SOCI209 - 29 APRIL 1999 (FINAL) COURSE EVALUATION

1.  Multiple-Choice Questions

PART 1: The Instructor

PART 2: The Course

2.  Written Comments

• put tremendous effort in course preparation
• during second half of semester became much more interactive in teaching style
• adjusted teaching style to accommodate students' needs/concerns
• the time put into the course
• the knowledge of the material
• the willingness to alter course
• understands the subject well and spends time and effort on good teaching
• clear explanation for questions
• subject knowledge, nice, flexible
• great improvement after midterm
• put in a lot of work, much appreciated
• does better when uses board
• seems more comfortable when responding to questions and comments
• good knowledge of material
• organized and knowledgeable
• brilliant
• flexible
• repsonsive to students
• very knowledgeable
• he clearly knows what he's talking about and can answer technical questions
• familiarity with subject
• ability to demonstrate logic of procedures
• humorous and conversational style
• good sense of humor
• very knowledgeable
• has fun with material
• has improved since midterm considerably
• really knows his subject
• sense of humor

• teaching off internet posed difficulties, especially during first half of course
• some times not as prepared as optimal
• first time using the net, so didn't have enough time for certain things
• web format is still in beginning stages
• can be verbose
• using the web inhibits effective teaching, I learn more when he uses the board
• no framework in which the objectives of the course are set and it's often the "forest for the trees" problem
• sometimes difficult to bring discussion to the level of the student - very knowledgeable
• perhaps knows his subject too well and lacks ability to bring it to the level of students

 

• homework assignment, while long, were closely connected to class learning
• professor provided comrehensive notes
• TA was extraordinarily helpful and made herself available
• notes on web
• Leah
• class time (instruction was strong, but I forgot things when I didn't review)
• Francois' willingness to help
• notes on web
• very deep, detail information about regression
• applicable to current work in sociology
• homework materials
• Leah
• the course got better the second half of the semester after adjustments were made from the first evaluation
• well organized, easy access to material
• the TA is most helpful and available to students
• assignments provoke use of lectured techniques
• solid material
• I appreciate use of web for notes
• TA is great
• web page
• homework

Q25.  Please comment on the limitations of the course
 

• not enough opportunity in class to test one's understanding
• students need more practice - weekly homeworks with less % each time
• dramatic amount of material to be covered, so seems unavoidable to orient it towards seat-of pants coverage rate
• there is need for the use of non-textbook examples, replicating the textbook is the class notes is not exactly helpful
• too abstract
• not enough practical application
• at the end material seemes to skip around a lot
• too much reliance on the web
• homeworks too large - less material more often would be more helpful
• teaching from web distracting
• I still don't "buy" quantitative sociology
• the objective is not clear -> to know the computer program or the regression or both
• I don't think interpretive questions asked by students enhance understanding (let alone the sidebars in the back!)
• I wish the class was 3X a week for 50 minutes
• I wish the assignments were weekly and cumulative/continuous working with same datasets so they could build
• homework assignments should be shorter and more frequent
• active learning / team problem solving could be helpful
• multiple choice exams are tricky and may not be best way to achieve pedagogical objectives