MU Chemistry 3700 - Undergraduate Seminar in Chemistry - Spring Semester 2013
|Criteria of evaluation||
|Consumer Information, SB 389, #1||3.56||3.67||3.72||3.79|
|Consumer Information, SB 389, #2||3.88||3.86||3.79||3.96|
|Consumer Information, SB 389, #3||3.56||3.38||3.66||3.58|
|Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions||3.73||3.61||3.90||3.84|
|Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter||3.96||3.96||4.00||3.96|
|Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points||3.50||3.35||3.76||3.84|
|Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed||3.46||3.52||3.76||3.72|
|Ability to stimulate interest in the subject||3.07||3.22||2.97||3.72|
|Overall rating of the instructor||3.69||3.57||3.66||3.88|
|Your rating of how much you have learned||3.34||3.26||3.34||3.66|
|Overall rating of the course||-.--||-.--||-.--||-.--|
|Students Starting (Assign. 1)||32||25||36||32|
|Students Finishing (Assign. 10)||32||25||36||32|
|Students Advancing (among stud. compl. course)||100%||100%||100%||100%|
|Eval's Ret'd by Percent of Students at EoS||72%||92%||81%||78%|
|Online Student Comments||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Online Materials & Technology||Yes||Yes||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.
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 ____.
1. Fine lectures just long and some are unnecessary
2. He is a very good lecturer
3. I felt that some of the lectures are too thorough and the amount of work in class before the computer lab could be supplemented through small brainstorming exercises
4. It's a great course that offers loads of research experience
2. Very helpful and wants students to succeed
4. A lot of work every week compared to other classes
1. Very knowledgeable. Easy to follow and fun to listen to!
2. Keeps me engaged in class.
3. Flexible absences (athletics). Easy to talk to when in need of help
1. He made intimidating topics seem doable. No weakness.
2. He is much more educated it seems
4. It was unique, making it interesting
1. Strong- very interested in subject matter, wanted to make sure we understood. a. Weak - occasionally went off on tangents
1. Strong: has enthusiasm and shares it with class
a. Weak: lectures can be long and boring
2. Different but relatively effective
1. Strong: really passionate about getting the best work out of his students
a. Weak: occasionally pulls students out of focus during lecture but good for most part
2. By far one of the most knowledgeable and fun to be around
3. Consider polling students for topics at start of semester (soler cells sucked)
4. The best
5. A 3.5
1. One of the most interesting and challenging courses I have taken. I wish more classes were like this one. Some weeks I think it would be helpful to have 2 labs and 1 lecture
1. Great work
2. Very Good. The best!
3. Very interesting topics but lots of work!
4. my favorites
1. Very helpful, website was well organized, very enthusiastic
2. He was more interested in the students wanting to learn
3. Might be helpful to have assignments given on Monday (in Computer lab) and due Friday
1. He is passionate about his teaching. Best teacher I've had in my 8 years of undergrad
2. Teach about the topics we wrote about
3. Organized, fast pace
2. Very helpful and enthusiastic
3. Enforce deadlines.
1. Enthusiastic, understanding, no improvement needed
2. V. good, one of the best I've had
3. Is relevant, work load is appropriate, no improvements
4. In top 3 have taken
1. Strict on time management but laid back also to make sure we made improvements to our papers and understood mistakes
1. Strong: encourages discussion a. Weak: frequently ran over time
1. A lot of helpful life tips were given. Some lectures seemed inapplicable
2. He is
one of the best as far as making sure students learn a lot and are interested
3. This assignments were reasonable but I wasn't fan of the peer reviewing
4. Very interesting
1. Very enthusiastic! Makes you more interested in learning subject matter
2. Dr. Glaser chose a relevant and up and coming subject to study over the semester. Most professors teach from the book and don't relate it to what is relevant and important in today's society.
3. We has assignments that required a specific computer program but we were not given time in the lab to complete
1. Assignments were easy to do with help from samples
a. Weak: peer reviews not always explained in a way easy to follow
2. Very good, always interesting class meetings.
1. Strong: has exceptional knowledge in the field and demonstrates that well a. Weak: some of the lectures can be long and boring-difficult to stay focused
2. Different but really effective
3. Weak: topic of the course was already chose- not that interested into it
4. More time consuming and difficult
2. Above average-made class enjoyable to attend
1. Weak: didn't really teach Microsoft word functions, sometimes wasn't clear what was wanted in papers, lectures seemed irrelevant at times
a. Strong: previous semester examples helped a lot; answered questions fast; very enthusiastic
2. It took a while to understand his style is different but is very interesting.
3. Learned how to research a lot better. Stimulated a lot of interest in the subject
4. I learned a lot on my own, not in class, but that may have been the goal of the class.
1. Dr. Glaser was always on top of things and was very organized. One thing I would suggest is to provide more educational material on the content of reading material
2. He's one of the best, very helpful and enthusiastic about this class.
3. Work is very demanding but he is very lenient on deadlines if the course load is overwhelming
4. I learned a lot.
1. The only weak point I can describe in Dr. Glaser is that he sometimes seems a bit unclear on the core issue of a questions raised by students. This was exceedingly rare. As a lecturer, he is stimulating, enthusiastic, and clearly knowledgeable
2. Dr. Glaser is one of my favorites, he is able to engage and maintain a discussion. He also seems always excited to teach, which other professors everywhere should learn. He presents himself as competent and well-versed in his field.
3. The peer review grading seems to be an issue, as some students choose to be more rigorous than others. However, Dr. Glaser has a system for addressing issues. I think a group exercise in conducting peer-reviews would help. Also information on format in Word and Chem Draw would be nice as course material available for reference
4. Better organized for learning. Dr. Glaser seems more capable and willing to assist and teach