| TEACHER PERFORMANCE REPORT |
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2014/2015 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | INDEPENDENT WORK - CP3108B | ||
| Activity Type: | LECTURE | ||
| Class Size/Response Size/Response Rate : | 179 / 111 / 62.01% |
| Contact Session/Teaching Hour : | 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. | 4.225 | 0.064 | 4.186 ( 4.225) | 4.165 ( 4.134) |
| 2 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 4.225 | 0.069 | 4.161 ( 4.225) | 4.040 ( 4.034) |
| 3 | The teacher provided timely and useful feedback. | 4.209 | 0.068 | 4.171 ( 4.209) | 4.081 ( 4.088) |
| Average Q1 to Q3 | 4.220 | 0.061 | 4.173 ( 4.220) | NA (NA) | |
| Computed Overall Effectiveness of the Teacher. | 4.276 | 0.059 | 4.230 ( 4.276) | 4.160 ( 4.147) |
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 (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: | 2014/2015 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | INDEPENDENT WORK - CP3108B | ||
Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 1: The teacher has enhanced my thinking ability.)
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 40 (36.04%) | 56 (50.45%) | 15 (13.51%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department | | | 40 (36.04%) | 56 (50.45%) | 15 (13.51%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty | | | 290 (36.99%) | 347 (44.26%) | 120 (15.31%) | 16 (2.04%) | 11 (1.40%) |
Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 2: The teacher has increased my interest in the subject.)
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 43 (38.74%) | 51 (45.95%) | 16 (14.41%) | 1 (.90%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department | | | 43 (38.74%) | 51 (45.95%) | 16 (14.41%) | 1 (.90%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty | | | 283 (36.10%) | 312 (39.80%) | 136 (17.35%) | 39 (4.97%) | 14 (1.79%) |
Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 3: The teacher provided timely and useful feedback.)
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 42 (38.18%) | 49 (44.55%) | 19 (17.27%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Department | | | 42 (38.18%) | 49 (44.55%) | 19 (17.27%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within Faculty | | | 285 (36.87%) | 312 (40.36%) | 146 (18.89%) | 19 (2.46%) | 11 (1.42%) |
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2014/2015 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | INDEPENDENT WORK - CP3108B | ||
| Activity Type: | LECTURE | ||
What are the teacher's strengths? (60 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. Clear, informative. | |
| 2. Coming up with interesting modules like Orbital for Year 1 students. Organize the lecture plans very effectively to support independent learning. | |
| 3. Encourages self-learning, interacts with students very actively, answers students' doubts promptly. | |
| 4. Experienced | |
| 5. Friendly and able to provide timely feedback. | |
| 6. Gives prompt replies to question | |
| 7. He is encouraging and understanding. He is able to raise my interest in software development. | |
| 8. He's webcasts are quite clear and I can understand those concepts very well | |
| 9. Knowledgeable, amicable and easy to approach. | |
| 10. NIL | |
| 11. Open-minded | |
| 12. Provided us with enough information to get us started, and provided a good platform and structure for us to learn on our own and help when we need it | |
| 13. Provides help to students about the course requirements | |
| 14. Really dedicated to the program and also gives great workshops! In regards to the tutor who was in charged of my team, he was really great! Really really awesome! He gave very good feedback to help us improve our website and various help when he suggest improvements etc. | |
| 15. Really patient and nice, like unbelievably nice. | |
| 16. Responsible | |
| 17. The teacher provided timely and helpful feedback to us. The weekly sessions held by the lecturer is also very helpful. | |
| 18. Uses many platform for us to learn and gather information. | |
| 19. arranged structured courses and very responsible | |
| 20. explanation was easily understand | |
| 21. humorous | |
| 22. s | |
| 23. very nice and approachable for consulting. He is quite responsible for each student and provide us with newly updates. | |
| 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. - | |
| 2. - | |
| 3. Able to answer student queries | |
| 4. Allows students to understand the basic requirement of the module | |
