The University of Missouri at Columbia
Chemistry 205 - Introduction to Organic Chemistry - Fall Semester 2003

Teaching Evaluations - Overall Rating 2.8/4.0

Criteria of evaluation
F03
205

Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions 3.12
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 3.86
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 2.65
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 2.10
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 2.62
Overall rating of the instructor 2.75
Your rating of how much you have learned 2.37
Overall rating of the course 2.50
Overall rating 2.75
Students Starting (Test 1) 110
Students Finishing (Final) 109
Student Retention 99%
Students Advancing (among stud. compl. course) 96%
Evaluations Returned 66
Eval's Ret'd by Percent of Students at EoS 61%
CIITN Level 2
TAs 3
Online Notes N
Online Student Comments 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. I was very impressed by his concern for student learning.  Early in the 
course, I sometimes had trouble following the lectures and seeing how the 
topics we covered in a lecture fitted together.  I also didn’t like having 
a substitute lecturer so often.  But overall he was very good.
2. He made a much greater effort to connect with the students and make sure we 
were following than other science professors.
3. I didn’t like how the labs didn’t reflect what we were covering in 
lecture, although the Friday explanations helped I liked the current issue 
discussions.
4. It was pretty informative.
5. B
6. 3.77

Student 2
1. He seemed very smart, excited and nice.  He moved through the subject matter 
to quickly, most was unknown information and test were to hard.  I did feel 
like the take homes were informative and a grade booster.
2. Typical Chemistry teacher.  None are great teachers.
3. A lot of work and time.  Would have been good if I didn’t have any other 
classes. 
4. Bad
5. D
6. 2.5

Student 3
1. Strong- very good communication, he would email all us all the time to talk 
to us and the WebCT was also very helpful.  The website for the class always 
kept is updated and involved.
2. Dr. Glaser has spent more time out of class than any teacher I have ever 
had.
3. (left blank)
4. Material is hard and there is a lot of it.
5. B
6. 3.3

Student 4
1. The instructor has a great deal of knowledge and did his best to teach.  I 
think a real strength of this course is the incorporation of Chemistry with 
current issues in the news.  I would securely continue this part of the class.
2. (left blank)
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 5
1. Informative rxns on board.  Please project more.
2. Comparable to others= ask questions for student participation.  Difference 
(good things) write rxns on board instead of just showing slides from books. 
3. Labs should go along with lecture.
4. More reaction mechanisms to know, not just conceptual.
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 6
1. Weak Feature: focuses too much time on points that are easy to grasp, 
focuses too little time on complex, confusing processes.  
2. (left blank)
3. The lab was not coherently related to lecture.  They were on different 
chapters in the book.
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 3.25

Student 7
1. One thing that I was disappointed in is that Dr. Glaser took several days 
off to attend meetings and the like.  I’m sure he’s busy, but it 
distracts from our learning to have someone else thrown in here after we have 
become accustomed to his teaching style.  Also, I noticed that when students 
asked him to repeat what he said, he would have to explain the concept in a 
completely way and that was sometimes confusing.
2. This is the best I have done in a chemistry class as of yet have at Mizzou.  
Dr. Glaser is a far better lecturer than any Chem 32 or Chem 33.
3. When our labs did not match up with our lecture material, it was distracting 
and confusing.  Please try to coordinate the lab and lecture material better. 
4. It is very similar to other chemistry courses- the problem if not matching 
up lab and lecture material is prevalent in all.
5. A
6. .32

Student 8
1. Weak: not very good at teaching “text book” material.  Strong: Much 
better on teaching “chemistry is in the news”.  Material was much more 
interesting and most people would agree he is a good guy.  He tries to be 
helpful and funny to make class better for everyone.
2. When  teaching “textbook” material, he’s ok I’ve had some 
lecturers who were much better and some who were much worse.  But I love how he 
tries to be funny to make class more enjoyable and he makes an effort for us to 
do better in his class.
3. It is such a boring class, boring material much more interesting when he 
talks about CIITN.
4. ok
5. C
6. 2.0

