| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2006/2007 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | TEXT PROCESSING ON THE WEB - CS5246 |
| Activity Type: | LECTURE |
| Class Size / Response Size / Response Rate : | 25 / 18 / 72% |
| 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. | 4.278 | 0.826 | 3.889 ( 4.061) | 3.872 ( 4.058) |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 4.278 | 0.895 | 3.905 ( 4.078) | 3.900 ( 4.034) |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 4.167 | 0.924 | 3.941 ( 4.140) | 3.949 ( 4.097) |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me develop relevant research skills.* | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 4.333 | 0.840 | 3.776 ( 3.975) | 3.765 ( 3.977) |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 4.278 | 0.826 | 3.916 ( 4.025) | 3.921 ( 4.044) |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 4.333 | 0.840 | 3.849 ( 3.978) | 3.832 ( 3.904) |
| Average of Qn 1-7** | 4.278 | 0.841 | 3.879 ( 4.043) | 3.873 ( 4.019) | |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 4.278 | 0.826 | 3.948 ( 4.086) | 3.948 ( 4.086) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 8 (44.44%) | 8 (44.44%) | 1 (5.56%) | 1 (5.56%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department | | | 92 (25.63%) | 216 (60.17%) | 42 (11.70%) | 8 (2.23%) | 1 (.28%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty | | | 170 (26.48%) | 380 (59.19%) | 72 (11.21%) | 17 (2.65%) | 3 (.47%) |
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: | 2006/2007 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | TEXT PROCESSING ON THE WEB - CS5246 |
| Activity Type: | LECTURE |
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | Knowledge and geniune interest in the subject. Very concerned about whether the students are learning. |
| 2. | Very focused. He is able to crystalise the concepts. |
| 3. | 1. Speaks Clearly and concisely. 2. Explains concepts well 3. One of the best in explaining concepts so far. 4. Explains the history behind the concepts, thereby making it clearer 5. Very timely. |
| 4. | The teacher is quite resourceful and helpful. |
| 5. | I think the teacher has very broad knowledge. He can answer every question I asked. Really excellent. And, he is quite nice and alway encourage his students. |
| 6. | clear explanation to illustrate an abstract theory using comprehensible examples |
| 7. | nice and knowledgeable |
| 8. | Professor Encourages student to discuss the new ideas and new technology. Professor has good command over his vocabulary. Professor is very punctual about the time. Professor do allow us to just walk into his office to discuss the doubts and ideas regarding the subject. Professor has very good knowledge of subject. The best thing is Professor take immediate action based on student's appropriate request/suggestion. Professor is very perfect in creating the lecture slides and even the project procedures. I can say Professor is very organize person. Professor has made perfect material for the course. |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | More explainatory notes. |
| 2. | 1. Be more approachable. Smile more :) |
| 3. | speak a little louder and slower. |
| 4. | Actaully it is really difficult to give suggestions to Min. If there must be a suggestion, I wish the course could focus on some contents and give deep explanations, rather give shallow introductions to many contents. |
| 5. | enrich the content of the lecture |
| 6. | although tutorial questions are open-ended, it's better to give some detailed explaination. |
| 7. | Though it is good to be punctual about the timely submission of assignments but it would be great if we do have some compensation policy for student in case they suffer from some penalty due to some late submission. But I am not very sure on my view. Sometime it looks that such penalty are good to make student aware of importance of time and in future it can be of great help to student. |
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2006/2007 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module Code: | CS5246 | No of Nominations: | 6 |
| 1. | This is my second class from this lecturer. My first was Digital Libraries. The reason i want to nominate him is that he explains concepts clearly and concisely. He articulates well, therefore its easier to catch what he means. Moreover, i can see the passion that he has in the subject matter. He is able to demonstrate his knowledge in the subject matter and more importantly create interest. Lastly, for every topic, he always leaves us with questions that has not yet been answered by the research community. This allows us, students to know where we can go and what is yet to be done. Sometimes, the questions are more important than the answers. |
| 2. | Though the paper was tough, this is easily the best paper that I have taken so far. The teaching / subject knowledge of the proff was excellent. |
| 3. | This teacher is very resourceful and responsible. |
| 4. | Professor is very co-operative, friendly, intelligent and Nobel. Professor is very much dedicated to his work. |