STUDENTS' RATINGS ON TEACHER

Transcription

1 STUDENTS' RATINGS ON TEACHER Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN Module: Activity Type: DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS I CS1020 LABORATORY Class Size/Response Size/Response Rate : 21 / 14 / 66.67% Contact Session/Teaching Hour : 11 / 22 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 ( 3.894) ( 3.894) 2 The teacher has increased my interest in the subject ( 3.761) ( 3.761) 3 The teacher provided timely and useful feedback ( 4.043) ( 4.043) 4 The teacher has enhanced my ability to communicate the subject material. 5 The teacher's attitude and approach encouraged me to think and work in a creative and independent way. 6 The teacher cares about student development and learning ( 3.864) NA (NA) ( 3.870) NA (NA) ( 3.988) NA (NA) Average Q1 to Q ( 3.903) NA (NA) Computed Overall Effectiveness of the Teacher ( 3.947) ( 3.947) Notes: 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 1000 ) 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 1000 ) within the faculty.

2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ON TEACHER Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN Module: DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS I CS1020 Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 1: The teacher has enhanced my thinking ability.) Self Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) ITEM\SCORE Self 10 (71.43%) 4 (28.57%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%) Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same level within Department 80 (24.17%) 155 (46.83%) 81 (24.47%) 11 (3.32%) 4 (1.21%) Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same level within Faculty 80 (24.17%) 155 (46.83%) 81 (24.47%) 11 (3.32%) 4 (1.21%)

3 Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 2: The teacher has increased my interest in the subject.) Self Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) ITEM\SCORE Self 8 (57.14%) 6 (42.86%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%) Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same level within Department 71 (21.45%) 137 (41.39%) 102 (30.82%) 15 (4.53%) 6 (1.81%) Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same level within Faculty 71 (21.45%) 137 (41.39%) 102 (30.82%) 15 (4.53%) 6 (1.81%)

4 Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 3: The teacher provided timely and useful feedback.) Self Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) ITEM\SCORE Self 11 (78.57%) 3 (21.43%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%) Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same level within Department 99 (30.09%) 162 (49.24%) 54 (16.41%) 11 (3.34%) 3 (.91%) Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same level within Faculty 99 (30.09%) 162 (49.24%) 54 (16.41%) 11 (3.34%) 3 (.91%)

5 STUDENTS' COMMENTS ON TEACHER Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN Module: DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS I CS1020 Activity Type: LABORATORY What are the teacher's strengths? (11 comments) Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher 1. Commitment and pure passion in programming. Ability to command attention in class is very helpful as too many side conversations are really disturbing. Ivan helped me a lot outside of the school hours during his many help sessions and personal interactions. 2. Extremely knowledgable and brain works extremely fast. Able to answer every question posted to him within a second of thought. Very good in drawing links between lecture topics and summarising. Extremely helpful and approachable. 3. He does not only teach the students how to do the questions, but also explains the fundamental so the students know what is exactly going on and why. While Ivan spends at least 1 hour and 40 minutes each lab, I have heard from people of other lab groups whose TA only spent 40 minutes for the lab (while my friend in the group were in total loss). I do not know the policies regarding TAs, maybe they are free to do it as they see fit; and I totally respect their opinions, but my main point is that the 2 hours (or 1 and 40 minutes) can be used to clarify a lot of concepts so why not utilise it? And as a student who is not strong and unfamiliar with programming, I believe sometimes the students are not even aware of what they don't know/ their misconceptions so the TAs play an important role in this; considering the lab is for 2 hours while the tutorials are only 1 hour long, placing the TA in a better positions than the tutors to address this. I also noticed when other TAs marked my sit in labs, the expectations are not as high and the comments not as detailed. I actually feel lucky to be in my lab group. Thanks for everything. 4. He is very passionate about teaching the students and would always organise help sessions, extending even to those not in his lab. These help sessions are always very helpful in clearing up any conceptual errors I might have. 5. Ivan is very passionate in teaching and always tries his best to ensure that we understand what has been taught. I am really thankful for his help sessions which truly helped me alot. He is very approachable and never fails to turn us down whenever we needed help. 6. Ivan provides help sessions, allowing us to ask question as well as learn new concepts. This helps weaker students "connect the dots" and bridge the gap from the 1010 to 1020 jump. His help sessions helps in building confidence. He is very willing to hepl student whenever they have questions. He is also very active on forums. 7. Shows different ways to solve a programming problem 8. friendly he can be found everywhere 9. very helpful tutor, also provides a lot of constructive feedback. approachable Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal 4.0 and less than 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher 1. Goes beyond the boundaries to teach us more stuffs. 2. Passionate and always like to hold addition help sessions for students

6 What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? (7 comments) Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal 4.0 and less than 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher 1. Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher More examples would be good 3. NIL 4. Perhaps you could speak a little slower, sometimes it is difficult to catch each word. 5. Sometimes while going through the review for take home/sit in lab, is would be better the draw diagram and show step by step problem, especially for tricky parts of the codes. Perhaps also emphasis on things to take note of for students. 6. Towards the later phase, he seems to make more minor mistakes during teaching. Though they are not severe, it will be worrying if this implies that his mind is constantly troubled (just my guess). Perhaps it helps if he slows down a bit/ gets more rest. All the best!

