MU Chemistry 8330 - Computational Chemistry - Spring Semester 2009
|Criteria of evaluation||
|Consumer Information, SB 389, #1||3.50|
|Consumer Information, SB 389, #2||3.88|
|Consumer Information, SB 389, #3||3.63|
|Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions||3.71||3.63||3.80||3.82|
|Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter||3.88||4.00||4.00||4.00|
|Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points||3.75||3.13||3.80||3.82|
|Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed||3.50||3.00||3.60||3.27|
|Ability to stimulate interest in the subject||3.63||3.63||4.00||3.73|
|Overall rating of the instructor||3.75||3.75||3.80||3.82|
|Your rating of how much you have learned||3.25||3.62||3.80||3.82|
|Overall rating of the course||-.--||3.63||3.95||3.64|
|Students Starting (Test 1)||6||10||6||10|
|Students Finishing (Final)||6||10||5||10|
|Students Advancing (among stud. compl. course)||100%||100%||100%||100%|
|Eval's Ret'd by Percent of Students at EoS||100%||90%||100%||110%|
|Online Student Comments||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Online Materials & Technology||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
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.
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. Very smart. I learned how to think.
3. Can the second half of the book be taught? [REG: Focus on Electronic Structure Theory. Note that the Gaussian books also needed to be studied.]
1. Always willing to answer any questions students had.
4. More interesting
1. Making analogies. Vivid examples. No weak features.
2. Very good lecturer.
3. A lot of assignments.
4. Helpful course.
1. Great enthusiasm and knowledge about subject.
2. Very good.
3. Very good course but material tough to understand.
1. The lecturer was extremely enthusiastic about the subject matter. The primary weak point was that more emphasis is needed in actual program usage.
2. The lecturer was highly enthusiastic, but the lecture was at times slightly disorganized. [REG: I try to respond to students' needs and deviate from plans when I think that is warranted.]
3. Lots of information, perhaps focus attention to electronic structure.
4. Highly comparable.
1. More examples.