soci209 - 4 May 2000 course evaluation

SOCI209 - Nielsen - Spring 2000 Course Evaluation (4 May)

These are the results of the 4 May 2000 end-of-term evaluation. Answers to multiple-choice questions are shown first.

Rating scale - SD = Strongly Disagree; D = Disagree; N = Neutral; A = Agree; SA = Strongly Agree

The instructor usually:	SD	D	N	A	SA
Q1. Demonstrates enthusiasm about teaching				5	9
Q2. Communicates clearly and logically			2	8	4
Q3. Promotes a climate of mutual respect			2	6	6
Q4. Encourages student questions				6	8
Q5. Emphasizes critical thinking			2	8	3
Q6. Uses teaching strategies that promote active involvement		2	7	4	1
Q7. Clearly communicates expectations for student performance		1	1	10	2
Q8. Regularly provides constructive criticism of student performance	1	2	7	3	1
Q9. Provides timely feedback on student performance			6	6	2
Q10. Provides a fair evaluation of student performance		1	2	6	5
Q11. Is available when needed			4	5	5
Q12. Is well-prepared for instruction			1	7	6
Q13. Overall, considering both the possibilities and limitations of the subject matter and course, I would rate this instructor as "excellent"			2	9	3

In this course usually:	SD	D	N	A	SA
Q16. Course goals and objectives are clearly specified				7	6
Q17. Course requirements (e.g., assignments, attendance, student responsibilities) are clearly specified			1	5	7
Q18. Course assignments are clearly related to the course objectives				5	8
Q19. Instructional methods in this course facilitate my learning		1	1	6	5
Q20. In general, the course is well-organized		1	2	4	6
Q21. Course materials stimulate critical thinking		2	1	7	3
Q22. I know significantly more about this subject than before I took this course	1		1	3	8
Q23. Overall, considering its content, design, and structure, I would rate this course as "excellent"		1	1	7	4

Q14. Please comment on the strengths of the instructor

his breadth and depth of knowledge about the subject matter -- linear regression
knowledgeable; humorous
well-prepared & organized. I appreciated how we went through the SYSTAT procedures & how outcomes related to the topic of discussion -- that was VERY helpful.
classes well organized
warmth, concern, enthusiasm
it was very helpful to incorporate SYSTAT into course, since our assignments needed to be done with it
all the preliminary work -- computerization of course, etc., has really paid off & made the material understandable & interesting
sense of humor; Amy was also real nice
the explanations and instruction were excellent. The instructor was well-prepared and conveys great interest in the subject.
I enjoyed his tendency to evaluate the relative importance of similar tests & procedures
the modules are excellent and the internet is used very well. Also has great sense of humor.

Q15. Please comment on the limitations of the instructor

explaining some of the more difficult problems and procedures
use of the board in conjunction to internet notes would have been helpful
time was so limited to cover whole things in the class
no complaints...
sometimes it seemed he found it difficult to bring topics down from his level of understanding to ours
1. Asks questions that are either unclear or so obvious that no one wants to answer (e.g., the answer is already on the computer screen); 2. Ran late every day. This is only a problem because the instructor then felt he had to rush -- confusing us all and ending on a bad note (even when the rest of the class was great!)
he relies too much on his modules -- often it feels more like he is just reading rather than teaching. Also had a tendency to skip really hard topics, leaving it for students to figure out alone.

Q24. Please comment on the strengths of the course

again, the breadth and depth of linear regression techniques; cutting end statistical analyses.
use of website, & the modules were very helpful; group work should be encouraged
again the use of great examples were very helpful
made me be familiar with regression analysis. Especially, a lot of assumptions, diagnostics, remedies.
exams were fair
we learned a great deal about statistics. The information was accessible & not overly complex
REALISTIC -> comments on doing research, setting up tables, paper assignments; did SYSTAT programs in class for us to see commands & output -- that was really helpful & made doing the assignments much easier
useful subject matter. Enjoyed the paper project and diagnostics homework -- quite useful exercises
homework facilitated comprehension of the material; We covered a lot of material well.
it is practical & in it you move from knowing very little to actually knowing how to do the regression analysis

Q25. Please comment on the limitations of the course

a couple of topics that we had to "learn on our own" should have been done in class
should be decided which topics will be more fully covered than others
would have liked to learn SAS instead; too many assignments
no complaints. This course was much less painful than I imagined (this is NOT a complaint!)
the use of internet was NOT optimal: it was great to have class notes, & to be able to view graphics & SYSTAT in class. However just reading through the notes in class wasn't helpful for understanding procedures or concepts -- it was too easy to zone out and complex procedures are hard to follow onscreen (it was so much better when he wrote on the board!); at times we spent too much time on theory/concepts and not enough on the actual procedures and it got repetitive; hard to know when to read the book vs. notes/lectures; *** PLEASE announce assignments IN CLASS, not just posting them on the internet
the tests are tricky. There is a difference between good distractors & trick questions.
sometimes moved too fast. It would also have been nice to go over homeworks.

Last modified 25 May 2000