MU Chemistry 8330 - Computational Chemistry - Spring Semester 2009

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

Criteria of evaluation SS09
8330
FS02
433
FS99
412
WS98
433
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
Overall rating 3.64 3.55 3.84 3.73
Students Starting (Test 1) 6 10 6 10
Students Finishing (Final) 6 10 5 10
Student Retention 100% 100% 83.3%% 100%
Students Advancing (among stud. compl. course) 100% 100% 100% 100%
Evaluations Returned 6 9 5 11
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

*) Six students took the course. Four students audited the course. Of the four auditing students, two attended up to and including the discussion of Monte Carlo methods.



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 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 ____.


Student #1
1. Very smart. I learned how to think.
2. Top
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.]
4. Good
5. A
6. N/A

Student #2
1. Always willing to answer any questions students had.
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. More interesting
5. A
6. 3.2

Student #3
1. Making analogies. Vivid examples. No weak features.
2. Very good lecturer.
3. A lot of assignments.
4. Helpful course.
5. A
6. 1.875

Student #4
1. Great enthusiasm and knowledge about subject.
2. Very good.
3. Very good course but material tough to understand.
4. N/A
5. B
6. N/A

Student #5
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.
5. B
6. 3.0

Student #6
1. More examples.
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. N/A
5. B
6. N/A