MU Chemistry 8160 - Organic Spectroscopy - Fall Semester 2009

Teaching Evaluations 3.2 (scale 0-4, 4 is high)

Criteria of evaluation FS09

Consumer Information, SB 389, #1 3.40 3.91
Consumer Information, SB 389, #2 3.59 3.82
Consumer Information, SB 389, #3 3.27 3.82
Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions 3.36 3.82 3.67 3.57 4.00 3.55 3.33
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 3.86 3.91 4.00 3.84 4.00 3.82 2.87
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 3.09 3.64 4.00 3.78 3.86 3.45 2.73
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 2.68 3.82 4.00 3.52 3.57 3.36 3.00
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 3.22 3.82 4.00 3.52 3.93 3.55 3.07
Overall rating of the instructor 3.13 3.82 4.00 3.63 3.93 3.80 2.67
Your rating of how much you have learned 3.09 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 3.20 3.81 3.95 3.68 3.85 3.53 3.00
Students Starting (Test 1) 26 12 6 19 15 12 16
Students Finishing (Final) 26 12 6 19 14 12 15
Student Retention 100% 100% 100% 100% 93.3% 100% 93.8%
Students Advancing (among stud. compl. course) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 93.3%
Evaluations Returned 22 11 6 19 14 11 15
Eval's Ret'd by Percent of Students at EoS 85% 92% 100% 100% 100% 91.6% 100%
Online Student Comments Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Online Materials & Technology Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

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 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 are complete and verbatim. Emphasis by way of bold face ours]

Student 1
1. Strong feature: Enthusiastic.  Weak feature: hard to follow
2. Dr. Glaser is patient and helpful, but hard to follow in class. 
3. Strong: A lot of out of text book stuff and software use
Weak: The class is a little bit unorganized.
4. This is useful
5. B
6. 3.4

Student 2
1. Strong: Enthusiasm, knowledgeable.   Weak: Maybe more organized
2. Moderate
3. To improve: Maybe a more logical arrangement of the lectures.
4. Moderate
5. B
6. This is my first year.

Student 3
1. Well organized, extremely detailed in teaching plans.
2. Much better, mainly in the plans for lecture.
3. Cover the knowledge about spectroscopy but not detailed in some area.
4. None
5. A 
6. New

Student 4
1. None
2. The way materials are taught/presented are easier to follow, particularly for 
someone who does not have chemistry or science background.
3. The class is very enjoyable, and efficient in terms of time and materials 
4. Very good
5. A
6. N/A

Student 5
1. Strong points: Makes lecture very interesting and focuses on basic concepts.
Weak features: Sometimes confusing.
2. He makes the lecture more interesting and you cannot afford to miss the 
3. Overall good course. 
4. This is the most basic course for chemistry students in any area of research 
5. A
6. N/A

Student 6
1. Very enthusiastic about the topic. There is a lot we did not get a chance to 
cover, this is more of a time constraint problem.
2. None
3. None
4. None
5. B
6. N/A

Student 7
1. You know the material, but seem to confuse yourself. You are very excited 
about teaching. Focus on clarity, then complexity.
2. You are quite knowledgeable, but you struggle to get the point across 
clearly. I would work on the methodology you use to prepare your lectures. 
3. Fluorescence was a joke. NMR was taught well. IRl mano spec not so much. 
4. Fundamentally different
5. C
6. N/A

Student 8
1. None
2. None
3. None
4. None
5. B
6. N/A

Student 9
1. Strong: The lecturer knows a great amount of information about spectroscopy, 
which is why I was able to learn as much as I did. 
Weak: The instructor did not always allow ample time for his exams. 
2. I like the handouts that he provided. Most professors do not prepare handouts 
for their students. 
3. We were able to learn a lot, however we seemed to focus on NMR for a while 
longer than any other type of spectroscopy. 
4. The level of difficulty was similar to other courses.
5. A
6. 3.2

Student 10
1. Flow was not logical. Please define the end goal of the theory first, and 
then discuss the fine details. The reverse is what often happened and it was 
difficult to follow sometimes. Overall a good assessment of topics and I learned more 
about science behind the techniques then I knew before. 
2. For the most part, very good, could use more lecture organization. Each 
lecture seemed to be an independent entity, and low [sic] was not there. 
3. Could include some practical (non-computational) lectures. I.e.: Go look at 
the machines. 
4. So far one of the closest to material I expected based on topic name.  
5. B
6. 3.3

Student 11
1. Class emphasis seemed to be on the theory behind the spectra, which need to 
be addressed. However the homework emphasized using the spectra and I found that very 
difficult sometimes when asked to use a new spectrum. 
2. He was ok at teaching, but some points were muddled and hard to follow. 
3. The course focuses to heavily on NMR and breezes over things like mass spec. 
4. I learned a lot in this class. 
5. B
6. 3.6

Student 12
1. I liked his analogies he made to describe topics gone over in class. I felt 
half of the semester he jumped around different topics instead of focusing on one at 
a time. 
2. First teacher I have ever had born in another country. He was a good teacher 
3. A little more on 2D NMR would have been nice. Otherwise I feel like I could 
use this in my research.
4. None
5. B
6. N/A

Student 13
1. Appeared to not be completely prepared for lecture at times. 
2. He knows the material, but sometimes has a hard time conveying it to the students.
3. None
4. None
5. B
6. N/A

Student 14
1. He really knows his stuff.
2. None
3. None
4. None
5. A
6. None

Student 15
1. Very interesting class. Sometimes gets off track. 
2. About the same
3. Good
4. Almost the same
5. B
6. N/A

Student 16
1. It was very difficult for me to follow the course. He can make his lecture 
more interesting by solving special problems rather than teaching theory.
2. My previous experience was when a professor just took classes. He was a busy 
man and he nearly skipped many classes but I still could understand the class because 
he had explained things very well in short span. This was completely contrasting to 
this class. 
3. None
4. Cannot be compared because I had many problems understanding this course. 
5. C
6. 3.6

Student 17
1. Strong: Enthusiastic, intelligent. Weak: Writes poor test questions, unclear 
answers to questions, focuses too much on physics. 
2. Not as effective of a teacher. 
3. Could be a helpful course. Better to talk about one method at a time instead 
of jumping around.
4. None
5. C
6. None

Student 18
1. He always gives assignment for every week, so then assignments will be 
helpful to the students to touch with subject every week.
2. No comparison with others, but he is the best lecturer in spectroscopy. 
3. None
4. It's a good course for me as an organic graduate student.
5. A
6. one

Student 19
1. Enthusiasm, kind, helpful.
2. Very good
3. None
4. None
5. A
6. 3.9

Student 20
1. Hard to communicate questions at times. 
2. It was difficult to understand the relevance of some material as we went over 
it until the end. 
3. There were a lot of things we did not cover when this will be the only 
spectroscopy class we take.
4. None
5. B
6. N/A

Student 21
1. The good thing is that Dr. Glaser can apply the examples in actual life to 
explain something abstract, but it's really hard to understand. 
2. More complicated theory
3. Its basic requirement for chemists in the industry, useful. 
4. None
5. A
6. None

Student 22
1. I hope the lecture can contain less theory, but focus more on how to use 
theory to solve problems. 
2. A little weak
3. Strong: Enthusiasm, answer questions. Weak: Not well organized
4. It's hard
5. B
6. 3.75