| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2002/2003 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS - CS1102 | ||
| Activity Type: | LECTURE | ||
| No. of Respondents: | 205 | ||
| 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. | 3.723 | 0.645 | 3.717 | 3.610 |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 3.741 | 0.654 | 3.710 | 3.628 |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 3.866 | 0.674 | 3.788 | 3.697 |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me advance my research (if applicable). | 3.524 | 0.680 | 3.558 | 3.471 |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 3.576 | 0.792 | 3.598 | 3.517 |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 3.785 | 0.681 | 3.748 | 3.682 |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 3.717 | 0.778 | 3.671 | 3.573 |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 3.771 | 0.694 | 3.766 | 3.674 |
| Average of Qn 1-7 | 3.715 | 0.710 | 3.689 | 3.602 |
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.
Overall Effectiveness of Teacher (Qn 8) : Frequency Distribution
| Scores | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fac. Member | 22 (10.73%) | 122 (59.51%) | 54 (26.34%) | 6 (2.93%) | 1 (.49%) |
Dept (All Fac. Members, All Activity Types, Same Level) | 1063 (16.87%) | 3102 (49.24%) | 1689 (26.81%) | 329 (5.22%) | 117 (1.86%) |
Fac.(All Fac. Members, All Activity Types, Same Level) | 1300 (14.14%) | 4526 (49.23%) | 2669 (29.03%) | 525 (5.71%) | 173 (1.88%) |
| Grades | A | B | C | D | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Module | 115 (21.95%) | 196 (37.40%) | 130 (24.81%) | 70 (13.36%) | 13 (2.48%) |
Dept(All Modules,Same Level) | 437 (22.16%) | 821 (41.63%) | 486 (24.65%) | 182 (9.23%) | 46 (2.33%) |
Fac.(All Modules,Same Level) | 696 (20.43%) | 1734 (50.91%) | 733 (21.52%) | 194 (5.70%) | 49 (1.44%) |
| Grades | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Module | 203 (38.23%) | 277 (52.17%) | 50 (9.42%) | 0 (.00%) | 1 (.19%) |
Dept(All Modules,Same Level) | 478 (23.98%) | 916 (45.96%) | 531 (26.64%) | 57 (2.86%) | 11 (.55%) |
Fac.(All Modules,Same Level) | 524 (15.28%) | 1252 (36.51%) | 1474 (42.99%) | 163 (4.75%) | 16 (.47%) |
Note: The higher the perceived level of difficulty, the higher the score.
| Grades | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Module | 24 (4.53%) | 168 (31.70%) | 250 (47.17%) | 65 (12.26%) | 23 (4.34%) |
Dept(All Modules, Same Level) | 208 (10.45%) | 808 (40.60%) | 726 (36.48%) | 189 (9.50%) | 59 (2.96%) |
Fac.(All Modules,Same Level) | 254 (7.41%) | 1313 (38.29%) | 1483 (43.25%) | 286 (8.34%) | 93 (2.71%) |
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2002/2003 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS - CS1102 |
| Activity Type: | LECTURE |
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | na |
| 2. | NIL |
| 3. | N.A. |
| 4. | Quite humourous at times. Can explain concepts quite clearly |
| 5. | Good explanation of certain topics |
| 6. | Not bad |
| 7. | speaks fluent english |
| 8. | Speak well. Humourous |
| 9. | Normal |
| 10. | His use of effective illustrations Clear explanation on most concepts |
| 11. | I went to attend the first lecture, however I think the way he is taech is a little too difficult for me to understand. There is a certain gap between him an d me, thats why I decided to do my own readings and try to understand through self learning. |
| 12. | willingness to share his thaought |
| 13. | His English. |
| 14. | Clear and audible language and speech. Adequate provision of codes. Helpful, and considerate to students needs. |
| 15. | Lectures are painfully clear...=) Extremely helpful and always there for consultation |
