MU Chemistry 433 - Computational Chemistry - Fall Semester 2002

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

Criteria of evaluation FS02
Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions 3.63 3.80 3.82
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 4.00 4.00 4.00
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 3.13 3.80 3.82
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 3.00 3.60 3.27
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 3.63 4.00 3.73
Overall rating of the instructor 3.75 3.80 3.82
Your rating of how much you have learned 3.62 3.80 3.82
Overall rating of the course 3.63 3.95 3.64
Overall rating 3.55 3.84 3.73
Students Starting (Test 1) 10 6 10
Students Finishing (Final) 10 5 10
Student Retention 100% 83.3%% 100%
Students Advancing (among stud. compl. course) 100% 100% 100%
Evaluations Returned 9 5 11
Eval's Ret'd by Percent of Students at EoS 90% 100% 110%
Online Student Comments Yes Yes Yes
Online Materials & Technology Yes Yes Yes

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. Since this class was a mixture of people, who knows about computational chem and who doesn't. The instructor was sometimes so fast for us who never did this before. But he is very enthusiastic about teaching. Explanation of the hard theory was explained really well.
2. The handout explanation was good.
3. The Cramer's book wasn't really helpful.
4. I have learned a lot.
5. A
6. 4

1. Explanations were very strong. I learned a lot. It is clear that the lectures were well thought out. It was difficult to follow, some of the computer lectures because they moved too fast to see the inputs.
2. Probably the best lectures I've had at this university.
3. More computer time. Excellent course.
4. Best I've had at this university.
5. A
6. 3.55

1. Good course. Well taught overall, but needs some more patient explanation for things entirely new to students.
2. Good
3. Course is very useful, learned a lot about new field to me. More things like molecular mechanics could be given attention.
4. Was a very good experience
5. B
6. 3.0

1. Moved too fast over important subjects. Skimmed the surface on topics in lecture and then in test went into great detail.
2. Lecture a little disorganized and from walking out of the class seemed like there was no information exchanged into his notes, compared to other classes that felt like you actually learned something.
3. The class was torn between learning a practical use of the material to learning the background information.
4. (Left blank)
5. B
6. 3.20

1. He is very patient to students' questions and very willing to answer the questions.
2. He's quite different from other lecturers because he is so easy to be close.
3. The course is great. I learned a lot from the course.
4. It's different from others because we have ability to practice what we learned from the lecture.
5. A
6. 4.0

STUDENT 6 (evaluation disqualified)

1. Very enthusiastic, sometimes a little confusing.
2. Excellent.
3. Very (hands on) regarding computer work.
4. Excellent
5. B
6. N/A

1. It will be good if it will teach in more depth. Then students will understand more easily all the points.
2. It is a really good one!
3. I think more time should be allotted for practical class.
4. Good overall.
5. A
6. 4.0

1. It is a tough course, but we learned many things from him.
2. He's a great prof. He gave a lot of time to this course. He found many ways to let us understand.
3. It was a new course for me. Now I feel more comfortable.
4. (Left blank)
5. A
6. (Left blank.)