MU Chemistry 8160 - Organic Spectroscopy - Fall Semester 2008

Teaching Evaluations 3.81 (scale 0-4, 4 is high)

Criteria of evaluation FS08
8160
FS07
8160
FS06
8160
FS97
416
WS96
416
FS93
416

Consumer Information, SB 389, #1 3.91
Consumer Information, SB 389, #2 3.82
Consumer Information, SB 389, #3 3.82
Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions 3.82 3.67 3.57 4.00 3.55 3.33
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 3.91 4.00 3.84 4.00 3.82 2.87
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 3.64 4.00 3.78 3.86 3.45 2.73
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 3.82 4.00 3.52 3.57 3.36 3.00
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 3.82 4.00 3.52 3.93 3.55 3.07
Overall rating of the instructor 3.82 4.00 3.63 3.93 3.80 2.67
Your rating of how much you have learned 3.82 4.00 3.47 3.64 3.20 3.13
Overall rating of the course -.-- -.-- 3.62 3.71 3.60 3.14
Overall rating 3.81 3.95 3.68 3.85 3.53 3.00
Students Starting (Test 1) 12 6 19 15 12 16
Students Finishing (Final) 12 6 19 14 12 15
Student Retention 100% 100% 100% 93.3% 100% 93.8%
Students Advancing (among stud. compl. course) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 93.3%
Evaluations Returned 11 6 19 14 11 15
Eval's Ret'd by Percent of Students at EoS 92% 100% 100% 100% 91.6% 100%
Online Student Comments Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Online Materials & Technology Yes Yes Yes Yes No No



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. Very enthusiastic, helpful in answering questions and clarifying homework 
   problems after class
2. Excellent.  One of the best lecturers in the department.
3. Students may get more out of homework if they were graded for points.
4. Excellent
5. A
6. 3.0

Student 2
1. Very good subject knowledge.  Needs to use both sides of paper for handouts 
   (Paper reduction act of 2000).
2. Better than average.
3. Course was fine.  Maybe cover a little more.
4. Just as good.
5. A
6. 3.3

Student 3
1. The instructor gives easy examples to initiate student interest.
2. It is most honor to rate Dr. Glaser as the best instructor ever.
3. The strong feature of the course is it helps graduate students analyze data 
   efficiently.
4. Very helpful.
5. A

Student 4
1. Very nice, knowledgeable, helpful.
2. Best
3. 
4. One of the best.
5. A
6. 4.0

Student 5
1. Fair exams, great lectures, easy to learn, very practical.
2. Best lecturer I have had.
3. Class is great as is.
4. Most useful analytical course.
5. A
6. 3.0

Student 6
1. Everything is fine.
2. Good.
3. Ok.
4. Ok.
5. A

Student 7
1. Very good talks.
2. Better than others.

Student 8
1. Well prepared
5. A

Student 9
1. Very enthusiastic about subject.  Eager that the students learn.
2. At par with the best.
3. Very good content, maybe more time devoted to LDNMR.
4. Not the toughest, easy going.
5. A
6. 3.4

Student 10
2. Awesome
5. A
6. 3.0

Student 11
1. Strong - opportunities for spectrum examples.  
   Weak - organization problems and difficult to follow.
2. Not as strong.  Interesting but difficult to get anything from lecture.
3. Good
4. Good
5. B