| 16. | able to explain complex ideas in amusing way |
| 17. | Polite and provides timely responses to the forum which helps students. Also very approachable |
| 18. | - explain concepts clearly -provides useful codes for the students in lecture notes |
| 19. | very fluent english, quite patient. |
| 20. | Extremely dedicated, approachable and helpful. He is able to explain concepts in simple terms. |
| 21. | Good pace. |
| 22. | creative |
| 23. | - |
| 24. | Good in getting concepts across students |
| 25. | Explains concepts quite clearly |
| 26. | Clear and concise explanations of difficult topics. |
| 27. | Very good in explanation and patient. |
| 28. | Caring and helpful |
| 29. | He is systematic in his approach of teaching. |
| 30. | Dr Kan is extremely clear in his explainations, and very approachable for consultation. |
| 31. | Very clear explanation with illustration. patient. humorous. listen to students' suggestion |
| 32. | approacable, able to explain ideas well individually. |
| 33. | gives clear explanations, able to understand his lectures |
| 34. | Very patient |
| 35. | I feel that he's approachable and forthcoming with extra elaboration and explanation on syllabus, as seen from his frequent postings on the forum. He tries to inject little humour into the lecture, making it less dry. =) |
| 36. | He is patient. |
| 37. | Gives clear and effective examples when illustrating ideas and concepts. |
| 38. | no comments |
| 39. | Able to explain clearly. |
| 40. | Friendly |
| 41. | Clear, concise. |
| 42. | A very patient lecturer. |
| 43. | He's very patient with the students during lecture and doesn't hesitate the repeat himself or make the majority of the students understand what is going on. But he doesn't do it so that it affects the pace of the lecture at all. |
| 44. | very friendly and helpful also very professional |
| 45. | His knowledge is very good |
| 46. | He was very willing to help students understand complex problems. |
| 47. | good at this subject, hard working |
| 48. | good |
| 49. | Approachable, and the illustration is quite clear. |
| 50. | ok |
| 51. | know this module well,patient,timely and kindly feedback |
| 52. | No comment. |
| 53. | He is willing to answer students' questions. |
| 54. | good enoudh |
| 55. | no comments |
| 56. | He is approachable, clear and friendly. Overall a wonderful lecturer. |
| 57. | he is good |
| 58. | Able to explain idea taught in the lecture during tutorial. |
| 59. | good |
| 60. | He is knowledgable and teaches well. |
| 61. | Helpful. Language is very good. |
| 62. | He can explain well and clearly. He is also a good programmer. |
| 63. | His language is really good and his knowledge in this module is very broad |
| 64. | i'm not sure |
| 65. | NEVER DO ANYTHING FUNNY... |
| 66. | explains concept well |
| 67. | no comments |
| 68. | professionalism during lectures |
| 69. | approachable for consultation |
| 70. | Linguistically adept, humurous and explains concepts well. |
| 71. | na |
| 72. | none. |
| 73. | Patient i guess |
| 74. | Interesting |
| 75. | He is very friendly and approachable. |
| 76. | Good diction |
| 77. | Humorous, approachable. |
| 78. | dont know |
| 79. | approachable for consultation |
| 80. | he knows well |
| 81. | Teacher know well . |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | try to use tool like electronic pen to explain complex ideas. try to speaker louder in lecture. |
| 2. | na |
| 3. | NIL |
| 4. | N.A. |
| 5. | Try to speak a bit louder |
| 6. | Since you are teaching in a Singapore university it might be beneficial to tone down your American accent in regard to the majority of Asian students in your lectures. And Oh, perhaps add abit more life and colour to your lecture notes. |