Student 9
1. Often he went too fast in lectures.  He assumed that we knew stuff that we 
didn’t, so sometimes I had no idea what was going on.  But, he id appear 
that he knows what he was talking about.  
2. Like many of the professors, he had great knowledge in the subject, but he 
didn’t know how to teach it to us.
3. It’s just an intro course and often taught like Chem 210.  
4. One of the toughest I’ve had, but it made it through.
5. C
6. 3.3

Student 10
1. Glaser did not seem to care if the students were not understanding the 
material.  People would raise their hands and try to get his attention and he 
would keep going on and ignore them.  
2. He had absolutely no organization and skipped around.
3. No strong.  Bad teacher.
4. Bad course: because of lack of teaching skills.
5. E	
6. 3.8

Student 11
1. Instructor has a high interest in the material and makes good use of class 
time.  His commitment to explaining current news topics and his interest in our 
learning was very much appreciated.
2. Superior to other lecturers, in relevant material and ability to explain 
concepts and mechanisms.
3. Quizzes or collected homework might be assigned to encourage students to 
keep us with readings.
4. (left blank)
5. A
6. 3.8

Student 12
1. Strong: very excited about organic and loves his job and helps out students 
a lot.  Weak: too smart to be teaching Chemistry 205.
2. He is the best Chemistry teacher I have had so far.
3. very hard, and having two lecturers (Phil) was very difficult to understand 
when it came to teaching the class. 
4. Time consuming and hard.
5. C
6. 2.87

Student 13
1. Very enthusiastic, uses real-life scenarios and examples.  Weak: worried 
about being prepared for MCAT.
2. This is the best Chemistry course I have taken so for at the University.  
3. (left blank)
4. Best course I have had so far.
5. B
6. 3.5

Student 14
1. Strong: Very knowledgeable of the subject matter.  He also seems very strong 
in wanting his students understanding the material.  Weak:  I just felt like 
sometimes the information was overwhelming and we did not get the opportunity 
to discuss it enough in class.
2. He was very similar to other lectures in the fact that he was very smart, 
but sometimes didn’t not catch that the class was not understanding.
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 3.3

Student 15
1. Strong: were Glaser was interested in us learning and understanding the 
chemistry, rather than trying to trick us.  He was interested in chemistry in 
the news and current chemistry which was great.  Finally, something we can use 
in real life.  
2. This lecture was by far the best Chemistry lecture yet.
3. course was difficult but went ok.
4. Give it a B grade.
5. B
6. (left blank)

Student 16
1. Excellent knowledge.  Good enthusiasm and ability to relate to everyday 
life.  Poor job of breaking material down and explaining in a way we can 
follow.  Especially at the beginning of course- need more background.
2. Enthusiasm was great.  Other lecturers  have done better at making sure 
it’s at our level, more clear on what’s what.
3. It’s a ton of information for a short time.  Is there any way to thin it 
out?  And labs didn’t follow the lectures so it’s difficult to study 
lab concepts as you go along.
4. More difficult, but interesting.
5. B
6. 3.7

Student 17
1. Sometimes he teaches at a more advanced level which is not easily followed.
2. For the most part he is a good teacher, but other science teachers know how 
there students know and adjust their teaching. 
3. Strong: detailed syllabus  Weak: lab (need to have discussion with TA’s)
4. (left blanks)
5. C	
6. 2.6

Student 18
1. He knows what he is talking about, but he doesn’t know how to break the 
material down and explain it on an introductory level.
2. They know how to break it down easily.
3. It is packed with a lot of material.  Assign certain homework problems, to 
give a feel for what the test will be like.
4. Extremely different.
5. C
6. 2.8

Student 19
1. There wasn’t any structure to his notes and lectures.  I never could 
follow what he did.  He assumed we knew everything and was taught more of a 
review than actually teaching us chemistry.
2. He was the worst teacher I have ever had.  I didn’t learn anything and 
was stressed and frustrated the entire semester.
3. Chemistry labs were too advanced for us and we didn’t know what we were 
doing.  
4. It’s the worst course I’ve ever had
5. E
6. 3.3

Student 20
1. Would sometimes rush through material.  He was enthusiastic about lecture.
2. (left blank)
3. Difficult, required a lot of time.
4. More difficult.
5. B
6. 3.3

