SOC TEACHER ASSESSMENT REPORT SYSTEM

STUDENTS' RATINGS ON TEACHER

Faculty Member:	STEVEN HALIM
Department:	COMPUTER SCIENCE	Academic Year:	2006/2007
Faculty:	SCHOOL OF COMPUTING	Semester:	2

Module:	DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS - CS1102C
Activity Type:	TUTORIAL

Class Size / Response Size / Response Rate :

85 / 63 / 74.12%

Qn	Items Evaluated	Fac. Member Avg Score	Fac. Member Avg Score Std. Dev	Dept Avg Score	Fac. Avg Score
				(a) (b)	(c) (d)

1	The teacher has enhanced my thinking ability.	4.127	0.729	3.930 ( 3.982)	3.933 ( 3.966)
2	The teacher provides timely and useful feedback.	4.143	0.840	3.960 ( 4.000)	3.987 ( 4.022)
3	The teacher is approachable for consultation.	4.032	0.923	4.021 ( 4.077)	4.044 ( 4.090)
4	The teacher has helped me develop relevant research skills.*	NA	NA	NA	NA
5	The teacher has increased my interest in the subject.	3.937	0.840	3.801 ( 3.823)	3.807 ( 3.812)
6	The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field.	4.206	0.786	3.927 ( 3.972)	3.941 ( 3.972)
7	The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas.	4.254	0.761	3.923 ( 3.977)	3.919 ( 3.957)
	Average of Qn 1-7	4.117	0.817	3.927 ( 3.971)	3.938 ( 3.970)
8	Overall the teacher is effective.	4.238	0.712	3.986 ( 4.049)	4.007 ( 4.057)

* This includes skills in research methodology, research problems/questions, literature search/evaluation, oral presentation and manuscript preparation.

** If Qn 4 is NA, it will not be included in the computation of average score (Average of Qn 1-7).

Frequency Distribution of responses for Qn 8

Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents)

	\|
ITEM\SCORE	\|	5	4	3	2	1
	\|
Self	\|	25 (39.68%)	28 (44.44%)	10 (15.87%)	0 (.00%)	0 (.00%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Department	\|	341 (29.52%)	590 (51.08%)	176 (15.24%)	36 (3.12%)	12 (1.04%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Faculty	\|	602 (26.29%)	1291 (56.38%)	336 (14.67%)	47 (2.05%)	14 (.61%)

Note:
1. A 5-point scale is used for the scores. The higher the score, the better the rating.
2. Fac. Member Avg Score: The mean of all the scores for each question for the faculty member.
3. Fac. Member Avg Score Std. Dev: A measure of the range of variability. It measures the extent to which a faculty member's Average Score differs from all the scores in the faculty member's evaluation. The smaller the standard deviation, the greater the robustness of the number given as average.
4. Dept Avg Score :
(a) the mean score of same activity type (Tutorial) within the department.
(b) the mean score of same activity type (Tutorial), at the same module level ( level 1000 ) within the department.
5. Fac. Avg Score :
(c) the mean score of same activity type (Tutorial) within the faculty.
(d) the mean score of same activity type (Tutorial), at the same module level ( level 1000 ) within the faculty.

STUDENTS' COMMENTS ON FACULTY MEMBER

Faculty Member:	STEVEN HALIM
Department:	COMPUTER SCIENCE	Academic Year:	2006/2007
Faculty:	SCHOOL OF COMPUTING	Semester:	2

Module:	DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS - CS1102C
Activity Type:	TUTORIAL