| 7. | No comments |
| 8. | give all help to students |
| 9. | Less speed in lectures, accent hard to understand |
| 10. | can try to talk slower |
| 11. | Teach as if we do not understand a thing. |
| 12. | no need to improve |
| 13. | Keep it up :) |
| 14. | Moderate the pace of the lecture. |
| 15. | nopes... he is good |
| 16. | keep up the good work |
| 17. | none. fine as he is |
| 18. | none |
| 19. | Please speak up when giving lectures. |
| 20. | nil |
| 21. | - |
| 22. | None |
| 23. | Talk slower |
| 24. | N/A |
| 25. | provide more examples. |
| 26. | Can go though more examples of ways to design more efficient algorithms |
| 27. | He could go a little slower in his explainations of some of the more difficult concepts. |
| 28. | nil |
| 29. | It will be good if he can explain things to us using real codes. |
| 30. | give more examples on coding |
| 31. | Keep it up. If possible, try to slow down on the lecture stuff. |
| 32. | nil |
| 33. | NA |
| 34. | no comments |
| 35. | Perhaps use a pen like Dr Ooi to write on the computer screen. |
| 36. | N.A. |
| 37. | None. |
| 38. | more jokes ;) |
| 39. | He should have some way to attract students to his lecture |
| 40. | Focus more on applications of each data structures. |
| 41. | more strict |
| 42. | not yet |
| 43. | should give more examples |
| 44. | He is very good |
| 45. | No comment. |
| 46. | The lecture is not very attractive. Maybe he can make the lectures more lively by turning up and down his voice more often? :) |
| 47. | no need |
| 48. | no comments |
| 49. | relax a bit.. make it more interesting... |
| 50. | Provide some sample code to student to give us some idea how to implement data structure taught. |
| 51. | neutral |
| 52. | Talk a bit louder next time. |
| 53. | Nothing. |
| 54. | He explain too fast. Maybe it is better if he can slow down a bit. |
| 55. | Maybe talk louder so all the students can hear the lecture |
| 56. | speaks slowly and louder and explain more clearly |
| 57. | SHOULD MAKE THE LECTURE INTERESTING |
| 58. | go slower |
| 59. | no comments |
| 60. | na |
| 61. | try to speak louder during the lecturer. |
| 62. | Please try to go at a pace comfortable with the lecture . |
| 63. | He needs to be more outspoken. Seems to be talking to himself most of the time |
| 64. | no comments |
| 65. | He's fine |
| 66. | Perhaps can refrain from mumbling to himself during lecture. |
| 67. | no |
| 68. | speak loudly during the lecture. |
| 69. | should teach more effectively |
| 70. | i would suggest to teacher teach more clearly . |
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2002/2003 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS - CS1102 | ||
| Activity Type: | TUTORIAL | ||
| No. of Respondents: | 35 | ||
| 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. | 3.857 | 0.733 | 3.901 | 3.839 |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 4.029 | 0.664 | 3.898 | 3.870 |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 4.143 | 0.601 | 3.988 | 3.965 |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me advance my research (if applicable). | 3.550 | 0.686 | 3.736 | 3.681 |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 3.629 | 0.843 | 3.748 | 3.700 |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 3.857 | 0.692 | 3.896 | 3.840 |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 3.829 | 0.822 | 3.905 | 3.825 |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 3.914 | 0.742 | 3.951 | 3.903 |
| Average of Qn 1-7 | 3.861 | 0.740 | 3.872 | 3.822 |
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.
