| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2005/2006 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | DIGITAL LIBRARIES - CS5244 |
| Activity Type: | LECTURE |
| Class Size / Response Size / Response Rate : | 27 / 21 / 77.78% |
| 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. | 4.381 | 0.669 | 3.793 ( 4.106) | 3.780 ( 4.104) |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 4.286 | 0.717 | 3.767 ( 4.156) | 3.784 ( 4.131) |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 4.524 | 0.680 | 3.804 ( 4.242) | 3.822 ( 4.231) |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me advance my research (if applicable). | 4.188 | 0.655 | 3.600 ( 3.965) | 3.606 ( 3.954) |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 4.190 | 0.814 | 3.643 ( 4.094) | 3.653 ( 4.093) |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 4.238 | 0.700 | 3.814 ( 4.181) | 3.834 ( 4.182) |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 4.095 | 0.944 | 3.725 ( 4.019) | 3.728 ( 4.002) |
| Average of Qn 1-7 | 4.275 | 0.745 | 3.744 ( 4.114) | 3.753 ( 4.105) | |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 4.190 | 0.750 | 3.840 ( 4.176) | 3.847 ( 4.172) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 8 (38.10%) | 9 (42.86%) | 4 (19.05%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department | | | 156 (36.71%) | 206 (48.47%) | 51 (12.00%) | 6 (1.41%) | 6 (1.41%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty | | | 172 (35.61%) | 241 (49.90%) | 57 (11.80%) | 7 (1.45%) | 6 (1.24%) |
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 5000 ) 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 5000 ) within the faculty.
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2005/2006 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | DIGITAL LIBRARIES - CS5244 |
| Activity Type: | LECTURE |
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | To encourage thinking and participation from students. He is approachable. Demo and explains what is required for the assignment to help students understand better. |
| 2. | Approachable and knowledgeable. Course is well planned, and up to date. Humorous too. |
| 3. | Strong in research area. Serious in marking our assignments. Give very clear assessment guidelines. |
| 4. | Very approachable, helpful & understanding. |
| 5. | - Responsive to students questions. - Committed and eager to share knowledge |
| 6. | very nice and helpful. give feedback promptly. |
| 7. | encouraging and giving useful suggestions |
| 8. | good teaching..clear lecture notes. |
| 9. | N.A. |
| 10. | He always give timely and useful reply to our questions, and he give detailed feedback to our assignments/homeworks, we can learn a lot from that. |
| 11. | NA |
| 12. | Knowledge of covered topics Good presentations Sense of humour |
| 13. | explains concepts clearly and very approachable. |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | Some of the lecture notes are brief. The recommended text is very new and not readily available in the bookstores. Still do not understand some of the concepts. |
| 2. | Nil. |
| 3. | Nil |
| 4. | - Be focus on what you want to deliver. Sometimes, is good to try to share and impart as many knowledge to student as possible. But for digital library is too broad of a scope to achive everything. Should reduce the scope and either focus on IS or CS perspective. |
| 5. | better to control the progress of lectures. don't leave a part to next lecture every week. |
| 6. | nothing..already very good |
| 7. | N.A. |
| 8. | Maybe the percentage of the project can be reduced a little bit. |
| 9. | NA |
| 10. | I felt that the coffee break during the lecture was unnecessary. |
| 11. | lighten the load and explain things more in depth. |
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2005/2006 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module Code: | CS5244 | No of Nominations: | 7 |
| 1. | The lecturer have made a complex topic easy and interesting to learn. |
| 2. | He is very knowledgable, serious in his teaching. He spend very much of his time in marking student assignments and enourage student to do research. |
| 3. | We can really learn a lot from this module due to his friendly help. He give us timely and useful feedback/annotations not only to the questions we ask but also the homeworks/papers we sumbit. |