| Tang Fall 2013, 14:332:347:03 — Lin Sys & Signal Lab (index #23813) Enrollment= 34, Responses= 20 Part A: University-wide Questions: |
Student Responses | Weighted Means | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strong Disagree 1 |
Strong Agree 5 |
No response |
Section | Course | Level | Dept | ||||
| 1. The instructor was prepared for class and presented the material in an organized manner. | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 3.90 | 4.03 | 4.24 | 3.99 |
| 2. The instructor responded effectively to student comments and questions. | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 3.85 | 3.91 | 4.10 | 3.95 |
| 3. The instructor generated interest in the course material. | 3 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 3.35 | 3.53 | 3.89 | 3.76 |
| 4. The instructor had a positive attitude toward assisting all students in understanding course material. | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 0 | 4.15 | 4.14 | 4.18 | 4.02 |
| 5. The instructor assigned grades fairly. | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 0 | 3.90 | 4.24 | 4.14 | 3.97 |
| 6. The instructional methods encouraged student learning. | 1 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 3.55 | 3.66 | 3.84 | 3.66 |
| 7. I learned a great deal in this course. | 1 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 3.40 | 3.54 | 3.91 | 3.80 |
| 8. I had a strong prior interest in the subject matter and wanted to take this course. | 3 | 1 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 3.25 | 3.49 | 3.64 | 3.73 |
| Poor | Excellent | |||||||||
| 9. I rate the teaching effectiveness of the instructor as: | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 3.75 | 3.65 | 3.82 | 3.66 |
| 10. I rate the overall quality of the course as: | 0 | 2 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 3.55 | 3.53 | 3.70 | 3.58 |
| Part B: Questions Added by Department or Instructor | ||||||||||
| 11. I was satisfied with the degree of utilization and the quality of the Sakai or course web page in this course. | 1 | 0 | 4 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 3.90 | 3.95 | 3.92 | 3.77 |
| 12. The computer resources were adequate and sufficiently available for the needs of this course. | 0 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 4.20 | 4.28 | 4.10 | 3.91 |
| 13. If a lab course: the necessary equipment to do the work assigned were adequate and sufficiently available. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 1 | 4.26 | 4.39 | 4.22 | 4.03 |
| 14. If a lab course: the experiments were relevant and the laboratory manual was helpful. | 0 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 6 | 1 | 4.16 | 4.05 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| 15. If software was used: I was well prepared to complete the assignments using the required software. (e.g., spice, vhdl, matlab, xlinx logi works, etc.) Comment in question #23, below. | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3.94 | 4.14 | 3.88 | 3.78 |
| 16. Rate the relative difficulty of this course compared with other engineering courses of similar level. | 2 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 3.00 | 3.10 | 3.62 | 3.62 |
| 17. Indicate the degree of your satisfaction with the MODE of presentation of the material (e.g., traditional chalk-and-blackboard, Powerpoint, etc.) Commment in question #23, below. | 0 | 0 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 3.75 | 3.67 | 3.67 | 3.51 |
| 18. If a design course: rate the percentage of the content of this course occupied by the design component. Comment in question #23, below. | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 12 | 3.13 | 3.65 | 3.51 | 3.59 |
| 19. If the course had prerequisites: rate the degree of preparation these prerequisites gave you for this course. Comment in question #23, below. | 0 | 1 | 11 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 3.13 | 3.36 | 3.48 | 3.41 |
What do you like best about this course?:
Reinforces class material.
TA was very nice
TA was really nice and helpful.
nothign
In what ways, if any, has this course or the instructor encouraged your intellectual growth and progress?:
None
None
nothgin
If you were teaching this course, what would you do differently?:
Nothing
Nope
nothign
Please be a little more efficient and organized next time.
Other comments or suggestions::
She is very ineffective at answering questions; she only seems to acknowledge if the answers are correct or not. She is hard to understand and she doesn't seem to give back labs to see how the grading is done.