course, but content was good. 4. Approximately, the same as other chemistry courses. 5. C 6. 3.5 Student 47 1. Strong, conveying subject matter in a easily and understandable way. Weak, lecture and book chapters are not exactly the same. Tests are too long for the allotted time. 2. I wish there were power points or handouts or notes. 3. The Book is easy to understand. Test were too long. 4. It is okay compared to the others. 5. B 6. 2.5 Student 48 1. Very good introduction to course. 2. Has great enthusiasm, but expects everyone else to as well. 3. Strong, I can tell there have been great improvements made on exams when I compare them with old exams. 4. Difficult, but reasonable. 5. B 6. 3.75 Student 49 1. Very hard to follow. No organization in lecture. Doesn’t follow book. 2. Went by chapters so it was east to follow and had outlines online for lectures before class. 3. Test were way too difficult, not even over material covered in class. Never new what to study because didn’t follow book. 4. Very difficult, do a lot of teaching to myself. 5. E 6. 3.0 Student 50 1. Dr. Glaser skipped around too much. The lecturers didn’t correlate with the readings very well. You would have to do all the readings for that test before listening to lectures in order to understand. 2. He was hard to follow. Actual notes would have been nice. 3. Not having the whole syllabus at the beginning of the year. 4. Not very well organized. 5. C 6. B Student 51 1. He is intelligent and knows his subject matter. Unclear explanations not open to questions, rude when answering questions as thought the answer should have been known. 2. Difficult to follow lectures, he jumps around. Expects students to know more than they do. 3. Follow the book closer; be more clear and organized during lectures. 4. More difficult, uninteresting due to the lecturer. 5. D 6. 3.3 Student 52 1. Enthusiastic on subject, but sometimes hard to follow in lectures. They tend to get a little jumpy. 2. More enthusiastic than others, but perhaps less fluid in material. 3. Some important concepts briefly touched on while being rather important. 4. Much quicker paced in covering materials. 5. B 6. 3.0 Student 53 1. Strong feature is confidence and mastery of knowledge. Weak features is communication gap between his grasp of students and students understanding of information being conveyed. 2. The direction that the lecturer usually pushed students to study were followed more closely than this lecturer. 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. C 6. 3.0 Student 54 1. Good examples, I have been getting B’s on the test without using the book. 2. Can’t emphasize enough how much better is at teaching than most of the Chemistry staff. 3. It’s has been great to have Glaser for Organic chemistry. I might aced it with him at the helm. Introduction 2050 might has seemed rushed at times. 4. left blank 5. A 6. 2.0 Student 55 1. many examples but does not cover concepts first. Expected to have read and understood prior to class. Posted notes or power point could have made the class easier to follow. 2. left blank 3. lab points make really hard test balance out. 4. left blank 5. B 6. 3.5 Student 56 1. Speak louder please. Especially when you turn around to face to board. Not everyone can sit on the front row to be able to hear you. 2. Was able to bring some relevance to the material. Seemed to have good enthusiasm. 3. Good preparation for another class, Human Nutrition 2. 4. left blank 5. B 6. 3.4 Student 57 1. Weak, spoke as if everyone was on the same level, moved really quickly. Strong, enthusiastic, there for students. 2. left blank 3. left blank 4. better, more in depth. 5. B 6. 3.0 Student 58 1. Weak, lack of organization in class. Hard to see which points are important. Strong, knows material. 2. Not as organized. Does not explain as well in relating to student questions. 3. More organization needed. 4. decent 5. B 6. 3.968 Student 59 1. Strong, enthusiasm for subject and wants the students to learn. Weak, lectures were sometimes hard to follow and very random. 2. Satisfactory 3. Strong, lab helped. Weak, hard 4. average 5. B 6. 2.96 Student 60 1. Strong, enthusiasm about subject. weak, went off on small tangents or introduced topics never put on exams. 2. Did not define and explain things understandably. There were not enough examples, which should have been gone over more thoroughly. 3. Strong, related to other science courses. Weak, not enough basic organic chemistry. 4. Erratic 5. C 6. 3.94 Student 61 1. Strong, knowledge of subject matter. 2. He was a better instructor than other chemistry teachers. 3. Learned a lot of knowledge on organic chemistry. No weak points. 4. Was a much better course than Chemistry 1310 and 1320. 5. A 6. 3.0 Student 62 1. Spoke clearly but a lot of times I did not understand the subject he was talking about. 2. Better 3. confusing 4. Better 5. B 6. 3.1 Student 63 1. Liked how he tired to find real life examples of chemistry in action. Sometimes went over a lot of material too quickly. 2. Much, much, much better than all of my former chemistry professors. 3. A lot of material in a short time. 4. Much better, best chem. class I’ve taken. 5. A 6. 3.25 Student 64 1. Strong, good enthusiasm for chemistry, made me want to know more. Weak, he wasn’t very easy to follow. 2. He was about average. 3. He should have test reviews for all the tests. 4. left blank 5. C 6. 3.4 Student 65 1. Very enthusiastic. He loves science, he does not teach information well. Be more through and slow down and explain things as if we have no idea. 2. He is the most enthusiastic and really wants is to learn, but he just can’t teach well. 3. Course is good, labs are very good. Course skips many times 4. Difficult, very hard to follow. 5. B 6. 3.6 Student 66 1. If he could have more structured lesson plan that would be helpful in understanding the topics better. 2. I think he is somewhat similar to the instructors in the past. However, I do not believe I have had an outstanding chemistry instructor at this point. 