| 5. Encourages personal development and exploration | |
| 6. Engaging and concise in his lectures. Able to deliver what he wants without exceeding the time limit. | |
| 7. Funny and encouraging. | |
| 8. Good explanations. Clear speaker. | |
| 9. Good teaching, approachable | |
| 10. He is clear in his explanations | |
| 11. He is helpful and very quick in answering our doubts. | |
| 12. He is passionate about teaching students about the practical applications of computing. | |
| 13. He is very patient and has a good sense of humor. | |
| 14. Instructions are always well relayed. | |
| 15. Interesting way of lectures | |
| 16. NIL | |
| 17. Prof Min followed up regularly on the project and ensured that everything proceeded smoothly. | |
| 18. Teaches well. | |
| 19. be very responsible to this student project, taking care of almost all the things that related. | |
| 20. energetic and humorous | |
| 21. friendly and approachable. | |
| 22. good delivery | |
| 23. provide good course structure. | |
| 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. Content is presented clearly and easy to follow | |
| 2. Great organization for the programme, easy to approach by using Piazza | |
| 3. He is friendly and gives appropriate advice when we have questions. | |
| 4. He takes an effort to make his workshops topic interesting. | |
| 5. Professional | |
| 6. The mission control sessions were good. | |
| 7. This was a self-learning module. He was very helpful to those people who need help. | |
| 8. Tone and pace of speaking was good. | |
| Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal 3.0 and less than 3.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher | |
| 1. - | |
| 2. - | |
| 3. Dry sense of humour was greatly appreciated | |
| 4. Friendly. | |
| 5. integrate multiple pedagical methods; encourage creativity and innovation | |
| Comments from students who gave an average score less than 3.0 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher | |
| 1. He is very enthusiastic and very engaging. |
What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? (45 comments) | |
| Comments from students who gave an average score less than 3.0 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher | |
| 1. Perhaps more time could be spent on focusing on work instead of prep-talking his students. | |
| Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal 3.0 and less than 3.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher | |
| 1. - | |
| 2. - | |
| 3. Nothing. | |
| 4. Try to keep track of the advisers' progress and not give them complete free rein over their mentees | |
| 5. keep better track of studnets' performance | |
| 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. - | |
| 2. Better teaching materials to cater to slower students | |
| 3. He's a good lecturer. | |
| 4. Lecture styled python course could be better managed in tutorial format. | |
| 5. Nil. | |
| 6. Please provide more feedback from your side. | |
| 7. nil | |
| 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. - | |
| 2. - | |
| 3. - | |
| 4. - | |
| 5. - | |
| 6. Could have covered more areas in the syllabus? | |
| 7. Could have had more sessions in the midst of summer? | |
| 8. More in depth materials | |
| 9. NA | |
| 10. NIL | |
| 11. None | |
| 12. Not sure | |
| 13. Nothing | |
| 14. Too much content for students to process in such a short period. Have breaks in between. | |
| 15. good enough | |
| 16. nil | |
| 17. nothing much to say. This module relied heavily on independent work so his level participation was apt. | |
| Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher | |
| 1. - | |
| 2. - | |
| 3. Keep being awesome. | |
| 4. N.A | |
| 5. NA | |
| 6. NIL | |
| 7. None. | |
| 8. Nothing | |
| 9. Very good already. | |
| 10. could have cover the materials more in-depth | |
| 11. nil | |
| 12. nil | |
| 13. nil | |
| 14. nil | |
| 15. s |
| Faculty Member: | KAN MIN-YEN | ||
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Academic Year: | 2014/2015 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 1 |
| Module Code: | CP3108B | No of Nominations: | 3 |
| 1. | Bold initiative to level up students to measure up against rival schools. Thank you for providing the opportunity for us to build something, which I otherwise would have found an extreme bore and chore to do. |
| 2. | Good at explanation and explains well. Also provided important feedback on time, evaluation on time and well managed course |
© 2015 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved. For inquiries, please email to: ccence@nus.edu.sg