| Faculty Member: | LEONG WING LUP, BEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2006/2007 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY - CS1101S |
| Activity Type: | LECTURE |
| Class Size / Response Size / Response Rate : | 32 / 11 / 34.38% |
| 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. | 4.182 | 0.751 | 3.837 ( 3.881) | 3.851 ( 3.875) |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 4.000 | 0.894 | 3.830 ( 3.842) | 3.867 ( 3.864) |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 4.273 | 0.786 | 3.860 ( 3.852) | 3.910 ( 3.904) |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me advance my research (if applicable). | 4.000 | 0.000 | 3.616 ( 3.538) | 3.656 ( 3.595) |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 3.909 | 0.701 | 3.695 ( 3.706) | 3.721 ( 3.730) |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 4.091 | 0.701 | 3.886 ( 3.919) | 3.922 ( 3.961) |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 3.636 | 1.286 | 3.777 ( 3.828) | 3.800 ( 3.847) |
| Average of Qn 1-7 | 4.015 | 0.862 | 3.798 ( 3.817) | 3.829 ( 3.842) | |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 3.909 | 1.136 | 3.923 ( 3.988) | 3.949 ( 4.004) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 3 (27.27%) | 6 (54.55%) | 1 (9.09%) | 0 (.00%) | 1 (9.09%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department | | | 413 (23.48%) | 990 (56.28%) | 295 (16.77%) | 44 (2.50%) | 17 (.97%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty | | | 655 (23.76%) | 1562 (56.66%) | 459 (16.65%) | 57 (2.07%) | 24 (.87%) |
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 (Lecture) within the department.
(b) the mean score of same activity type (Lecture), at the same module level ( level 1000 ) within the department.
5. Fac. Avg Score :
(c) the mean score of same activity type (Lecture) within the faculty.
(d) the mean score of same activity type (Lecture), at the same module level ( level 1000 ) within the faculty.
| Faculty Member: | LEONG WING LUP, BEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2006/2007 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY - CS1101S |
| Activity Type: | LECTURE |
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | Willing to spend time to help students. Hardworking. Have good sense of humour. Instilled the coolness of Scheme among students. |
| 2. | Knowledge in the subject |
| 3. | Creating interest in the topic |
| 4. | Lifely. At least the class ain boring. He teaches at a fast pace, but not too fast, yet not too slow. Is like, u have to concentrate in class, or else u'll be lost. AND if u concentrate, u can follow his teachings quite well. Passionate about the subject, having favourite phrases to crack some mini-jokes to lighten our hearts. Very encouraging and dedicated!! Thx!! |
| 5. | He connects to the students very well. He also cares for the students, many of my peers regard him as a big brother rather than a lecturer. |
| 6. | He can explain complex ideas in a simple way to help student to understand. |
| 7. | he is pretty clear of what he has to say while teaching and knows his subject well and also has other information to give which make the subject much more interesting!! |
| 8. | energetic |
| 9. | He understand our difficulties and try to adapt his lecture in a way to clarify our doubt and difficulties. |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | Probably to communicate ideas more effectively by speaking more clearly. Examples given by him has always been helpful so probably want to arm himself with more different examples to explain concepts to students from varying backgrounds. Because of the students with different degree of experience with programming, more creativity used to teach the course can help to improve teaching further. You looked stressed! Relax. |
| 2. | Please teach as though the students dont have a programming background - dont assume that the students understand everything you say. |
| 3. | Speak slower *for the sake of non-singaporeans and non-malaysians*, lolz. The above poll is a true reflection of what i'm thinking. Not some simply-how-do survey! Rock on!! |
| 4. | None. |
| 5. | NA |
| 6. | he may slow down his talking speed |
| 7. | slow down the talking speed |
| 8. | Speak slowly and pronounce clearly the words. |
| Faculty Member: | LEONG WING LUP, BEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2006/2007 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY - CS1101S |
