The University of Missouri at Columbia
Chemistry 416 - Organic Spectroscopy - Winter Semester 1996

Teaching Evaluations
Overall Rating 3.55

Criteria of evaluation WS96
Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions 3.55
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 3.82
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 3.45
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 3.36
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 3.55
Overall rating of the instructor 3.80
Your rating of how much you have learned 3.20
Overall rating of the course 3.60
Overall rating 3.55



1. List the strong and weak features of the lecturer and include suggestions for improvement.
2. Compare the lecturer to others 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. & 6. Your overall rating of the course and your approximate GPA prior to this semester.

Student 1
1. Very enthusiastic. Sometimes difficulty to understand what we is teaching.
2. B
3. More stress on actual interpretation of spectra required rather than a lot of stress on instrumentation.
4. O.K. gets vague sometimes.
5. B
6. 4

Student 2
1. Good and strong knowledge of chemistry. Suggestion: have more and detailed words on the blackboard.
2. The best
3. I learn more chemistry knowledge than before since I have no strong background in chemistry.
4. More tests. More work. But more fun.
5. A
6. 3.7

Student 3
1. left blank
2. left blank
3. left blank
4. left blank
5. A
6. 3.50

Student 4
1. Knowledgeable of current material. Very well organized. Test not always good reflection of material covered. (too many points for one specific topic area)
2. Good instructor overall.
3. Too much material covered for 3 hour course. Excellent coverage of current topics.
4. Very intense and a lot of material covered. Perhaps should be 2 semesters.
5. A
6. 3.5

Student 5
1. left blank
2. good
3. The content was taught in class could have a little more relationship with the exam or tests.
4. good
5. left blank
6. left blank

Student 6
No comments

Student 7
No comments

Student 8
1. Strong computation chemistry. Weak, practical organic chemistry
2. Not as good as Dr. BLANK's course
3. Organic Spectroscopy should focus on structural analysis.
4. left blank
5. B
6. 3.5

Student 9
1. Strong: very enthusiastic and active in the lecture.
2. Not inferior to other instructor.
3. It seems to me it is quite good.
4. All are not bad
5. A
6. 3.5

Student 10
1. Strong: knowledge of subject matter is high; seems to care about students.
2. Instructor gave good examples that helped describe the concept. Many other instructors just lectured from their notes and never asked for questions.
3. Strong- can apply knowledge to many situations. Weak: being an undergraduate. I learned some of the information difficult and hard to understand.
4. I really enjoyed taking this course. What I have learned has prepared me for the career world.
5. B
6. 2.51

Student 11
1. Dr. Glaser knows and enjoys the material, which I find very motivational. His blackboard orthography sometimes is not so good, but that is more likely a hindrance for the foreign students.
2. Dr. Glaser is among the best.
3. There is much to learn! I don't think a two-semester series is warranted. but we e jad t run to get thought the material.
4. I have learned more overall material and more useful material in this course than in any of the other 400-level classes I havee taken.
5. A
6. 3.4