| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2005/2006 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | FOUNDATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - CS3243 |
| Activity Type: | LECTURE |
| Class Size / Response Size / Response Rate : | 40 / 30 / 75% |
| 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. | 4.100 | 0.662 | 3.790 ( 3.702) | 3.787 ( 3.776) |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 4.000 | 0.743 | 3.784 ( 3.691) | 3.807 ( 3.813) |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 4.310 | 0.712 | 3.852 ( 3.789) | 3.864 ( 3.894) |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me advance my research (if applicable). | 3.938 | 0.680 | 3.586 ( 3.597) | 3.623 ( 3.746) |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 3.967 | 0.928 | 3.637 ( 3.620) | 3.662 ( 3.672) |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 4.133 | 0.629 | 3.811 ( 3.757) | 3.840 ( 3.816) |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 4.167 | 0.699 | 3.741 ( 3.654) | 3.745 ( 3.726) |
| Average of Qn 1-7 | 4.097 | 0.729 | 3.754 ( 3.693) | 3.770 ( 3.779) | |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 4.133 | 0.681 | 3.841 ( 3.720) | 3.857 ( 3.807) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 9 (30.00%) | 16 (53.33%) | 5 (16.67%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department | | | 78 (13.73%) | 304 (53.52%) | 145 (25.53%) | 31 (5.46%) | 10 (1.76%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty | | | 188 (17.50%) | 580 (54.00%) | 237 (22.07%) | 49 (4.56%) | 20 (1.86%) |
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 3000 ) 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 3000 ) within the faculty.
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2005/2006 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | FOUNDATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - CS3243 |
| Activity Type: | LECTURE |
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | Organized, gives interresting assignments, good lecturer |
| 2. | He is kind and always approach for consultation. |
| 3. | Patient and nice to students. He remember every student's name, which makes students feel more involved in class. |
| 4. | Knows his stuff. |
| 5. | He explains problem carefully. |
| 6. | - |
| 7. | Provides detailed lecture notes and tutorial questions, that clearly illustrates concepts taught in the course. Dr Kan is also an accomodating and understanding lecturer. He is very open and helpful towards his students. |
| 8. | Very knowledgable |
| 9. | Interesting lectures. |
| 10. | patiend, learned, friendly, |
| 11. | KAN MIN-YEN is a great lecturer. i enjoy his lectures and tutorials |
| 12. | Easy to appoarch and asking question which at least make me wake up in early lecture |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | For the prolog assignment, I hope he can provide more details about how the problem will be applied in prolog. Since I have very little knowlegde about prolog and had a very hard time to do it better although I have searched and read many tutorial but can not get how to do it, finally I just did my best but it is not very satisfiable. I hope that he will help students to be more confident in the exam instead of scare them. |
| 2. | To explain complex ideas using a clearer and more effective approach |
| 3. | Algorithms which are the core of this module should be better explained and also code implementations should be given not just pseudocode. |
| 4. | Nothing.He is as he used to be is very good. |
| 5. | Tends to rush during long lectures, making it harder to understand the topics. |
| 6. | None. |
| 7. | It is too difficult to comprehend A.I. concepts at eight in the morning. Hopefully subsequent batches will not suffer the same fate. |
| 8. | Give more instructions and helping materials for the projects. |
| 9. | none |
| 10. | If able ... i hope can make the lecture at 9am+ ... because 8am ... feel too hard for second year or third year to go lecture ... |
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2005/2006 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | FOUNDATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - CS3243 |
| Activity Type: | TUTORIAL |
| Class Size / Response Size / Response Rate : | 35 / 28 / 80% |
| 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. | 4.107 | 0.685 | 3.981 ( 3.828) | 3.917 ( 3.773) |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 3.929 | 0.604 | 3.991 ( 3.808) | 3.964 ( 3.803) |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 4.259 | 0.656 | 4.043 ( 3.866) | 4.023 ( 3.832) |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me advance my research (if applicable). | 3.923 | 0.641 | 3.757 ( 3.650) | 3.756 ( 3.682) |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 3.929 | 0.900 | 3.807 ( 3.688) | 3.761 ( 3.642) |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 4.107 | 0.737 | 3.960 ( 3.801) | 3.912 ( 3.763) |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 4.036 | 0.744 | 3.969 ( 3.766) | 3.897 ( 3.731) |
| Average of Qn 1-7 | 4.050 | 0.719 | 3.943 ( 3.781) | 3.899 ( 3.751) | |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 4.071 | 0.663 | 4.030 ( 3.830) | 3.981 ( 3.791) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 7 (25.00%) | 16 (57.14%) | 5 (17.86%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Department | | | 88 (15.91%) | 321 (58.05%) | 113 (20.43%) | 24 (4.34%) | 7 (1.27%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Faculty | | | 181 (15.63%) | 645 (55.70%) | 262 (22.63%) | 49 (4.23%) | 21 (1.81%) |
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: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2005/2006 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | FOUNDATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - CS3243 |
| Activity Type: | TUTORIAL |
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | none |
| 2. | Knowledgeable. |
| 3. | In tutorial hours, all the questions are explained carefully. The way he teachs can make students all understand. |
| 4. | Always answers students' queries. |
| 5. | Give a very good explaination for tutorial questions which i felt its very important for me. |
| 6. | Providing solutions before the tutorial enables students to look through the steps before the tutorial and aids understanding during the tutorial itself. |
| 7. | Excellent instructional teaching for tutorial. |
| 8. | patiend, learned, friendly, |
| 9. | KAN MIN-YEN is a great lecturer. i enjoy his lectures and tutorials |
| 10. | Asking question ... and give us very good discuss make me understand clear about the tutorial eventhough sometime i forget to do my homework |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | none |
| 2. | Speak more slowly. |
| 3. | Nothing. |
| 4. | Need to speak up louder during tutorials. Often, due to accentation and volume, one may find it hard to catch what he is saying if seated nearer the back of the classroom. |
| 5. | It would have been better if prolog was taught to a higher depth before doing assignment 2, as i have no idea on how to do assignment 2 at all. |
| 6. | Very good enough |
| 7. | none |
| 8. | Should have some short question about prolog ... too much for me to tackle it down by myself because the capability of this program i am very unsure |
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2005/2006 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module Code: | CS3243 | No of Nominations: | 8 |
| 1. | Really made the course interesting with the fun homework assignments, gave feedback on homework which was very nice, and rare compared to other courses. Very good lecturer |
| 2. | he rock ... .... i feel like a university environment .. |