| Faculty Member: | MA LIN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2004/2005 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | COMPUTER NETWORKS II - CS3103 |
| Activity Type: | LABORATORY |
| Class Size / Response Size / Response Rate : | 65 / 55 / 84.62% |
| 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. | 3.745 | 0.700 | 3.436 ( 3.688) | 3.449 ( 3.688) |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 3.818 | 0.696 | 3.528 ( 3.778) | 3.548 ( 3.778) |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 3.873 | 0.695 | 3.633 ( 3.834) | 3.661 ( 3.834) |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me advance my research (if applicable). | 3.775 | 0.800 | 3.401 ( 3.692) | 3.396 ( 3.692) |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 3.836 | 0.834 | 3.354 ( 3.667) | 3.358 ( 3.667) |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 3.800 | 0.803 | 3.455 ( 3.779) | 3.474 ( 3.779) |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 3.709 | 0.786 | 3.403 ( 3.661) | 3.427 ( 3.661) |
| Average of Qn 1-7 | 3.795 | 0.755 | 3.462 ( 3.730) | 3.478 ( 3.730) | |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 3.891 | 0.737 | 3.521 ( 3.844) | 3.540 ( 3.844) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 11 (20.00%) | 28 (50.91%) | 15 (27.27%) | 1 (1.82%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same level within Department | | | 41 (13.95%) | 170 (57.82%) | 79 (26.87%) | 4 (1.36%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same level within Faculty | | | 41 (13.95%) | 170 (57.82%) | 79 (26.87%) | 4 (1.36%) | 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 (Laboratory) within the department.
(b) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory), at the same module level ( level 3000 ) within the department.
5. Fac. Avg Score :
(c) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory) within the faculty.
(d) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory), at the same module level ( level 3000 ) within the faculty.
| Faculty Member: | MA LIN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2004/2005 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | COMPUTER NETWORKS II - CS3103 |
| Activity Type: | LABORATORY |
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | NA |
| 2. | Patient |
| 3. | very nice guy |
| 4. | They are helpful. |
| 5. | Willness to teach outside tutorial questions. |
| 6. | helpful |
| 7. | na |
| 8. | Easy-going and helpful |
| 9. | No comment. |
| 10. | -he is patient -he is knowledgeable |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | NA |
| 2. | More out-spoken |
| 3. | good enough |
| 4. | Prepare more before lab starts. |
| 5. | nil |
| 6. | - |
| 7. | na |
| 8. | N/A |
| 9. | He should more approach to the students. |
| 10. | he speaks too soft, so sometimes students couldn't hear him well in the lab. |
| Faculty Member: | MA LIN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2004/2005 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | COMPUTER NETWORKS II - CS3103 |
| Activity Type: | TUTORIAL |
| Class Size / Response Size / Response Rate : | 36 / 30 / 83.33% |
| 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. | 3.867 | 0.730 | 3.843 ( 3.695) | 3.868 ( 3.824) |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 3.967 | 0.765 | 3.836 ( 3.698) | 3.898 ( 3.855) |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 4.000 | 0.743 | 3.913 ( 3.767) | 3.967 ( 3.906) |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me advance my research (if applicable). | 3.895 | 0.937 | 3.665 ( 3.671) | 3.704 ( 3.726) |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 3.867 | 0.860 | 3.691 ( 3.587) | 3.726 ( 3.716) |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 3.933 | 0.740 | 3.842 ( 3.704) | 3.878 ( 3.841) |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 3.933 | 0.785 | 3.833 ( 3.685) | 3.860 ( 3.808) |
| Average of Qn 1-7 | 3.925 | 0.778 | 3.812 ( 3.687) | 3.851 ( 3.816) | |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 3.933 | 0.740 | 3.881 ( 3.738) | 3.928 ( 3.877) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 5 (16.67%) | 20 (66.67%) | 3 (10.00%) | 2 (6.67%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Department | | | 137 (16.61%) | 412 (49.94%) | 215 (26.06%) | 45 (5.45%) | 16 (1.94%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Faculty | | | 342 (19.59%) | 956 (54.75%) | 363 (20.79%) | 61 (3.49%) | 24 (1.37%) |
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 3000 ) 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 3000 ) within the faculty.
| Faculty Member: | MA LIN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2004/2005 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | COMPUTER NETWORKS II - CS3103 |
| Activity Type: | TUTORIAL |
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | NA |
| 2. | nothing |
| 3. | interesting |
| 4. | NA |
| 5. | made the effort to explain difficult concepts... thanks =) |
| 6. | Explain the problems carefully. |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | NA |
| 2. | nothing |
| 3. | none |
| 4. | It will be better if he could use 2-way communication during tutorial like suggesting questions to facilitate discussion and participation during tutorials, rather than solely voice his solution and illustrating on the board only. |
| 5. | English speaking, and arrangement of time |
| 6. | Should interact more with the class. |
| 7. | keep it up! =) |
| 8. | Nothing |