2016SGBO_TCH01

21 June 2016
Enquiry:
Reference: 16SGBO_TCH01
DEPARTMENT: SGBO
LECTURER: Dr V Tchokonte-Nana
1. Biographic information of the students
2. Feedback on the lecturer
3. Comments from students
Regards
Melanie Petersen
CTL
Copies:
Faculty of Health Sciences
SGBO
Student Feedback Office, X3081
Senior Advisor: Student Feedback
Programme Coordinator:
On 30 May 2016 CTL received feedback from 270 students regarding the above-mentioned
lecturer. The feedback was collected on 19 May 2016.
The feedback is divided into three categories:
The analysis of the data is done in the same order. For category 2, feedback is given as an
average mark on a continuum from one to five. These results are illustrated graphically. The
unedited comments from students are also attached.
Vice Dean (Teaching):

1
Fakulteit Gesondheidswetenskappe
Dosent / Lecturer :
Departement:
Datum / Date :
Biografiese data / Biographical Data
Manlik/Male Vroulik/Female
Geslag 81 188
30.1% 69.9%
Afrikaans Engels/English
Huistaal 66 158
24.6% 59.0%
50-59% 60 - 69%
Matriekgemiddeld 2 4
0.7% 1.5%
Gemiddeld
Average (1)
Stadig
Slow
3.8 5
1.9%
Gemiddeld
Average (2)
Laag
Low
3.0 72
27.0%
3.3 38
14.2%
0-4
30
11.4%
Vinnig
Fast
N.v.t.
N/A
(1) Gemiddelde tempo gebaseer op 'n skaal van 1 tot 5 (1 = Baie stadig en 5 = Baie vinnig):
Baie stadig en Stadig is saam gegroepeer as Stadig en Vinnig en Baie vinnig as Vinnig.
Pace in this module: 33.5% 64.7%
120
5-9
10 of meer /
or more
20.5% 68.2%
180
43.1%
17490
My vlak van belangstelling in hierdie
module, voordat ek daarmee begin het,
was:
Medium
12.4%
115
Medium
Average pace based on scale 1 to 5 (1 = Very slow and 5 = Very fast)
Very slow and Slow are grouped as Slow and Fast and Very Fast as Fast.
2
Matriculation average
Tempo van die module:
270
Home language 13.1%
9
166
80-89%
62.2%
70 - 79%
23.2%
Aantal respondente
35
isiXhosa Ander/Other
Gender
Number of respondents
3.4%
0
N.v.t.
N/A
Hoog
High
80
Dr V Tchokonte-Nana
33
19-05-2016
SGBO
90%+
62
Faculty of Health Sciences
My vlak van belangstelling in hierdie
module teen die einde van die jaar
was:
44.9%
My level of interest in this module,
towards the end of the year was:
1
30.0%
40.8%
109
My level of interest in this module,
before the start of this module was:
Average based on scale 1 to 5 (1 = Very Low and 5 = Very High):
Very Low and Low are grouped as Low and High and Very High as High.
Hoeveel kontaksessies het u met hierdie dosent
gehad?
How many contact sessions did you have with this
lecturer?
(2) Gemiddelde gebaseer op 'n skaal van 1 tot 5 (1 = Baie laag en 5 = Baie hoog):
Baie laag en Laag is saam gegroepeer as Laag en Hoog en Baie hoog as Hoog.
54
16SGBO_TCH01