| Activity Type: | RECITATION |
| Class Size / Response Size / Response Rate : | 32 / 10 / 31.25% |
| 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. | 4.100 | 0.738 | 3.769 ( 4.150) | 3.769 ( 4.150) |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 3.800 | 1.033 | 3.791 ( 3.900) | 3.791 ( 3.900) |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 4.300 | 0.823 | 3.738 ( 4.000) | 3.738 ( 4.000) |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me advance my research (if applicable). | 3.500 | 0.707 | 3.661 ( 3.500) | 3.661 ( 3.500) |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 3.900 | 0.738 | 3.629 ( 3.950) | 3.629 ( 3.950) |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 4.200 | 0.632 | 3.746 ( 4.150) | 3.746 ( 4.150) |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 3.700 | 1.252 | 3.685 ( 3.800) | 3.685 ( 3.800) |
| Average of Qn 1-7 | 3.984 | 0.878 | 3.721 ( 3.984) | 3.721 ( 3.984) | |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 3.900 | 0.994 | 3.787 ( 4.000) | 3.787 ( 4.000) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 3 (30.00%) | 4 (40.00%) | 2 (20.00%) | 1 (10.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Recitation), at the same level within Department | | | 6 (30.00%) | 10 (50.00%) | 2 (10.00%) | 2 (10.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Recitation), at the same level within Faculty | | | 6 (30.00%) | 10 (50.00%) | 2 (10.00%) | 2 (10.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
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 (Recitation) within the department.
(b) the mean score of same activity type (Recitation), at the same module level ( level 1000 ) within the department.
5. Fac. Avg Score :
(c) the mean score of same activity type (Recitation) within the faculty.
(d) the mean score of same activity type (Recitation), at the same module level ( level 1000 ) within the faculty.
| Faculty Member: | LEONG WING LUP, BEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2006/2007 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY - CS1101S |
| Activity Type: | RECITATION |
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | Same as above |
| 2. | Knowledge in the subject |
| 3. | Same |
| 4. | He connects to the students very well. He also cares for the students, many of my peers regard him as a big brother rather than a lecturer. |
| 5. | He can explain complex ideas in a simple way to help student to understand. |
| 6. | he is pretty clear of what he has to say while teaching and knows his subject well and also has other information to give which make the subject much more interesting! |
| 7. | Same as for the lectures. |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | Same as above |
| 2. | Too fast, misunderstands the students state of mind - is unable to tell whether the student is following him or not. |
| 3. | Same |
| 4. | None. |
| 5. | NA |
| 6. | he may slow down his talking speed... |
| 7. | Same as for the lectures. |
| Faculty Member: | LEONG WING LUP, BEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2006/2007 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY - CS1101S |
| Activity Type: | TUTORIAL |
| Class Size / Response Size / Response Rate : | 12 / 1 / 8.33% |
| 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. | 4.000 | 0.000 | 3.893 ( 3.873) | 3.898 ( 3.901) |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 4.000 | 0.000 | 3.942 ( 3.958) | 3.966 ( 3.991) |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 4.000 | 0.000 | 4.038 ( 4.096) | 4.059 ( 4.111) |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 3.000 | 0.000 | 3.713 ( 3.663) | 3.728 ( 3.709) |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 4.000 | 0.000 | 3.888 ( 3.886) | 3.909 ( 3.932) |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 4.000 | 0.000 | 3.896 ( 3.899) | 3.892 ( 3.915) |
| Average of Qn 1-7 | 3.833 | 0.408 | 3.881 ( 3.880) | 3.894 ( 3.910) | |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 4.000 | 0.000 | 3.958 ( 3.965) | 3.976 ( 4.004) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 0 (.00%) | 1 (100.00%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Department | | | 259 (25.85%) | 514 (51.30%) | 179 (17.86%) | 35 (3.49%) | 15 (1.50%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Faculty | | | 461 (23.03%) | 1170 (58.44%) | 305 (15.23%) | 50 (2.50%) | 16 (.80%) |
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.