Student 21
1. He was interested in the subject and used class time wisely, but there was 
no structure at all- needs to be some kind of outline to follow so we know what 
he’ talking about and how it relates.  
2. He’s less organized but very knowledgeable.  
3. The course shouldn’t have so much in-depth material that doesn’t 
help with understanding of basic organic chemistry.
4. It’s more free-based and expectations are not clear.
5. D
6. 3.9

Student 22
1. He seemed to know what he was speaking about, but could not communicate that 
to us very well.  Many times I felt that there was no structure and when it was 
test time I didn’t even know where to begin studying.
2. (left blank)
3. I think the book should be incorporated more into the lecture. 
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. 3.3

Student 23
1. He is very knowledgeable about subject matter and has a passion for it, but 
further explanations are necessary because sometimes he taught above our level.  
He also missed class so we had conflicting teaching patterns and emphasis on 
different things.  
2. He was very computer/internet based.  He drew more things out so we had to 
pull from what he talked about instead of just powerpoint.
3. The labs did not follow course sequence.  So maybe that could be rearranged.  
It would also be more interesting to be able to relate this to out majors and 
know why we have to take it.
4. A lot more work; almost too high of expectations considering we have other 
classes. 
5. B
6. 3.9

Student 24
1. He seems to be extremely knowledgeable but is messing his audience.  He 
taught above the level required.  The tests were too difficult and often 
included questions about minor points of class.  The overall concepts were not 
stressed.
2. Other lecturers have evoked more interest in me.  This class was too 
demanding and made me give up early in the semester.
3. The course covers way too much information at much too rapid of a pace for 
people who have had no experience with organic chemistry.  
4. I hated it an it ruined my semester.
5. D
6. 3.7

Student 25
1. Strong: Knows material, very smart man.  Weak: not good at teaching and 
getting the class to understand.
2. Average
3. Weak: This is a lot of material for an intro class where we will never use 
this out in the real world.  It’s pointless to have to have it.  
4. Below Average
5. D
6. 4.0

Student 26
1. Weak: Assuming students know the level of Chemistry he does; gets frustrated 
when you don’t.  Tests are very difficult with low averages.  Strong: loves 
chemistry and is enthusiastic.
2. The previous chemistry course teachers have been better, but still were not 
great teachers with exception of Paul Duval.
3. Weak: this is an into. Level course and is not treated like one. 
4. Bad
5. C
6. 3.5

Student 27
1. Glaser was always very enthusiastic and interested in if we were learning 
but needs to be clearer on what he expects us to learn and know for exams.  
Sometimes concepts were emphasized greatly and not on exams.
2. Very much the same as other Chemistry teachers.  I like how he related 
chemistry to real world aspects; I have not had that much before.
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 3.1

Student 28
1. Sometimes goes to fast and hard to get everything down. 
2. Usually, I have gad lecturers with powerpoint presentations.
3. Strong: I learn a lot in lectures because it gets written out for me.  Weak: 
too fast too much material.
4. There is a lot of work especially the lab and news articles.
5. B
6. 3.9

Student 29
1. The main thing that was negative about the class is the material taught so 
fast which makes it harder to understand the material and obtain interest.
2. Equal enthusiasm, but the same point listed in question one.
3. I’m confident in the instructor, it’s just the whole course itself.
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. 3.2

Student 30
1. Lectures were too scattered.  He didn’t stay on track with chapters we 
were reading at the time.
2. He didn’t keep interest level high.
3. (left blank)
4. We went fast through material.
5. D
6. 2.9

Student 31
1. At the beginning of the semester lecture was harder to follow because we did 
not have a clear outline of topics to be discussed.  Later when you put the 
outline on the board it helped a lot.  But sometimes you do not make it clear 
that you are changing the topic and I get confused.
2. Good, I like the way the CIITN gets everyone involved.  More of this type of 
stuff would be great.
3. Content seems fine to me.
4. Better than 31 and 32 and 33- at least I can apply this stuff.
5. B
6. 3.2

Student 32
1. He’s a funny guy and knows what he is talking about.  I like the news 
stuff.
2. He was more interesting and pushed us to learn.
3. The labs were fun, maybe a week could be given to complete labs.
4. Liked it better.
5. B
6. 2.5

