MU Chemistry 3700 - Undergraduate Seminar in Chemistry - Spring Semester 2010

Teaching Evaluations (scale 0-4, 4 is high)

Criteria of evaluation SS10
3700
Consumer Information, SB 389, #1 3.56
Consumer Information, SB 389, #2 3.88
Consumer Information, SB 389, #3 3.56
Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions 3.73
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 3.96
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 3.50
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 3.46
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 3.07
Overall rating of the instructor 3.69
Your rating of how much you have learned 3.34
Overall rating of the course -.--
Overall rating 3.53
Students Starting (Assign. 1) 32
Students Finishing (Assign. 10) 32
Student Retention 100%
Students Advancing (among stud. compl. course) 100%
Evaluations Returned 23
Eval's Ret'd by Percent of Students at EoS 72%
Online Student Comments Yes
Online Materials & Technology Yes




CONSUMER INFORMATION, SB 389, QUESTIONS
1. The course content, including the lectures, syllabus, grading standards, and student responsibilities, was presented clearly.
2. The instructor was interested in student learning.
3. Considering both the possibilities and limitations of the subject matter and the course (including class size and facilities), the instructor taught effectively.

QUESTIONS
1. List the 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). A B C D E
6. My approximate GPA prior to the current semester was ____.


Student #1
1.
2.
3.
4. This course differs in that there are no tests, only assignments and projects. This emphasis resulted on writing resulted in a greater workload.
5. B
6. 3.3

Student #2
1. I really liked how he really got us to think about the effects that biass and the paper publishing process has a major effect to peoples new ideas of chemistry. I thought that some of the graphing error lectures were irrelevant to the assignments.
2.
3. Awesome Lecturer! This class is not just about writing, he really showed us reasons why things occur in the chemistry world and everyday life.
4. Understanding and having ability to make graphs, structures, and knowing how to find specific info in databases.
5. A
6. 3.89

Student #3
1. Some assignments in the beginning seemed rushed, but only because excel wasn’t taught in comp. lab. (Should try to be in comp. when need to) Well organized.
2. Very knowledgeable in JOC articles.
3.
4.
5. A
6.

Student #4
1. Dr. Rainer [sic] is enthusiastic about the subject and has great knowledge of it as well. I believe better explanations of assignments would be helpful in the future.
2. Again Dr. Rainer has exceptional knowledge of the subject matter. Other professors I’ve had in chemistry do as well but make it a little easier for students to understand.
3. This is one class I have learned a great deal and would recommend to others looking for a challenge.
4. B
5. 3.2

Student #5
1.
2.
3. Lecturing with power points for interactive programs like excel may not be the best way to learn; briefly covering the main points and letting students spend more time working on it might generate more interest and be more successful.
4.
5. B
6. 3.9

Student #6
1. He doesn't do well with intellectual pluralism.
2. He is about average.
3. Most of this first half of the course was unnecessary. It did get more relevant near the end.
4. It was dull, but otherwise ok.
5. B
6. 4.0

Student #7
1. Interesting, enthusiasm, able to provide good real-life applicable examples.
2. Excellent
3. The semester is a bit back loaded with work; spread it out.
4. A
5. 3.195

Student #8
1. Strong: Thoughtful, open-minded, good approach, relates to students.
2. Above average. Understood the content & course goals. Presented it in a way that conveyed those.
3. Weak: Going into some areas (statistics) out of scope. Strong: Applicable to future.
4. Very useful, practical knowledge.
5. A
6. 3.5

Student #9
1. The projects we did were very realistic and taught me to use a lot of software I wouldn't have tried on my own. Could've been more organized at time. Would've been nice to see more examples on website.
2. Very passionate about subject, made the course much more enjoyable.
3. It would've been helpful to learn the peer review stuff at the beginning so people could apply that on projects.
4. Very engaging, I could also see the immediate application.
5. B
6. 3.85

Student #10
1. Very strong lecturer. Very thought provoking. Sometimes hard to hear in the back.
2. Excellent.
3. Very well organized. Assignments very helpful.
4. Above average.
5. A
6. 3.6

Student #11
1. Great enthusiasm for subject matter and great attention to detail, though the material itself seemed to be stretched a bit.
2. Very enthusiastic, understandable, easy despite an accent.
3. Not great depth of material.
4.
5. B
6. 3.4

Student #12
1. Sometimes lose what I'm following during lecture. Took more away from course about life other than chemistry, very helpful.
2. More caring and insightful.
3. Great course, very insightful.
4. More paper induces [sic].
5. B
6. 2.5
Student #13
1. The beginning of the course was very slow and not challenging - however I loved the last half! Dr. Glaser shares wisdom about the field extraordinarily and taught me a ton.
2. One of the best. Very passionate about his field.
3. Mentioned above.
4. Ok, the last half - top 20%, first half - bottom 20%.
5. B
6. 3.9

Student #14
1. Very enthusiastic and very honest.
2. Presents more ideas.
3. Very helpful assignments! Give a better scale for grading.
4.
5. B
6. 3.6

Student #15
1. Seems that most of the class is spent talking about how to do things on the computer. Think it would be more efficient to have multiple classes in the comp lab each week.
2. Very enthusiastic.
3. Some info was very basic.
4. Average.
5. A,B
6. 3.0

Student #16
1. Mostly understandable, however lectures over statistics were too fast paced and hard to follow.
2. Top 50%.
3. Covered useful topics, could be made into 8-week course.
4. Overall good.
5. B
6. 3.65

Student #17
1. The strong points are specific guidelines for each weeks assignment, but they were not always cut and clear.
2. Fairly good.
3.
4. I say this was an interesting course with a lot of insight.
5. A
6. 3.0

Student #18
1. Sometimes got off on tangents. Really liked how he applied what we learned to our real lives.
2. Pretty good.
3. Coursework difficult.
4. Difficult.
5. B
6. 3.7

Student #19
1. Very enthusiastic and relates information of the class to everyday life.
2. Very knowledgeable and really cared about student learning.
3. Specifics about scientific paper really can be hard to make interesting.
4. Very informative.
5. A
6. 4.0

Student #20
1. The lecturer is very intelligent and thorough, though not everything that was presented in lecture was reinforced with the assignments. There seemed to be extraneous material.
2. The lecturer was above average compared to other science courses at this level.
3.
4. I learned more than expected from a writing course where the information is not always very tangible.
5. A
6. 4.0

Student #21
1. Seems to walk in with little plan on daily lecture discussion, but does a fantastic job of improvising interesting debate topics.
2. Top 5%.
3.
4. Interesting, slightly easier workload, but still very time consuming.
5. A
6. 3.3

Student #22
1. Organization and enthusiasm.
2. Pretty good.
3. Sometimes a ton of work load.
4. Good.
5. A
6. 3.93

Student # 23
1. Great interest & humor. Less Fidgeting would be better.
2. Great job - very interesting.
3. Too easy first few weeks.
4. Loved 2nd half - challenging and interesting.
5. A
6. 4.0