| Faculty Member: | MA LIN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2004/2005 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | COMPUTER NETWORKS II - CS3103 | ||
| Activity Type: | LABORATORY | ||
| No. of Respondents: | 30 | ||
| Qn | Items Evaluated | Fac. Member Avg Score | Fac. Member Avg Score Std. Dev | Dept Avg Score (All Fac. Members) | Fac. Avg Score (All Fac. Members) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The teacher has enhanced my thinking ability. | 3.633 | 0.556 | 3.466 | 3.470 |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 3.793 | 0.491 | 3.554 | 3.557 |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 3.900 | 0.662 | 3.730 | 3.734 |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me advance my research (if applicable). | 3.556 | 0.616 | 3.429 | 3.434 |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 3.633 | 0.615 | 3.357 | 3.361 |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 3.733 | 0.521 | 3.498 | 3.501 |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 3.633 | 0.556 | 3.454 | 3.458 |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 3.667 | 0.547 | 3.572 | 3.576 |
| Average of Qn 1-7 | 3.706 | 0.576 | 3.502 | 3.506 |
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 (All Fac. Members): The mean of all the scores of the
activity type for each question for all modules offered by the
department.
5. Fac. Avg Score (All Fac. Members): The mean of all the scores of the
activity type for each question for all modules offered by the faculty.
Frequency Distribution on Overall Effectiveness of Teacher - Qn 8
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 0 (.00%) | 21 (70.00%) | 8 (26.67%) | 1 (3.33%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching Module at the Same Level (Dept) | | | 442 (18.41%) | 1220 (50.81%) | 596 (24.82%) | 113 (4.71%) | 30 (1.25%) |
Teachers teaching Module at the Same Level (Fac) | | | 662 (18.24%) | 1818 (50.08%) | 928 (25.56%) | 171 (4.71%) | 51 (1.40%) |
| Faculty Member: | MA LIN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2004/2005 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | COMPUTER NETWORKS II - CS3103 |
| Activity Type: | LABORATORY |
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | No comments |
| 2. | helpful in lab |
| 3. | Helpful. |
| 4. | Friendly |
| 5. | patient,friendly and approachable |
| 6. | He is quite helpful, he will try to solve the question whenever a student ask him |
| 7. | Knowledgable. |
| 8. | He understand his teaching very well. well knowledged |
| 9. | He is dedicated in teaching students. He can explain the concepts nicely too |
| 10. | patient |
| 11. | Approachable when asked for help. Explain some of the concepts in the laboratory when I have doubts in the experiments. Take the effort before each lab to explain what we are supposed to do and the purpose of that lab. |
| 12. | Approachable |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | No comments |
| 2. | nothing |
| 3. | English and self-confidence. |
| 4. | none |
| 5. | Nil |
| 6. | Nil. |
| 7. | speak slower |
| 8. | None |
| 9. | need to able to explain things more clearly |
| 10. | - |
| Faculty Member: | MA LIN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2004/2005 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | COMPUTER NETWORKS II - CS3103 | ||
| Activity Type: | TUTORIAL | ||
| No. of Respondents: | 30 | ||
| Qn | Items Evaluated | Fac. Member Avg Score | Fac. Member Avg Score Std. Dev | Dept Avg Score (All Fac. Members) | Fac. Avg Score (All Fac. Members) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The teacher has enhanced my thinking ability. | 3.700 | 0.466 | 3.885 | 3.885 |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 3.733 | 0.521 | 3.895 | 3.918 |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 3.833 | 0.648 | 3.983 | 4.010 |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me advance my research (if applicable). | 3.500 | 0.632 | 3.672 | 3.696 |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 3.567 | 0.568 | 3.729 | 3.728 |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 3.733 | 0.521 | 3.881 | 3.878 |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 3.700 | 0.466 | 3.885 | 3.866 |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 3.633 | 0.556 | 3.948 | 3.952 |
| Average of Qn 1-7 | 3.694 | 0.544 | 3.858 | 3.864 |
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 (All Fac. Members): The mean of all the scores of the
activity type for each question for all modules offered by the
department.
5. Fac. Avg Score (All Fac. Members): The mean of all the scores of the
activity type for each question for all modules offered by the faculty.
Frequency Distribution on Overall Effectiveness of Teacher - Qn 8
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 0 (.00%) | 20 (66.67%) | 9 (30.00%) | 1 (3.33%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching Module at the Same Level (Dept) | | | 442 (18.41%) | 1220 (50.81%) | 596 (24.82%) | 113 (4.71%) | 30 (1.25%) |
Teachers teaching Module at the Same Level (Fac) | | | 662 (18.24%) | 1818 (50.08%) | 928 (25.56%) | 171 (4.71%) | 51 (1.40%) |
| Faculty Member: | MA LIN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2004/2005 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | COMPUTER NETWORKS II - CS3103 |
| Activity Type: | TUTORIAL |
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | friendly |
| 2. | Able to explain complex ideas in a fairly understandable manner. |
| 3. | patient,friendly and approachable |
| 4. | friendly and approachable |
| 5. | Very approachable. |
| 6. | Friendly. |
| 7. | He is dedicated in teaching students. He can explain the concepts nicely too |
| 8. | I'm glad to see his effort to make the tutorials questions easier for us to understand. |
| 9. | patient |
| 10. | Able to answer questions raised in the class. Clear any doubts that I have in the tutorial questions. |
| 11. | Friendly |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | he prepares well enough but his explanations need to be a bit clearer and less tentative. |
| 2. | nothing |
| 3. | English and self-confidence. |
| 4. | don be shy to speak up :) |
| 5. | none |
| 6. | Could make tutorial classes more interactive. |
| 7. | Needs to speak up in class difficul to hear him at times. |
| 8. | Could have made tutorials more interesting. |
| 9. | none |
| 10. | Maybe he should try to improve his communications skills to make the tutorial more fun |
| 11. | - |
| 12. | Nil |