Student 33
1. Strong: his enthusiasm for the subject is good and I like his lecturing 
style but his absences were not good.
2. His enthusiasm is through the roof and he has had a higher degree of 
interest in the student’s opinions and questions. 
3. I like the take home test but feel that they lower the amount of material 
that I learn to the different studying requirements.
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 3.7

Student 34
1. Well prepared and organized.  Did not give great base knowledge.
2. More enthusiastic and better connected to the students.
3. Slow it down to an introductory level.
4. Good subject material.
5. B
6. 2.4

Student 35
1. Strong: very passion able about the subject.  Weak: went too fast, not 
explaining enough need a better note taking system.
2. more interested in students learning but notes were less organized.
3. Weak: not clear enough.
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. 3.49

Student 36
1. Good- Examples of the subject matter are easy to understand and see hoe 
material applies.  Bad-  The in class exams were sometimes too difficult for 
the amount of material covered.
2. (left blank)
3. Too much material covered.
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 3.9

Student 37
1. Strong: ability to integrate what is in the real world with chemistry.  
Weak: coming down to students level to teach.  We are only 205 non-major 
students.
2. Very interesting and enthusiastic.
3.  Beginning was difficult to catch up on.  
4. about the same
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 38
1. Weakness: missed several lectures, so we had constantly adapt to different 
teaching styles.  Strong: Funny and entertaining.
2. I think he taught over our heads, this is supposed to be an introductory 
course.
3. Labs should correspond with lectures.
4. Requires way too much time.
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 39
1. The tests don’t always seem to correlate to the lectures.
2. The tests were more abstract, but Dr. Glaser spent more time trying to 
relate the material to real life situations.
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 3.3

Student 40
1. Dr. Glaser was very enthusiastic on some parts.  I don’t know if I ever 
use a lot of the strong parts that were emphasized in my career.
2. Dr. Glaser was definitely more animated and interesting than any other 
lectures.
3. Much of the information seemed relevant.
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 2.5

Student 41
1. He is very knowledgeable about Chemistry, and he expects the same from the 
class.  This is an introductory class to Organic; and I feel I missed a step, 
because the way we started out.
2. He seems to be more understanding about what we as students need from the 
class.  He takes into account when we don’t do well on exams.
3. The CIITN is helpful for real-life applications of the class.
4. It was average.
5. B
6. 3.179

Student 42   
1. Works through topics to fast and maybe more examples would help the students 
understand the topics.
2. Another chemistry instructor would work thru examples that would be on the 
test.
3. Test were difficult to take.  Take home test helped, there was more time to 
work thru and understand what he wanted.
4. It is a college level course.
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 43
1. Strong: used a lot of real world examples to explain subject matter.  Weak: 
covered a lot of material too quickly; more demonstrated examples would have 
helped.
2. More interesting subject material covered.  
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 2.92

Student 44
1. Good enthusiasm. Sometimes hard to follow when drawing mechanisms.
2. Keeps students attention.
3. Learned a lot, but a lot of information was covered in a short amount of 
time.
4. Good- lots of material covered.
5. B
6. 3.65

Student 45
1. He is very interested on what he does and has a hard time comprehending that 
not everyone has the same intense drive for molecular structures.  Perhaps 
branching and more teaching could help.
2. He was easy to follow, but not always sure of his answers, but overly 
assured himself.  He was very good about extra credit though.
3. The tests were very hard compared to everything else in the course.
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 3.6

Student 46
1. Dr. Glaser was very interested in the subject and that came through to the 
students.
2. I have taken Organic chemistry classes and Dr. Glaser is by far the better 
of the three professors.
3. (left blank)
4. One of the more difficult.
5. B
6. 2.5

Student 47
1. The lab section on Friday should be more devoted to the lab procedures, and 
lab work in general, and should not be used as an additional war.  
2. Well knowledgeable on current issues of Organic Chemistry, and the world in 
general.
3. Course labs should be written for 205 to correspond with the lecture.
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 3.6

Student 48
1. Well he jumped all over the place while teaching, it made learning difficult 
at first.
2. I have had better.
3. (left blank)
4. This course was interesting, but hard to follow.
5. A
6. 3.5

