MU Chemistry 3700 - Undergraduate Seminar in Chemistry - Spring Semester 2011

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

Criteria of evaluation SP10
3700
SP11
3700
Consumer Information, SB 389, #1 3.56 3.67
Consumer Information, SB 389, #2 3.88 3.86
Consumer Information, SB 389, #3 3.56 3.38
Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions 3.73 3.61
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 3.96 3.96
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 3.50 3.35
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 3.46 3.52
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 3.07 3.22
Overall rating of the instructor 3.69 3.57
Your rating of how much you have learned 3.34 3.26
Overall rating of the course -.--
Overall rating 3.53 3.50
Students Starting (Assign. 1) 32 25
Students Finishing (Assign. 10) 32 25
Student Retention 100% 100%
Students Advancing (among stud. compl. course) 100% 100%
Evaluations Returned 23 23
Eval's Ret'd by Percent of Students at EoS 72% 92%
Online Student Comments Yes Yes
Online Materials & Technology Yes 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. Instructor should be more specific and realistic in original submissions.
2. Great
3.
4.
5. A
6. 3.0

Student #2
1. Strong: Enthusiastic, experience, flexibility. Weak: Bias. Suggestions: Address personal bias in an attempt to comprehend currently "flawed" logics.
2. More diverse, more bias, overall flexible, helpful.
3. Address the changing theme for papers (this year was dyes and biological systems) in regards to required coursework. (I haven't had BIO, soo!)
4. Focused
5. B+
6. 2.9-2.8?

Student #3
1. Weak: Use Blackboard please!
2. Very helpful and easy to make appointments.
3.
4.
5. A
6. ?

Student #4
1. Extremely boring class, but easy to follow. (If you actually pay attention)
2. Seems to be extremely knowledgeable.
3. Boring, some assignments were VERY time consuming.
4. Easy
5. B
6. 3.8

Student #5
1. Great speaker/lecturer
2. More Enthusiastic
3. Sometimes the topic we were required to write about was too advanced/difficult.
4. Like the partner papers.
5. B
6. 3.9

Student #6
1. Strength: Understanding chemistry as a profession. Weakness: sometimes making clear his expectations.
2. Fair
3. Weak: amount of papers
4. Fair
5. B
6. 3.6

Student #7
1. Dr. Glaser really knows his stuff. Kind of wish I had him for organic.
2. Good lecturer
3. Some lectures didn't really interest me.
4. Different type of course so can't compare
5. A
6. 3.0

Student #8
1.
2. Equal to other lectures.
3.
4. Easiest WI class ever.
5. A
6. 4.0

Student #9
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. B
6.

Student #10
1. He is very interested in seeing the students succeed. His lectures tend to get off topic but he had lots of enthusiasm.
2. Top notch.
3. An assignment every week is tough.
4. Very good
5. A
6. 3.4

Student #11
1. Enthusiastic, interesting.
2.
3.
4.
5. B
6.

Student #12
1.
2. Average
3.
4. Average
5.
6.

Student #13
1. Well practiced, extremely knowledgeable.
2. Above par teaching style, lectures.
3. Needs more reading practice of literature.
4.
5. A
6. 2.0

Student #14
1. Good at getting students involved.
2. Very enthusiastic, knowledgeable.
3.
4.
5. A
6. 3.69

Student #15
1. Provides lots of information, not always on topic.
2.
3. In the later assignments there is a lot of work to be done in a short period of time.
4.
5.
6. 3.0

Student #16
1. Instructor was always enthusiastic. Could use a little more organization of course as a whole though.
2. Entertaining and enthusiastic but could use more focus.
3. Could use more organization.
4. Some useful information, but not as useful as most.
5. B
6. 3.86

Student #17
1. Strong: pretty sequential. Weak: plain, boring.
2. Very enthusiastic, kinda goofy.
3.
4.
5. A
6. 3.9

Student #18
1. Very enthusiastic & fun.
2. Very enthusiastic
3. Should require more scientific writing, not as much formatting work.
4. Average
5. B
6. 4.0

Student #19
1. Very enthusiastic. On the assignments that require excel and data mining, should spend more time explaining.
2. Pretty good. Difficult content, hard to compare.
3. Reasonable amount of work. Deadlines were good.
4. Okay, don't really like writing.
5. B
6.

Student #20
1. Strong: making jokes, using relevance in society today. Weak: sometimes he is sharing political views.
2.
3.
4.
5. B
6. 2.45

Student #21
1. Very organized but some of the lectures became tedious.
2. He was very enthusiastic and helpful when it was needed.
3. I think more than one day a week should be spent in the computer lab to work on papers.
4. Good, learned a lot.
5. B
6. 3.8

Student #22
1.
2.
3. Too much work
4. Should have taken this freshman year.
5. A
6. 3.7

Student #23
1. Student responsibilities, lectures are boring.
2.
3.
4.
5. A
6. 3.0