| | |
| Teacher Assessment Report | |
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2012/2013 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | DESIGN OF ADVANCED USER INTERFACES - CS4249 | ||
| Activity Type: | LECTURE | ||
| Class Size/Response Size/Response Rate/Contact Session/Teaching Hour : | 38 / 24 / 63.16% / 13 / 26 |
| 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. | 3.958 | 0.112 | 4.061 ( 3.909) | 4.010 ( 3.939) |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 4.333 | 0.167 | 4.032 ( 3.923) | 4.008 ( 3.938) |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 4.542 | 0.120 | 4.085 ( 4.017) | 4.072 ( 4.031) |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me develop relevant research skills.* | 3.810 | 0.148 | 3.943 ( 3.774) | 3.885 ( 3.760) |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 3.708 | 0.153 | 3.956 ( 3.773) | 3.919 ( 3.813) |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 3.917 | 0.158 | 4.081 ( 3.929) | 4.041 ( 3.961) |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 3.750 | 0.183 | 4.020 ( 3.820) | 3.961 ( 3.823) |
| Average of Qn 1-7** | 4.006 | 0.118 | 4.036 ( 3.880) | 3.998 ( 3.898) | |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 3.917 | 0.169 | 4.090 ( 3.897) | 4.040 ( 3.913) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 5 (20.83%) | 14 (58.33%) | 3 (12.50%) | 2 (8.33%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department | | | 94 (23.15%) | 215 (52.96%) | 68 (16.75%) | 19 (4.68%) | 10 (2.46%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty | | | 158 (22.87%) | 373 (53.98%) | 118 (17.08%) | 26 (3.76%) | 16 (2.32%) |
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 4000 ) 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 4000 ) within the faculty.
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2012/2013 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | DESIGN OF ADVANCED USER INTERFACES - CS4249 | ||
| Activity Type: | LECTURE | ||
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | Speaks clearly and professionally |
| 2. | Approachable and patient. |
| 3. | Being able to link up all the HCI topics together in his 3 summing-up lectures. It really enabled us to understand the materials better and how each student presented topic actually leads to a bigger picture. Also, video recordings of all student presentations that were made available by Prof Kan proved to be really useful! The PIN system was really good for peer evaluations as only Prof Kan will have the decryption method. It assures us of anonymity and that we are more daring to give truthful marks. Another good portion of the PIN will be the marking of our peer's questionnaire, as we don't know who the other party is, will allow a more fairer marking across all groups! Prof Kan is also very approachable, for the presentation and the project. Giving timely feedbacks, reviewing our Google docs, leaving comments on our Google docs. All these really helped us a lot! Thanks for your effort in helping us to understand the materials better! |
| 4. | He speaks very fluently and it's easy to understand his content during lessons. |
| 5. | - Introduces many ideas that could help in the process of thinking. - Knows that his lecture topic can be quite dry, so introduced many relevant yet interesting TED talk videos. Not only help in keeping the class awake and help students gain more knowledge. |
| 6. | Teaching this for the time, I would say and I quote from another lecturer that Prof Min actually puts in a lot of effort reading up all the new stuffs and I salute him for that. Prof Min is also a extremely approachable for consultations and will not hesitate to take time off from his busy schedule to meet with the group. He is also very efficient in replying emails. |
| 7. | Prof Kan offers excellent guidance to the many projects, I appreciate all the work he has done in managing the projects (the google docs and frequent emails). His lectures are delivered very well, clear with useful visual aids. He also made the point to make grading of the projects/presentations fair by incorporating peer evaluation, and also very transparent grading system. Very different from other lecturers, and is definitely something other lecturers can learn from. |
| 8. | - Usage of certain videos to explain some theories and ideas were really useful and interesting (i.e. gamification video) - Concepts are normally explained very clear and concise - Gives constructive feedback and advice |
| 9. | - |
| 10. | Able to break down complex concepts into smaller, easily understandable ones. Gives lots of examples through the use of videos, talks and pictures to compliment the understanding of these abstract concepts. Always approachable and patient in answering students' queries and questions. |
| 11. | Very engaging and interactive. |
| 12. | gives good feedback |
| 13. | Approachable |
| 14. | He is approachable for consultations, I like that he prints slides for us |
| 15. | very intriguing. the way he teaches is interesting, gets feedback from class often |
| 16. | Precise, helpful |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | Although thinking question allows student gain deeper knowledge, a question without solution may be a double edge sword causing student to understand the wrong way |
| 2. | - |
| 3. | For the groupings, we had a group number for proposal, a group number for presentation, and a group number for project. It is rather confusing at times. So might want to not use numbers for all of that. Perhaps numbers for proposal, alphabets for presentation, names for projects? So that it's somewhat clearer at times. |
| 4. | - Reduce the weightage (or even omit) the peer grading component of this module. I think the concerns of this have been voiced already but just to add, for the presentation week, my team was the last group to present. The time limit was explicitly stated in the module site, which all teams should adhere to. However, because there were 4 teams presenting and it was the first time, there were bound to be hiccups along the way. As such, my team's presentation ended a few minutes after lecture hours (even though it stuck within the specified time limit). After getting the finalized peer grades, the timing aspect was graded poorly in which I can only assume what I've mentioned earlier was the cause, which does not make sense since the team adhered to the time limit. I hope this can be reworked because there are students in this class who grade just for the sake of grading. - Could walk around the class whilst teaching. The back of the class is almost always noisy and I found the times he walk to the back of the class really effective in hushing those who are talking at the back. |
| 5. | - |
| 6. | Nil |
| 7. | Perhaps let us know in advance the milestones or deadlines for the project in the module. |
| 8. | Be less confusing regarding assignment requirements |
| 9. | - Should really set more iteration datelines for the project. |
| 10. | Nil! |
| 11. | Nil. |
| 12. | Teach more, provide better guidelines for the project. Take into consideration that student do have other modules to study for |
| 13. | none |
| 14. | Workload can be heavy, especially with the many presentations we have to make. Probably can do away with exams and make it 100% CA? Theories would be better learnt by applying them directly into our projects. |
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2012/2013 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module Code: | CS4249 | No of Nominations: | 5 |
| 1. | Spent a lot of effort |
| 2. | A really hardworking lecturer who gives feedback to his students and being very approachable. He goes beyond and even do video-recording of students lecture, uploads them onto youtube, for the benefit of the class to review for final examination. And he summarizes all the students' presentations, bridging the gap and linking all topics up for a bird-eye view of the HCI structure which really allowed students to understand the subject better. |
| 3. | Prof Kan is very dedicated and committed to teaching. He supports his students by providing constructive feedback. It's the effort he puts into delivering his classes, his transparent grading system, and him being there for his students that makes him the best candidate for this award. |
Loading... please wait.