Student 49
1. Too smart for an intro. Class.
2. Funny, but not very helpful.
3. I’m getting an A, but only because of extra credit.
4. Not fun at all.
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 50
1. Strong: Dedicated.  Weak: Too complicated.
2. Dr. Glaser is very good.
3. Very good book and website.
4. Much better than 210.
5. A
6. 4.0

Student 51
1. Strong: The CIITN is very interesting.  I think I learned the most with it.  
Weak: Test didn’t do anything but teach us how dumb we were.  
2. Average the same.
3. Strong: CIITN.  Weak: Too much information.
4. Average the same.
5. B
6. 3.1

Student 52
1. (left blank)
2. (left blank)
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. (left blank)

Student 53
1. Did not present information on our level.  Most of the time I couldn’t 
understand what he was talking about.  Went too fast, and not allow for 
comprehension of subject matter.
2. Not very understandable.  English needs help.
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. D
6. 3.5

Student 54
1. Excited, because of his excitement for Chemistry it was hard to learn.
2. He was the best Chemistry Professor I have had.
3. Have labs that have topics that have been covered in lecture.
4. Great
5. A
6. 3.2

Student 55
1. Dr. Glaser was very passionate and enthusiastic about the material.  He 
moved was too fast though and pretty much the entire semester.  Taught at a 
level way over my head and I did not understand the majority of the lectures.
2. Taught at too high of a level.  Expected us too know things I have never 
been taught.
3. We did things in lab we had not yet learned in lecture.  The class crammed 
too much information into the semester.
4. Went too fast, too much information to cover.
5. D
6. 3.5

Student 56
1. Glaser- good lecturer but material seemed way over my head.
2. All Chemistry teachers I have had here seem too smart to teach simple into. 
Chem.., teach over students head.
3. Course seemed to lack basic explanations therefore, everything else was 
twice has hard to understand.
4. Course was over my head didn’t really learn a lot.
5. C
6. 3.8

Student 57
1. Know his stuff.  Needs to explain better.
2. (left blank)
3. (left blank)
4. Harder than any course I have taken.
5. B
6. 3.0
 Student 58
1. Good except the chalkboard is very difficult to read in this large of a 
lecture hall.
2. He seemed very interested and passionate about the topic and current  events 
in the subject.
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. C
6. 3.2

Student 59
1. The strongest part would be the instructors knowledge of the material.  The 
weakest would  be that what is covered isn’t always what is tested.  
2. (left blank)
3. I think the lab is the weakest part, it is too difficult for an entry level 
course. 
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 60
1. Strong: Chemistry is the news relating to whats going on in life.  Weak: 
Running through chapters too quickly having labs but a way ahead of what we are 
learning.
2. All Chemistry professors are difficult but this course crams too much 
information into one lecture.
3. (left blank)
4. Difficult- a lot of new concepts.
5. C
6. 2.9

Student 61
1. Sometimes hard to follow along and understand the meaning of lecture.  Good 
at showing steps for reactions and explaining reactions.
2. Good
3. Sometimes not in depth enough to understand.
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 2.0

Student 62
1. He was gone too much.  The substitute didn’t teach the same way.
2. He was more effective than most teachers I have had.
3. The lectures didn’t run concurrent with the lab.
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 3.2

Student 63
1. Tests were way too difficult compared to the lectures.
2. Much more confusing and difficult than any other instructor I’ve had.
3. Moves too fast with very little explanation.
4. Too difficult and confusing.
5. C
6. 3.0

Student 64
1. Good to up general outline of lecture material, because without it is easy 
to get lost in class.
2. Hard to understand and grasp material- moves too fast sometimes.  Good use 
of technology.
3. Interesting information, but hard to grasp at times.
4. It’s ok.
5. B
6. 3.76

Student 65
1. Many times he went too fast- he could draw things on the board much quicker 
than we could write than and before we could catch up he was moving on… very 
frustrating.
2. Cared about our learning experience.  Tried to help as much as possible.
3. (left blank)
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 3.85

Student 66
1. Opinionated
2. Average
3. Appriopate depth
4. (left blank)
5. B
6. 3.0