MU Chemistry 7087 - Scientific Writing - Spring Semester 2009

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

Criteria of evaluation SS09
Consumer Information, SB 389, #1 3.67
Consumer Information, SB 389, #2 3.78
Consumer Information, SB 389, #3 3.56
Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions 3.44
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 3.78
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 3.67
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 3.56
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 3.44
Overall rating of the instructor 3.44
Your rating of how much you have learned 3.11
Overall rating of the course -.--
Overall rating 3.49
Students Starting (Assign. 1) 12*
Students Finishing (Assign. 12) 10
Student Retention 83%
Students Advancing (among stud. compl. course) 100%
Evaluations Returned 9
Eval's Ret'd by Percent of Students at EoS 90%
Online Student Comments Yes
Online Materials & Technology Yes

*) Two students discontinued the course because they were asked by their advisor to work on grants and to take the course later.



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 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. Good at getting the whole class to participate.  Could make assignments better 
tailored to sub-disciplines of chemistry.
2. About the same.
3. Course actually addresses writing a scientific paper- but doesn't explore the 
nuances of sub disciplines enough.
4. Not as academically useful, but good for discussion of scientific writing.
5. B
6. 4.0

Student #2
1. It was very informal which makes it more open for interesting discussions, but at 
the same time it was a bit too informal.
2. It was very relaxed and comfortable teaching and thus approachable.
3. More structure.
4. N/A
5. B
6. 4.0

Student #3
1. Strong feature: He had organized and prepared to teach and I can study the new 
thing from him.
2. He is the best one.
3. The best course.
4. -
5. A
6. 3.25

Student #4
1. Strong: had a plan and stuck to it, was well prepared and enthusiastic.  Weak: the 
course itself- taught very little.
2. Decent lectures, but not enough focus on material that is useful. 
3. By cancelling it.
4. Waste of time.
5. E
6. N/A

Student #5
1. Weak: should provide a weekend for assignments
2. Pretty good; better than other lecturers.
3. Should accommodate non-organic chem. students.
4. -
5. A
6. A

Student #6
1. Good atmosphere.
2. Very smart. First class.
3. Learned a lot.
4. One of the best.
5. A
6. N/A

Student #7
1. Encouraging; less homework.
2. Encouraging us to work.
3. More work/more thoughts/less specific job.
4. -
5. A
6. N/A

Student #8
1.  I felt he didn't put enough thought into some of the assignments, didn't plan
them out well.  Very easy to talk to; get advice and feedback from constructive
criticism.
2. Not nearly as scary as some of the other faculty.
3. Some helpful information especially the last assignment to familiarize us with our
field journals.  Overall, too much busy work.  Maybe it should only be half a
semester?
4.  -
5.  D
6.  Approximate GPA prior to the current semester: 3.2

Student #9
1. Very methodical, to the point and strong emphasis on what we learn.
2. At par with the best.
3. Strong: detailed, was on the right time as we might be writing paper shortly.
Weak: maybe more emphasis on writing papers.
4. At par with the good ones.
5. B
6. 3.53