2
Dosent / Lecturer
(3)
Gemiddeld
Average
Verskil
Disagree
Neutraal/
Neutral
Stemsaam
Agree
N.v.t.
N.A.
1. 4.3 6 22 240 1
2. 4.0 18 44 208 0
3. 3.8 30 53 187 0
4. 3.3 59 78 131 1
5. 3.4 52 76 141 0
6. 3.5 42 78 150 0
7. 4.1 15 40 215 0
8. 3.8 32 61 174 1
9. 4.4 11 17 242 0
10. 3.9 22 59 188 0
11. 3.2 72 82 107 8
12. 3.4 68 60 143 0
13. 3.8 33 55 181 1
14. 4.0 24 46 201 0
15. 4.0 21 43 206 1
16. 3.5 56 58 157 0
17. 3.7 23 87 150 6
18. 3.8 16 73 153 20
… uses handouts that contribute to meaningful learning.
… uses teaching aids effectively (e.g. overhead projector, slide
projector, computer, etc.).
… encourage student participation in class activities, group work, etc.
… gebruik 'n verskeidenheid van onderrigmetodes.
… gebruik onderrighulpmiddels doeltreffend (bv. oorhoofse projektor,
skyfieprojektor, rekenaar, ens.).
Feedback on module on a scale of 1 to 5 (1= Disagree strongly and 5 = Agree strongly):
In the table above Disagree strongly and Disagree are grouped as Disagree, and Agree and Agree Strongly as Agree.
… is stiptelik vir alle lesings, tutoriale, afsprake, ens.
… moedig studentedeelname by klasaktiwiteite, groepwerk, ens.aan.
… blyk ‘n grondige kennis van die vakgebied te hê.
… is billik wanneer dit by assessering kom.
… is fair when it comes to assessment.
… always acts respectfully towards students.
… is toeganklik vir studente.
… appears to have a sound knowledge of the subject.
(3) Terugvoer oor module op 'n skaal van 1 tot 5 (1= Verskil sterk en 5 = Stem volkome saam):
In die tabel hierbo is Verskil sterk en Verskil saam gegroepeer as Verskil en Stem saam en Stem volkome saam as Stem saam.
… uses a variety of teaching methods.
… 's use of teaching methods (e.g. small group work, lectures, etc.)
contributes to meaningful learning.
… is goed georganiseer (beskikbaarhied van studiemateriaal, reëlings ivm
lokale, ens)
… gives useful examples and applications from their own experience
or from practice.
… is entoesiasties oor die leerstof wat in die module aangebied word
… is enthusiastic about the subject-matter that is presented in the module.
… kom goed voorberei na elke kontaksessie.
Dr V Tchokonte-Nana 19-05-2016
Getal / Number
… is well prepared for each contact session.
… is well organised (availability of study material, arrangements
regarding venues, etc.).
… gee nuttige voorbeelde en toepassings uit eie ervarings of vanuit
die praktyk.
… is punctual for all lectures, tutorials, appointments, etc.
… gebruik uitdeelstukke wat tot sinvolle leer bydra.
… praat altyd hoorbaar en duidelik.
… always speaks audibly and clearly.
… stel werksopdragte (bv. vir tutoriale, praktika, selfstudie, ens.) só
dat studente duidelik weet wat van hulle verwag word.
… se gebruik van onderrigmetodes (bv kleingroepwerk, lesings, ens)
dra by tot sinvolle leer.
… help my om moeilike aspekte van die werk te verstaan.
… helps me to understand difficut aspects of the work.
… gee binne 'n redelike tyd terugvoer oor take / toetse.
… gives feedback on tasks/tests within reasonable time.
… sets assignments (e.g. for tutorials, practicals, self-study, etc.) in
such a way that students know exactly what is expected of them.
… tree altyd hoflik teenoor studente op.
… is accessible to students.
Hierdie dosent:
This lecturer:
16SGBO_TCH01

3
Aantal respondente = 270
Dr V Tchokonte-Nana
4.3
4.0
3.8
3.3 3.4 3.5
4.1
3.8
4.4
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Enthusiastic Well
prepared
Organised Difficult
aspects
Variety
methods
Meaningful
learning
Student
participation
Examples Sound
knowledge
Studentfeedback
3.9
3.2
3.4
3.8
4.0 4.0
3.5 3.7 3.8
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Teaching
aids
Handouts
meaningful
Speaks
audibly Assignments
clear
Respectful Accessible Punctual Assessment
fair
Timely
feedback
Studentfeedback

4
Dr V Tchokonte-Nana Musculoskeletal System-Anatomy
Aantal respondente / Number of respondents: 270
1. … is enthusiastic about the subject-
matter that is presented in the
module.
2. … is well prepared for each contact
session.
3. … is well organised (availability of
study material, arrangements
regarding venues, etc.).
4. … helps me to understand difficut
aspects of the work.
5. … uses a variety of teaching
methods.
6. … 's use of teaching methods (e.g.
small group work, lectures, etc.)
contributes to meaningful learning.
7. … encourage student participation in
class activities, group work, etc.
8. … gives useful examples and
applications from their own
experience
or from practice.
9. … appears to have a sound
knowledge of the subject.
10. … uses teaching aids effectively (e.g.
overhead projector, slide
projector, computer, etc.).
11. … uses handouts that contribute to
meaningful learning.
12. … always speaks audibly and clearly.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Disagree Neutral Agree
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250

5
13. … sets assignments (e.g. for tutorials,
practicals, self-study, etc.) in
such a way that students know
exactly what is expected of them.
14. … always acts respectfully towards
students.
15. … is accessible to students.
16. … is punctual for all lectures, tutorials,
appointments, etc.
17. … is fair when it comes to
assessment.
18. … gives feedback on tasks/tests
within reasonable time.
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250