Overall Effectiveness of Teacher (Qn 8) : Frequency Distribution
| Scores | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fac. Member | 7 (20.00%) | 19 (54.29%) | 8 (22.86%) | 1 (2.86%) | 0 (.00%) |
Dept (All Fac. Members, All Activity Types, Same Level) | 1063 (16.87%) | 3102 (49.24%) | 1689 (26.81%) | 329 (5.22%) | 117 (1.86%) |
Fac.(All Fac. Members, All Activity Types, Same Level) | 1300 (14.14%) | 4526 (49.23%) | 2669 (29.03%) | 525 (5.71%) | 173 (1.88%) |
| Grades | A | B | C | D | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Module | 115 (21.95%) | 196 (37.40%) | 130 (24.81%) | 70 (13.36%) | 13 (2.48%) |
Dept(All Modules,Same Level) | 437 (22.16%) | 821 (41.63%) | 486 (24.65%) | 182 (9.23%) | 46 (2.33%) |
Fac.(All Modules,Same Level) | 696 (20.43%) | 1734 (50.91%) | 733 (21.52%) | 194 (5.70%) | 49 (1.44%) |
| Grades | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Module | 203 (38.23%) | 277 (52.17%) | 50 (9.42%) | 0 (.00%) | 1 (.19%) |
Dept(All Modules,Same Level) | 478 (23.98%) | 916 (45.96%) | 531 (26.64%) | 57 (2.86%) | 11 (.55%) |
Fac.(All Modules,Same Level) | 524 (15.28%) | 1252 (36.51%) | 1474 (42.99%) | 163 (4.75%) | 16 (.47%) |
Note: The higher the perceived level of difficulty, the higher the score.
| Grades | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Module | 24 (4.53%) | 168 (31.70%) | 250 (47.17%) | 65 (12.26%) | 23 (4.34%) |
Dept(All Modules, Same Level) | 208 (10.45%) | 808 (40.60%) | 726 (36.48%) | 189 (9.50%) | 59 (2.96%) |
Fac.(All Modules,Same Level) | 254 (7.41%) | 1313 (38.29%) | 1483 (43.25%) | 286 (8.34%) | 93 (2.71%) |
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2002/2003 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS - CS1102 |
| Activity Type: | TUTORIAL |
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | Explaining and Understanding |
| 2. | nil |
| 3. | forthcoming, willing to address to problems, very helpful |
| 4. | interesting way of teaching |
| 5. | Willingness to teach. Able to explain complex concepts well. Articulate and clear. |
| 6. | Very clear explanation with illustration. patient. humorous. listen to students' suggestion |
| 7. | He is good at explaining difficult concepts and is able to bring out the idea to you. |
| 8. | He is patient and will try his best to help the student understand |
| 9. | good at this subject, hard working |
| 10. | speak English well |
| 11. | Able to explain idea taught in the lecture during tutorial |
| 12. | Enthusiastic |
| 13. | His English is wonderful. I did not have any troubles of misunderstanding. |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | None... great job :D |
| 2. | nil |
| 3. | should encourage more class participation |
| 4. | nil |
| 5. | Keep up the good work! |
| 6. | no comments |
| 7. | nil. |
| 8. | Try to explain the concepts more clearly. |
| 9. | lecture notes can be more detailed |
| 10. | Provide some sample code to student to give us some idea how to implement data structure taught. |
| 11. | Give us different approaches to questions. ie. Give us examples of similar problems during tutorials. |
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2002/2003 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module Code: | CS1102 | No of Nominations: | 15 |
| 1. | He is a responsible, effective and smooth lecturer. Gives a lot of illustrations on those topics which are harder to understand. Friendly and approachable teacher and tutor. Gives a lot of guidance for those weaker students |
| 2. | He is painfully clear, very approachable, very good at his module and always there for consultation. |
| 3. | He is very creative man that doesn mind slogging out the saturday with us. He has his own monitor chart outside his door so that we know when we can find him and when we do not. So far, i haven seen any lecturers or tutors that allows us to know where he/she is so that we can approach him/her when we have problems. His way of doing up his presentation was very interesting too with his unique accent that caught our attention when we went for the very first lecture. |
| 4. | Very approachable guy. Very humble and patient. |
| 5. | he is very good lecturer and tutor.. he is concerned about students' learning abilities. he knows his work very very. He also gives good illustration. and will spend time explaining to us if we don't understand certain topics |
| 6. | He is responsible and effective. |
| 7. | He's approachable and understand student's problems. He's different from the rest of the tutor because he didn't assume WE know all the concepts and basics. He will guide us step by step. |
| 8. | Makes learning interesting. |