Q9	What are the teacher's strengths?
1.	His explanation of tutorial questions is clear and easy to understand though it is a extremely difficult module.
2.	provide some useful tips and insights outside the course
3.	prepares his own slides for tutorials which are rather helpful in learning.
4.	NA
5.	Explains everything very clearly. Makes the students understand the module much better.
6.	good graspe of the subject
7.	Meticulous, prepares everything before coming to tutorials, good explanations given in answering questions
8.	Very sincere tutor who is very patient and instead of giving students the ans, he guides students to the ans. Really appreciate everything!
9.	he is enthusiastic
10.	the teacher explains concepts in simple terms, easier to understand.
11.	he's very efficient and encouraging. he explains comcepts well and is always willing to help.
12.	very well prepared for tutorials. Maked the class interesting and he's very interactive.
13.	RESOURCEFUL
14.	He's very kind and explain very carefully all tutorials.
15.	enthusiastic, willing to help students' solving exercises, provide more useful sources for the course...
16.	he prepares summary slides of the topics.
17.	He knows his subject quite well
18.	He can explain things quite well and clear.
19.	Very helpful, and very good at explaining difficult concepts.
20.	Excellent person. Very cooperative. Overall super good!
21.	well organized tutorial solutions
22.	interesting
23.	good
24.	Hardworking and careful
25.	The good thing about him is that he understands that this module is not as staright and intutive as the other modules, so he tries to explain us in easier ways. I was struggling wiht my labs initially but life was real easy when i started approaching him in the tutorials. He really gives simple examples to understand complex ideas that are really usefull.
26.	Very well-organised and prepared for lessons. Have very gd knowledge of algo and structures. Friendly and approachable.
27.	The short review of the lecture is useful. Especially if the explaination is of a different method. I found the balancing factor method of determining whether its a insert inside/outside case very helpful.. i dont think Dr Tan mentioned this method in lectures..
28.	Summaries of the topic covered in the previous week helps a lot, especially when it is harder to digest.
29.	Willing to go the further extra mile to provide students with extra resources, help sheets etc to help us cope with this otherwise difficult module. Excellent tutor who also provides his own feedback and opinions when we approach him for consultation
30.	He is good and clear in presenting his lesson
31.	He is a approachable tutor and pinpoints the student's mistake on the spot which allows the student to learn from his or her mistake immediately.
32.	He explains different algorithms in a very simple and straightforward manner. Any confusions that one may have, usually disappear after having him explain the algorithm.
33.	He can present the topic ina comprehensive, concise manner and in relation to the lecture, so it is much easier to understand a topic. He encourages class participation, so we learn more from each other's mistakes.
34.	explains all the concepts in detail before going to the tutorial problems. it is very useful as concepts which we might have missed in the lecture can be covered here.
35.	His explnanations and examples were great and the tutoring style was very helful in making us udnerstand the theory.

Q10	What improvements would you suggest to the teacher?
1.	Make the tutorial shorter!
2.	could make the explanation clearer, encourage more student interaction and discussion
3.	NA
4.	none
5.	slow speaking during teaching
6.	A little improvement on the english part
7.	nil
8.	maybe give some hand outs or extra notes.
9.	Try to give more time for the last few tutorial questions. It seems that he rushes through them because of insufficient time.
10.	ENHANCE DELIVERY SKILLS
11.	He could improve his English speaking so that it's easier for the students to understand.
12.	nothing
13.	in doing the summary, i find that he repeats too many of what Dr Tan mentioned in lectures. (many it is just me) perhaps he could give some other examples which were not mentioned by Dr. Tan.
14.	Please spend more time answering the questions yourself rather than have students do them otherwise it becomes difficult to understand for us
15.	If can improve communication skills, can become excellent lecturer.
16.	Please end on-time :-)
17.	To try and make some time to help out students with a weak programming background..
18.	need more interaction with students
19.	no
20.	No
21.	Start teaching
22.	Give additional exercises with answers after each tutorial for us to do at our own freetime.
23.	Write more neatly?? haha..
24.	May want to waste less time getting hapless students to present.
25.	More time management for his tutorials, as sometimes, rushing between his lesson to other lessons would be kind of stressful and tiring week in week out =P
26.	Try to compact his lesson as his lesson almost always exceed time.
27.	He could speak a bit louder and when showing codes in the tutorial, he could use bigger fonts.
28.	Nothing really
29.	no improvements.
30.	Keep up the good work.

The National University of Singapore has used reasonable endeavours to ensure that the information posted on this Web-site is correct at the time of posting. However, the University gives no warranty and accepts no liability for the accuracy or the completeness of the information provided.

In providing such student feedback, the University does not in any way, expressly or implicitly, endorse the views expressed or the contents thereof.