6
Het u enige kommmentaar oor die dosent?
Do you have any comments about this lecturer?
 Dr Nana is the best Anatomy lecturer I've ever had since I arrived here. He know his module very well.
The best part is that he teaches well. He goes an extra mile to ensure that we understand his work. He is
always available on request and teaches even in the dissection hall, further facilitating understanding. He
is the best.
 Knows content very well. Intimidating, not very approachable. Teaches difficult subject in a very practical,
logical manner.
 Going to class helps with understanding the lecturers teaching and examining style, but I think it would be
great we taught a bit more in detail, even though it was expected for us to know.
 The lecturer does not assist students with muscle actions and does not effectively explain content. More
explanations of muscle actions is needed. The lecturer provided a good study website.
 Great teacher. Learned so much from him, he is so passionate about Anatomy which translates to his
teaching.
 I enjoyed this block - however it was extremely fast paced and the workload was of a large quantity in the
given time period.
 Could not always understand him. Opened pre-pracs on the wrong times - could not rewrite.
 This lecturer was brilliant. It is clear that he has extensive knowledge on this subject and it is a shame that
he had to lecture to a near-empty lecture hall. Thus, I do not think that it is appropriate to ask students to
evaluate him because they don’t know him. I find it incredibly problematic and suspicious that we have not
been asked to evaluate a lecturer before - only the module. This leads me to believe that this particular
lecturer is being victimized. Where is Mr Van Vuuren's evaluation form? or Ms Kotze's? They both
lectured us, yet they are not being evaluated. Please explain. Furthermore, I would really appreciate
answers as to why we suddenly get to evaluate lecturers and why this particular lecturer was selected for
evaluation.
 The lecturer teaches Anatomy very well so that students have an actual understanding of subject matter.
 Since when do we ever evaluate lecturers? I've been in this institution for 3 years now, I've never ever had
to evaluate Dr Kotze, Mrs Greyling or Dr Baastiaanse or any other lecturer. Why is this being done? If this
is a new policy, to evaluate lecturers, then how come is Dr Van Vuuren not being evaluated? Or Mrs
Alblas? This is incredibly suspicious, coniving and disgusting and it will not stand. Can the class have
feedback as to why this was done? If not, I'll see to it that the TSR, Prim Commitee and any other
leadership body to investigate this.
 Lecturer could have started at a more notice level and built up on that, but instead started at advanced
level leaving out basic building blocks in understanding/ studying of Anatomy. Spent too much time on
irrelevant comments not related to current block. Make students feel silly when asking questions, creating
a bad learning environment.
 Dr Tchokonte-Nana's pronounciation makes it very difficult to understand him. I understand that English is
not his mother-tongue but it is frustrating to have to constantly focus on what he is trying to say before
focussing on understanding the work.
 I find it suspicious that we've never had the opportunity to evaluate any of our lecturers up until this point
despite having a whole class of students previously complain about bad lecturers. This lecturer has
continuously gone out of his way to do his best for students, to make himself available as well as making
the work as understandable as possible. It is extremely disgraceful that this university is selective in
assessing its lecturers (without even letting us know the criteria needed to warrant assessment of a
lecturer by students) and furthermore does not take student needs and complaints into account when
deciding which lecturers to assess with all due respect, fix yourselves. This is shady. Would also like an
explanation (feedback) as to where the evaluation forms of Dr Van Vuuren and Kotze are (they too
lectured us). Consistency is professional and important.
 Very good lecturer. Inspires students to study. Good work.
 His enthusiasm contributed to meaningful study.
 Die dosent praat nie altyd hoorbaar en duidelik nie.
 Speaks very unclearly. Very incoherent in his lectures. Mistakes in his slides.
 Please try new methods of teaching Anatomy.