7 STUDENTS' RATINGS ON TEACHER Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN Module: Activity Type: COMPUTER ORGANISATION CS2100 TUTORIAL Class Size/Response Size/Response Rate : 31 / 14 / 45.16% Contact Session/Teaching Hour : 22 / 22 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 ( 3.946) ( 3.877) 2 The teacher has increased my interest in the subject ( 3.848) ( 3.780) 3 The teacher provided timely and useful feedback ( 3.988) ( 3.897) 4 The teacher has enhanced my ability to communicate the subject material. 5 The teacher's attitude and approach encouraged me to think and work in a creative and independent way. 6 The teacher cares about student development and learning ( 3.938) NA (NA) ( 3.872) NA (NA) ( 3.968) NA (NA) Average Q1 to Q ( 3.927) NA (NA) Computed Overall Effectiveness of the Teacher ( 3.983) ( 3.909) Notes: 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 2000 ) 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 2000 ) within the faculty.

8 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ON TEACHER Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN Module: COMPUTER ORGANISATION CS2100 Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 1: The teacher has enhanced my thinking ability.) Self Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) ITEM\SCORE Self 6 (42.86%) 8 (57.14%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%) Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Department 166 (27.99%) 276 (46.54%) 115 (19.39%) 25 (4.22%) 11 (1.85%) Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Faculty 182 (26.34%) 306 (44.28%) 154 (22.29%) 34 (4.92%) 15 (2.17%)

9 Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 2: The teacher has increased my interest in the subject.) Self Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) ITEM\SCORE Self 4 (28.57%) 9 (64.29%) 1 (7.14%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%) Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Department 155 (26.14%) 250 (42.16%) 146 (24.62%) 27 (4.55%) 15 (2.53%) Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Faculty 170 (24.60%) 274 (39.65%) 191 (27.64%) 37 (5.35%) 19 (2.75%)

10 Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 3: The teacher provided timely and useful feedback.) Self Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) ITEM\SCORE Self 8 (57.14%) 5 (35.71%) 1 (7.14%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%) Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Department 179 (30.34%) 264 (44.75%) 116 (19.66%) 23 (3.90%) 8 (1.36%) Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Faculty 197 (28.51%) 286 (41.39%) 162 (23.44%) 32 (4.63%) 14 (2.03%)

11 STUDENTS' COMMENTS ON TEACHER Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN Module: COMPUTER ORGANISATION CS2100 Activity Type: TUTORIAL What are the teacher's strengths? (11 comments) Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher 1. Engaging! 2. He has strong foundation of his concepts and goes the extra mile to ensure that we learn and understand. 3. Ivan is really engaging and friendly and cares a lot about his students! Best tutor so far!! :D 4. Knows his concepts well 5. Takes great effort to explain concepts with help of additional prepared materials by himself Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal 4.0 and less than 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher 1. He is good at explanation and he is passionate about teaching. 2. He knows his work very well. He is able to provide instant reply in terms of the questions students have asked. 3. Passionate and knowledgeable about the topics, followed up on queries in class 4. patient; well prepared; able to provide a rather clear and big picture of how things learned in the course are interrelated 5. will give a brief summary at first which is good as able to clear some misconceptions or help us remember some points if we forget in the lecture. teaches clearly as well and helpful in terms of answering the class when we have questions. Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal 3.5 and less than 4.0 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher 1. The TA is very clear in his explanations, and provides alternative ways for us to understand the material What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? (4 comments) Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal 4.0 and less than 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher NA Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher

12 1. Better inclusivity and perception of all students 2. NIL

13 STUDENTS' NOMINATIONS FOR BEST TEACHING Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN Module Code: CS2100 No of Nominations: 2 1. very passionate about teaching! best tutor ever! 2. He goes the extra mile beyond what is required of him as a teaching assistant, ensuring that we understand the fundamentals even during his own time when he is rushing for his final year project. His dedication for teaching is obvious every effort he puts in. Module Code: CS1020 No of Nominations: 5 1. smart, friendly, helpful and always available. very cool also 2. He has held numerous help sessions to help the weaker students. The sessions are held at the expense of his own free time. When he is in COM1, the students would approach him and ask for help in regards to take home labs or upcoming sit in labs and he is always willing to help and offer advises. All these are despite the fact that he has his own commitments which include FYP. I, myself, has learned a lot from him. During the recess week, he even made met me at Pasir Ris as I have doubts to clarify in regards to past year mid term papers. 3. Ivan is a very passionate tutor whom never fails to help his students whenever we approach him. Furthermore, despite of his busy schedule, he still made time and effort to hold help sessions for us to clarify our doubts and to ensure that we really understand the topic. He also never fails to motivate us for our lab tests. 4. He is always ready to help and he adds extra sessions to help weaker students. He is very approachable. He has profound knowledge regarding data structure 5. He really is a good teacher, that is able to explain concepts easily to the students. He makes coding concepts easy to digest. Also, he would always spare the time to organize help sessions for the students.