| Urbanski Chloe Spring 2017, 01:640:351:01 — INTRO ABSTR ALGEB I (index #02847) Enrollment= 22, Responses= 9 Part A: University-wide Questions: |
Student Responses | Weighted Means | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strong Disagree 1 |
Strong Agree 5 |
No response |
Section | Course | Level | Dept | ||||
| 1. The instructor was prepared for class and presented the material in an organized manner. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4.50 | 4.41 | 4.42 | 4.40 |
| 2. The instructor responded effectively to student comments and questions. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 4.75 | 4.63 | 4.41 | 4.29 |
| 3. The instructor generated interest in the course material. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4.50 | 4.28 | 4.22 | 4.14 |
| 4. The instructor had a positive attitude toward assisting all students in understanding course material. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 4.63 | 4.75 | 4.52 | 4.39 |
| 5. The instructor assigned grades fairly. | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4.20 | 4.38 | 4.25 | 4.23 |
| 6. The instructional methods encouraged student learning. | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 4.38 | 4.09 | 4.11 | 4.09 |
| 7. I learned a great deal in this course. | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 4.50 | 4.25 | 4.29 | 4.14 |
| 8. I had a strong prior interest in the subject matter and wanted to take this course. | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4.13 | 3.84 | 3.99 | 3.63 |
| Poor | Excellent | |||||||||
| 9. I rate the teaching effectiveness of the instructor as: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 4.67 | 4.32 | 4.21 | 4.13 |
| 10. I rate the overall quality of the course as: | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 4.56 | 4.06 | 4.12 | 4.02 |
What do you like best about this course?:
The workshop recitations with Chloe are the best part because we get in class time to work with material amongst peers
I loved the workshops. Working in groups to solve problems, especially with the guided packets, really helped develop understanding of the material.
I liked that the problems we were assigned during workshops complemented the lecture material well, and didn't mimic the homework problems too closely. I liked that each workshop had a "theme" or "goal" (sometimes more than one). The workshop problems were not unrelated (which would have been dry and boring), but instead built to an interesting conclusion or conclusions.
She explains the problem explicitly
If you were teaching this course, what would you do differently?:
I would have preferred our workshops to be graded. It would give me incentive to complete it and also would give me feedback on where I am going wrong or what I am doing right
The workshops are fine
I would provide a bit more structure / guidance within the workshops, just to help when we get stuck on a problem and can't move on.
Nothing.
In what ways, if any, has this course or the instructor encouraged your intellectual growth and progress?:
She explains things in alternate ways in an effort to help understanding if confusion came out of the lecture periods
Chloe very carefully and expertly guided us in the direction of a correct proof when we found ourselves stuck, but she did so without simply handing us the answer. This is a key part of the learning process that Chloe clearly understands.
Other comments or suggestions::
Chloe is a great instructor
Workshops were really helpful in this course and would definitely work in other courses, ESPECIALLY Math 300, where we're first learning to write proofs and make arguments.
Chloe was always professional, affable, on time, enthusiastic, very knowledgeable, and responded quickly to e-mails. She was easily the best TA I have ever had for any course in any subject area. I am not exaggerating.
Chloe is approachable and willing to help/answer questions.