7
 The lecturer should clarify better what is expected of us. (i.e. in terms of what must be covered) + to make
sure it is in line with the outcomes of the study guide.
 Dr Tchokonte-Nana is an intelligent lecturer with an apparent sound knowledge of his field Anatomy. He
was a refreshing change from our usual lecturers and he made us think independently and seek our own
answers. However, the extent to which he went to ensure our independent think was overwhelming
because of the very little time we had. I really would have appreciated that he answer our questions
because it would have helped us see where it is that we were going wrong and needed to study more.
 He has a great sense of humour which helps in learning tricky concepts. The accent is a small problem.
Perhaps speaking slower?
 He really makes learning Anatomy a pleasure and interesting, he is really passionate about his subject. His
slides could have a bit more information or could follow the prescribed textbook so that we can have an
indication of what we should focus on.
 This is a respectful and understanding lecturer who takes his student's needs into consideration. Well
presented and fair, giving numerous options to study from i.e. dissection, website, textbooks etc.
 More explanations too difficult/ new concepts in class. (A lot was self-study and even if our lecture on the
subject was given). Lecturer made himself easily accessible to students, especially for questions.
 The lecturer is very enthusiastic, knowledgeable and still very approachable.
 Lecturer said that he purposefully makes sick tests and revals harder than orginal assessment. This is
unfair towards students who have no choice in the state of their health or who fail to attain success as
soon as their peers.
 Be a bit more decisive especially with study materials. I liked the revision of previous lectures at the
beginning of each lecture.
 Die dosent het nooit Afrikaans gepraat nie- - van ons toetse het nie eers die Afrikaanse vertaling van die
vraag gehad nie.
 Difficult to approach - very intimidating.
 A lot of students will probably complain that he was inaudible - this was not true; he was difficult to
understand because of his accent - but that is not a fair criticism, it is not something he can help. He does
have excellent knowledge of his subject matter, but doesn't give students the answers to his questions,
which leads to much confusion. I enjoyed his lectures - he just needs to work on his person-person
interaction.
 Dear Dr Tchokonte-Nana. Mock spot test = I understand that you rescheduled the test, however, the test
was scheduled for Monday 08h00. To be at campus at 08h00, I have to wake at 05h30 and leave at
06h00. I did so on Monday and you did not show up at the scheduled time, and only sent emails at 09h30
to reschedule. This was extremely frustrating.
 Did not pitch for Monday's class. Never gives an answer to a question. I understand the fact that he
wants us to go find out ourselves, but we need confirmation. Unsure about everything unanswered.
Deliberately disadvantages those choosing to listen to the podcasts 1.0 coming to class (it is consumer/
student's choice whether he wants to drive through or listen at home) by not recording or stopping the
recording before giving "test tips" or "mock tests".
 Tchokonte-Nana is a very intelligent lecturer. I would suggest taking the classes slower. We did too much
in an hour or two hours. Do not take dissection away.
 Accent is very difficult to understand that’s why his class attendance was so low.
 Lecturer is enthusiastic about his subject. Did not always give clear instructions regarding examinations
and what was required in all sections.
 Dr Tchokonte-Nana is a good lecturer who encourages student participation in the lecture/ teaching
process.
 Use 3D software during lectures to aid students with visualising structures.
 Please use higher resolution images in the tests.
 I appreciated the Anatomy lectures, however it would be better if the lecturer could use more practical
methods to remembering the said Anatomy (which is a lot).
 Good lecturer, could structure lectures to be a bit more specific. Tends to vary off topic a few times. But
otherwise lectures are helpful.

8
 The lecturer does not have enough knowledge when asking his help during dissections he needs to first
consult the textbook. The lecturer never covers the appropriate topics in class. When having lecture
about the hand, he'll keep referring to the book. The lecture slides don't contribute to meaningful study.
 It was hard to understand exactly what the lecturer was saying and I found myself getting a bit lost. I did
not feel like I could approach him. However, he was enthusiastic about the work.
 Thank you for making Anatomy fun and easier to study. Thank you for always coming to lectures well
dressed.
 This lecturer is very passionate about the subject. He is sometimes difficult to understand but it is not
because of a lack of knowledge of the work. He was always eager and willing to help, which is great
considering the difficulty of the subject.
 At times was very unprofessional, put students on spot and accused them of failing 3rd year in 2015, when
in fact they did not. This happened in front of the class. Made unacceptable jokes with sexual reference
which is also unprofessional. "I can't give you the woman of the bed".
 Goes the extra mile. Humble and very sweet. It's nice to see that he wants his students to do well.
 Awesome guy. Very pleasant + knowledgeable.
 Ek dink Dr Tchokonte-Nana het 'n goeie kennis van sy vak, maar hy is nie baie toeganklik nie. Hy het 'n
arrogante houding en verkleineer mens indien mens sogenaamde "dom" vrae vra.
 The lecturer didn’t actually speak about Anatomy of MSK. Sometimes he spoke about the heart/ one-turn
for so long and tells that he didn’t get to the actual work. The module should not be self-study and if it is
the lecturer, should please let his lectures help with studying. The lectures merely confused me. There
was poor communication throughout the module. Times for tests should stay the same, at certain times
were given on day 1.
 The lecturer should answer his own questions and not wait for students to answer.
 Need someone else to be in charge of module. T. Nana is a terrible lecturer. Wastes too much time in
class. Does not help students and just makes us feel stupid when we ask questions. Said he would make
podcasts but then did not bother to make/ upload them. Need a lecturer to explain stuff properly. Not give
secret hints to people just because they attend pointless class. Hints confused me even more. Dissection
is useful but very time consuming. We should continue with dissection but lectures need to correspond
more with what we do in dissection.
 More information on the slides please.
 Best Anatomy lecturer. Recommend the usage of visual aids and Anatomy videos during lectures. Very
enthusiastic and educated about the topic.
 It was sometimes difficult to hear the lecturer, but he has a huge depth of knowledge on the subject and
coming to contact sessions was meaningful and worthwhile.
 Didn’t show up for review of spot test.
 The lecturer is a great lecturer. He lets us know what we need to know and explains concepts well. Only
problem is that he sometimes gets side-track and drags lectures on by sticking to one concept because no
one is answering.
 Must ensure a fair spread of questions across all topics.
 The Dr would sometimes not answer questions he posed to us in class - it would have been better if he
could give us clearer instructions.
 This lecturer does not speak very clearly. He is very strict and not accessible or understanding about
concerns. This lecturrer spends more time telling us class is important than making it worthwhile woth the
information shared. His notes are criptic and shorthand. The class attendance was very poor (50 out of
310 students). The lecturer does not answer questions, he only explores topics.
 The lecturer spends a lot of time telling us how valuable his classes are, but spends very little time
explaining to us and covers very little work, making majority of this module self-study. Dr Tchokonte-Nana
is very enthusiastic, but I did not think his lectures were a productive use of time.
 He is an amazing lecturer. He is very passionate and ensures that you understand the work.
 One of the best Anatomist. He honestly has a passion for Anatomy. Why didn’t he teach us in 1st year?
 He is great.
 He is excellent of what he does. He is passionate about Anatomy, makes us too.

