This document contains student evaluations of a course taught by Dr. T. Muka. Overall, the evaluations were very positive. Students praised Dr. Muka for being clear and enthusiastic in his explanations, for being accessible outside of class, and for providing quality feedback. A few areas for improvement were identified, such as ensuring teaching assistants are effective, avoiding mistakes in slides, and making computer practical sessions work properly. Most students said there was nothing that needed improving in Dr. Muka's teaching effectiveness.

1. 6
Scores were: strongly disagree 1 □ □ □ □ □ 5 strongly agree
Faculty/Instructors
1. T. Muka, MD PhD Average Standard Deviation
Set high expectations. 3,65 0,92
Effectively managed the class discussion. 3,96 0,82
Was responsive to students' concerns. 4,30 0,71
Was accessible to students outside of class. 4,28 0,73
Provided quality feedback on your assignments and performance. 3,91 0,89
The teaching in this course facilitated learning. 3,96 0,84
Identify two or three things that the instructor did well and should continue in the future.
1. Taulant is a very good teacher who explains everything in an appropraite and comprihensible manner
2. interactive teaching
3. Always open for questions
4. T. Muka is a kind and smart teacher
5. I think Muka improved his teaching very much, his explanations were clear and also on par with the questions on the exam. Thank you!
6.
7.
8.
9. The exercises and providing examples
10. - enthusiast - course material on canvas before start of course
11. Good slides, responsive to questions
12. Very clear in his answers. Telling specifically what was important for the exam.
13.
14. Enthusiastic and passionate about the subject.
15.
16. Clear information, good examples and exercises
17. Gave really fast answers to your questions by email Gave enough time to make the exercises
18. Enthousiastic Very young, but I think he can be a good teacher (but has to practice a lot)
19. Pleasant, well prepared, patient, willing to spend lunch break explaining what was unclear.
20. gave examples
Response rate: 57/63 (90%)
Evaluation Methodologic Topics in Epidemiologic Research (EP02) 2016

2. 7
21. - Took the time to explain things. - Was accessible after the classes if we had questions/concerns
22.
23. Set expectations
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29. -Clear lectures -Clear slides -Good exercises (except for the computer practical)
30.
31.
32. Go, Taulant! well, he still need to get more experience in teaching, however, he explains the material in a good undertandable way.
33.
34. Answered questions properly
35. There was enough room for questions and he explained really well.
36.
37.
38.
39. Better to follow in comparison to teaching in Study Design Course
40. slides are good
41. Nice lectures, well explained
42.
43. clear explanations
44.
45. Clear slides Motivated
46.
47.
48.
49. He is very friendly and open for discussion
50. - very clear and nice overview of the course - even when too abstract, gave nice examples to understand material
51. be honest about course level
52.
53. - Clear powerpoint presentations - Clear explanations in case a student didn't get the point
54.
55. Explained clear Nice to listen to.
56.

3. 8
57. I like his method of teaching. He has good teaching skills
Identify two or three things that the instructor should focus on to improve her/his classroom effectiveness.
1. Assignments should be explained by himself and not the PhD students. Their teaching was not as good as his
2. none
3. Explainations were not always really clear Sometimes he went to fast
4. -
5.
6. - There were quite a lot of small mistakes in the lecture slides and exam - The SPSS practical didn't work
7.
8.
9. The TA's were not efficient, maybe you could explain the exercises yourself.
10. - don't confuse us with wrong formula's - spend more time on discussion exercies
11. Give the right formulas ;)
12. More interaction in class.
13.
14. He sometimes goes very fast and it doesn't help to motivate if you say the exam will be very easy.
15.
16. mistakes in the presentation and diffuculties dowloading the programmes for the SPSS practical
17. He asked a promovendi to do a lecture, but this was a bit chaotic. Announce what software we have to download beforehand
18. Discuss difficult topics more in depth and spend less time on easy subjects.
19. There is nothing I would mention
20. bit more structure
21. No comments, good teacher.
22.
23. Separate key points
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29. -Propensity score was kinda vague after his first explanation, and it was supposed to become clear during the computer practical (which
didn't work). So maybe this could be explained either by taking more time for it or making the compter practical work next time. -More
exercises on PAR
30.
31.

4. 9
32. no suggestions
33.
34. -
35. The part about counterfactuals wasn't really clear
36.
37.
38.
39. Use more examples to illustrate taught principles, instead of re-iteration of the same examples
40. not so fast
41. -
42.
43. more challenging exercises
44.
45. Perhaps set higher expectations
46.
47.
48.
49. The content of his lectures were sometimes too easy
50.
51. try to improve course level
52.
53. No further comments
54.
55. More interaction with class. Louder voice.
56.
57. I think there were too many math formulas, which we do not need in practice. Maybe just to focus on presentation with the most
important things which we need for exam and practice.