Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

0

Share

Download to read offline

NUS Teaching Assistant Feedback: CS1010E (Andre Lim)

Download to read offline

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to like this

NUS Teaching Assistant Feedback: CS1010E (Andre Lim)

  1. 1. Faculty Member: LIM PEK KHING ANDRE Department: COMPUTING & ENGINEERING Academic Year: 2015/2016 Faculty: JOINT MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PROGRAMMES Semester: 1 Module: PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY - CS1010E Activity Type: LABORATORY Class Size/Response Size/Response Rate : 39 / 20 / 51.28% Contact Session/Teaching Hour : 11 / 22 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. 4.300 0.128 4.112 ( 4.131) 4.112 ( 4.131) 2 The teacher has increased my interest in the subject. 4.300 0.164 3.999 ( 4.007) 3.999 ( 4.007) 3 The teacher provided timely and useful feedback. 4.350 0.182 4.223 ( 4.250) 4.223 ( 4.250) 4 The teacher has enhanced my ability to communicate the subject material. 4.300 0.147 4.053 ( 4.064) NA (NA) 5 The teacher's attitude and approach encouraged me to think and work in a creative and independent way. 4.250 0.143 4.059 ( 4.079) NA (NA) 6 The teacher cares about student development and learning. 4.500 0.136 4.147 ( 4.172) NA (NA) Average Q1 to Q6 4.333 0.134 4.099 ( 4.117) NA (NA) Computed Overall Effectiveness of 4.367 0.132 4.160 ( 4.178) 4.160 ( 4.178)
  2. 2. the Teacher. 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 (Laboratory) within the department. (b) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory), at the same module level ( level 1000 ) within the department. 5. Fac. Avg Score : (c) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory) within the faculty. (d) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory), at the same module level ( level 1000 ) within the faculty. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ON TEACHER Faculty Member: LIM PEK KHING ANDRE Department: COMPUTING & ENGINEERING Academic Year: 2015/2016 Faculty: JOINT MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PROGRAMMES Semester: 1 Module: PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY - CS1010E Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 1: The teacher has enhanced my thinking ability.) Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) | ITEMSCORE | 5 4 3 2 1 | Self | 7 (35.00%) 12 (60.00%) 1 (5.00%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%) Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same level within Department | 385 (33.80%) 553 (48.55%) 175 (15.36%) 17 (1.49%) 9 (.79%) Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type | 385 (33.80%) 553 (48.55%) 175 (15.36%) 17 (1.49%) 9 (.79%)
  3. 3. (Laboratory), at the same level within Faculty Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 2: The teacher has increased my interest in the subject.) Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) | ITEMSCORE | 5 4 3 2 1 | Self | 9 (45.00%) 8 (40.00%) 3 (15.00%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%) Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same level within Department | 342 (30.08%) 503 (44.24%) 257 (22.60%) 28 (2.46%) 7 (.62%) Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same level within Faculty | 342 (30.08%) 503 (44.24%) 257 (22.60%) 28 (2.46%) 7 (.62%) Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 3: The teacher provided timely and useful feedback.) Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) | ITEMSCORE | 5 4 3 2 1 | Self | 11 (55.00%) 5 (25.00%) 4 (20.00%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%) Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same level within Department | 489 (43.01%) 472 (41.51%) 155 (13.63%) 13 (1.14%) 8 (.70%) Teachers | 489 (43.01%) 472 (41.51%) 155 (13.63%) 13 (1.14%) 8 (.70%)
  4. 4. teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same level within Faculty STUDENTS' COMMENTS ON TEACHER Faculty Member: LIM PEK KHING ANDRE Department: COMPUTING & ENGINEERING Academic Year: 2015/2016 Faculty: JOINT MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PROGRAMMES Semester: 1 Module: PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY - CS1010E Activity Type: LABORATORY What are the teacher's strengths? (9 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. Caring :) 2. Helpful and approachable 3. Really helpful and helps to augment improvements to codes. 4. clear and responsible Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.0 and less than 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher 1. Set time limit so that students are trained to complete lab within a certain time limit and at the same time prevent students from being stuck at certain levels for too long. 2. draws diagrams to help students understand Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 3.5 and less than 4.0 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher 1. - 2. Nice and friendly person :) Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 3.0 and less than 3.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher 1. nil What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? (7 comments) Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 3.0 and less
  5. 5. than 3.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher 1. nil Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 3.5 and less than 4.0 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher 1. - Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.0 and less than 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher 1. NIL Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher 1. Maybe do a summary during labs? 2. NA 3. more instructions to public rather than individuals thus can save time 4. nil

Views

Total views

442

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

25

Actions

Downloads

2

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×