9
 Prevents students asking questions by refusing to answer their questions. Inappropriate - highlighting
students who failed. Asks questions such as "who got a cum last year?. Couldn’t understand his accent.
 Hy beantwoord nie studente op sinvolle maniere nie. Wil nie eenvoudige vrae beantwoord nie, kies om
eerder meer vrae te vra en nooit by die antwoord uit te kom nie.
 Lecturer should answer questions asked by students (elaborate more).
 The lecturer is very knowledgeable about the subject matter. Dissection was extremely helpful and it was
good that the lecturer encouraged us to attend every session.
 Enthusiastic.
 Made MSK quite enjoyable and challenging.
 Needed to presented in more understandable manner.
 He is the greatest Anatomy lecturer I have ever had. I noticed during dissection that his colleagues are
disrespectful towards him and speak ill of him to other students. This is in bad taste and quite
unprofessional. It may influence the way that other students receive him.
 Great Anatomy teacher.
 The lecturer inspired me to study. The lecturer taught me how to study Anatomy effectively, rather than
just memorising the work. I was just unsure sometimes whether we should know attachments of muscles
or not.
 Very passionate about his job. Thank you.
 He was great, for the first time in 3years I enjoyed Anatomy and it was presented in an understandable
manner. He knew and could explain everything.
 The lecturer inspires us to gain an understanding of the work and not just to simply memorize.
 Lecturer is fair. Gives guidelines on how to study. His passion for Anatomy rubs off on us which makes
studying fun.
 He is very oppit.
 He is very approachable. Always willing to explain concepts.
 The lecturer made it clear what to study. He made an effort to demonstrate the clinical relevance of the
work.
 The lecturer is always positive + supportive. Thank you for making Musculoskeletal part 1 hopeful and
interesting to study/ learn.
 Difficult to understand at time (accent).
 Was very respectful and encouraged us to learn and do well.
 Feedback is given promptly. Lecturer speak clearly and audibly. Sessions were delivered in a reasonable
time-frame.
 Lecturer musn't use previous papers exactly, and make new papers for new years.
 The lecturer does not listen to questions with the intention of answering the question clearly.
 Praat verskriklik onduidelik.
 Moeilik om te verstaan; praat onduidelik.
 No comments.
 He was a great lecturer. Really enjoyed his classes. Very passionate.
 Lecturer is rude towards students.
 The lecturer is often late or doesn’t come. The lecturer can teach the subject matter instead of dwindling
on epithelium. The lecturer must please stick to one textbook.
 The lecturer doesn’t speak audibly. English is not the lecturer's first language therefore makes mistakes
when speaking and confuses students.
 He is brilliant and knows his stuff.
 Doesn’t give clear answers to questions when asking for help - condescending; it discourages me. The
pre-practical tests are helpful. Good questioning style.
 Awesome lecturer, king of Anatomy. Very helpful. However, I'd like to see him more in the dissection hall
so that I could learn from him.

2016SGBO_TCH01

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to 2016SGBO_TCH01

2016SGBO_TCH01