| Faculty Member: | ASHWIN NANJAPPA | ||
| Department: | DEAN'S OFFICE (SCHOOL OF COMPUTING) | Academic Year: | 2006/2007 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY (ENGINEERING ONLY) - CS1101C |
| Activity Type: | TUTORIAL |
| Class Size / Response Size / Response Rate : | 38 / 21 / 55.26% |
| 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. | 3.952 | 0.669 | 3.930 ( 3.982) | 3.933 ( 3.966) |
| 2 | The teacher provides timely and useful feedback. | 4.000 | 0.632 | 3.960 ( 4.000) | 3.987 ( 4.022) |
| 3 | The teacher is approachable for consultation. | 4.048 | 0.590 | 4.021 ( 4.077) | 4.044 ( 4.090) |
| 4 | The teacher has helped me develop relevant research skills.* | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 5 | The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. | 3.905 | 0.700 | 3.801 ( 3.823) | 3.807 ( 3.812) |
| 6 | The teacher has helped me acquire valuable/relevant knowledge in the field. | 4.048 | 0.590 | 3.927 ( 3.972) | 3.941 ( 3.972) |
| 7 | The teacher has helped me understand complex ideas. | 4.048 | 0.740 | 3.923 ( 3.977) | 3.919 ( 3.957) |
| Average of Qn 1-7 | 4.000 | 0.645 | 3.927 ( 3.971) | 3.938 ( 3.970) | |
| 8 | Overall the teacher is effective. | 4.048 | 0.669 | 3.986 ( 4.049) | 4.007 ( 4.057) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | | ||||||
Self | | | 5 (23.81%) | 12 (57.14%) | 4 (19.05%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Department | | | 341 (29.52%) | 590 (51.08%) | 176 (15.24%) | 36 (3.12%) | 12 (1.04%) |
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level within Faculty | | | 602 (26.29%) | 1291 (56.38%) | 336 (14.67%) | 47 (2.05%) | 14 (.61%) |
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 1000 ) 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 1000 ) within the faculty.
| Faculty Member: | ASHWIN NANJAPPA | ||
| Department: | DEAN'S OFFICE (SCHOOL OF COMPUTING) | Academic Year: | 2006/2007 |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY (ENGINEERING ONLY) - CS1101C |
| Activity Type: | TUTORIAL |
| Q9 | What are the teacher's strengths? |
| 1. | Clear in explanations. Approachable. |
| 2. | good english accent. eager to pass his knowledge and helps students whenevr they need help |
| 3. | Patient and approachable. |
| 4. | he is willinng to go through all the qns in the tut with the class patiently. |
| 5. | go thru step by step and in detail! |
| 6. | carefully and patient to student. Provide additional knowledge to student. |
| 7. | patient for our questions, and emails back to me on my doubts quite timely. thanks a lot |
| 8. | earnest |
| 9. | He likes to befriend his students and motivates them to participate in class. |
| Q10 | What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? |
| 1. | No comments |
| 2. | no improvement. hes perfect |
| 3. | Need to be more clear in his explanation such as providing specific examples. |
| 4. | be louder and perhaps more time given to give overview of the chapter |
| 5. | speak slowly.. |
| 6. | How about be more strict to the tutorial class? |
| 7. | can you speak a bit louder and more slowy? |
| 8. | he is ok |