3. I think extra credit would be most beneficial. I think a little more organization as well. 4. I like this course however it was very demanding compared to my other chemistry classes 5. C 6. 3.2 Student 67 1. Lectures board work difficult to follow. Hard to understand what should be taken from lecture. 2. Comparable to others in Chemistry department. 3. Test difficulty and time requirements much higher than should be present in a survey course of this level. 4. Much more difficult and convoluted. 5. D 6. 3.57 Student 68 1. No real important necessary 2. Good sense of humor and mostly on task. Subject matter is confusing and when enough time was had to read book too, my understanding was fine. 3. more examples other than reiterating book examples. 4. Best chemistry course I’ve taken. 5. B 6. 3.0 Student 69 1. Make more students understand topics before moving on. To improve this review previous material as more is built on to the basics. 2. Same as the other science professors, they assume you have the same knowledge as they do. We aren’t doctors. 3. New Book. 4. left blank 5. C 6. 3.3 Student 70 1. Strong, enthusiastic, clear. Weak, explanations in a way we can incorporate into notes to accompany examples. 2. left blank 3. Weak, exams very difficult. Strong, interesting information. 4. left blank 5. C 6. 3.25 Student 71 1. Good knowledge of subject. Too enthusiastic 2. Close to the same. 3. Labs correspond closes to lecture. 4. left blank 5. B 6. left blank Student 72 1. Difficult to follow didn’t flow. Very enthusiastic compared to others. 2. left blank 3. Better flow, and more time spent on subjects. 4. Below average. 5. C 6. 3.45 Student 73 1. Doesn’t explain well, not enough examples. 2. About same as other chemistry professors. 3. A lot of information. 4. Same as other chemistry courses. 5. C 6. 3.8 Student 74 1. Very energetic and seems to know a lot but skips around and doesn’t explain sometimes. 2. He is the best so far. 3. Tests can be ridiculous, and labs are boring. 4. It was ok. 5. C 6. 2.4 Student 75 1. Poor explanations, just presents information lectures were useless. 2. Doesn’t concern himself with how well concepts are understood. 3. Book allowed me to teach myself. 4. Poor 5. D 6. 3.75 Student 76 1. Make the tests more like the lecture what you cover in class, put on the test. 2. About the same. 3. left blank 4. same 5. C 6. left blank Student 77 1. Strong, very passionate about organic chemistry. Weak, can improve on …. 2. I feel that it’s similar to other chemistry lectures. There’s not much teaching, just output of information. 3. Can be a little easier since this is a non chemistry majority class. 4. It’s the most difficult, other than my other sciences. 5. B 6. 2.8 Student 78 1. He is enthusiastic but sometimes moves too fast with little explanation. 2. He is more strict than others I have had. 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. B 6. 3.2 Student 79 1. Don’t make fun of students when they answer incorrectly, it is discouraging to participate. 2. Has a lot of enthusiasm and a good grasp in how students learn. 3. Strong, lab portion was great. Weak, too many lectures (4 days a week). 4. Very time demanding, but good. 5. B 6. 3.956 Student 80 1. left blank 2. left blank 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. C 6. 3.3 Student 81 1. Maintains interest and is not boring. I would suggest giving more handouts because that really helps to follow lectures since so much is drawing. 2. Very good. Had the ability to explain things in terms and ways we could understand instead of just trying to sound smart. 3. More handouts, more guidance on what to study for exams. 4. I liked it a lot. 5. A 6. 3.93 Student 82 1. Considering the subject, Glaser did a good job. 2. left blank 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. A 6. 2.75 Student 83 1. A lot of times notes would be all over the board, as if you looked down to write some notes, by the time you looked up again, there was more information added, but I would have no idea what it meant. 2. left blank 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. C 6. 3.14 Student 84 1. Weak, to many political views for a classroom of people of mixed options. Strong, availability to talk to away from class. 2. left blank 3. left blank 4. Harder than all 5. C 6. 2.6 Student 85 1. Lectures are hard to follow and hard to pick out important points. A more structured lecture with outlines would help. 2. Other classes are more structured in lecture. 3. Too much emphasis is placed on memorization more time could be spent on concepts. 4. left blank 5. C 6. 3.2 Student 86 1. Speak up. Hard to understand when he can’t be heard. Label and write more stuff on the board. 2. Not as descriptive or as easy to understand, or easy to follow. Not as good as others I have had. 3. I liked the lab. Give better information as to what is expected of us on exams an tests. 4. Not as much understanding. 5. C 6. 3.78 Student 87 1. Doesn’t give relevant example in class that would be helpful on exams. 2. Sometimes difficult to follow, lecture not very useful to passing the class. 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. C 6. 3.2 Student 88 1. Ask more if there is ahead for more discussion. 2. Very good compared to other chemistry lecturers. 3. none 4. none 5. B 6. 3.4 Student 89 1. Rambles and discusses things too fast. 2. left blank 3. left blank 4. left blank 5. C 6. 3.8 Student 90 1. Weak, couldn’t read handwriting. Maybe use computerized technology. 2. left blank 3. Weak, lots of information, break up better. 4. left blank 5. D 6. 3.3 Student 91 1. He is very enthusiastic. When it comes to chemistry making it a little more interesting. 2. I think he has a better/more personal attitude towards the class. 3. The material is difficult and I think with some study guides it would be much better. 4. Fine 5. B 6. 3.4 Student 92 1. Strong, knows the material really well. Weak, does not seem to illustrate important points before test sometimes. 2. Average, maybe a tad above average. 3. Strong, lots of information. Weak, sometime an overbearing amount of information. 4. Highly informative. 5. A 6. 3.4