The document contains the results of a student evaluation survey for a teaching assistant (TA) of a life sciences lab course. Based on the survey results: - The 16 student respondents rated the TA highly in terms of knowledge, concern for student learning, communication skills, and being approachable. - Areas identified as strengths of the TA included being very knowledgeable, helpful, and good at communicating clearly. - Some students commented that the programming aspects of the labs were difficult, but that the TA did a good job of helping students understand the material.

1. A. SOBTI, 16F: LIFESCI 30A LAB 1M: MATH-LIFE SCIENTIST
12/20/2016 Class Climate evaluation Page 1
A. SOBTI
Evaluation of Instruction Program Report
16F: LIFESCI 30A LAB 1M: MATH-LIFE SCIENTIST
No. of responses = 16
Enrollment = 20
Response Rate = 80%
Survey ResultsSurvey Results
1. Background Information:1. Background Information:
Year in School:
1.1)
n=16Freshman 16
Sophomore 0
Junior 0
Senior 0
Graduate 0
Other 0
UCLA GPA:
1.2)
n=16Below 2.0 0
2.0 - 2.49 0
2.5 - 2.99 0
3.0 - 3.49 0
3.5+ 0
Not Established 16
Expected Grade:
1.3)
n=16A 7
B 3
C 0
D 0
F 0
P 2
NP 0
? 4
What requirements does this course fulfill?
1.4)
n=16Major 14
Related Field 0
G.E. 1
None 1

2. A. SOBTI, 16F: LIFESCI 30A LAB 1M: MATH-LIFE SCIENTIST
12/20/2016 Class Climate evaluation Page 2
2. To What Extent Do You Feel That:2. To What Extent Do You Feel That:
Teaching Assistant Knowledge – The
T.A. was knowledgeable about the
material.
2.1)
Very High or
Always
Very Low or
Never
n=15
av.=8.4
md=9
dev.=0.74
ab.=1
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
2
7
5
8
8
9
Teaching Assistant Concern – The T.
A. was concerned about student
learning.
2.2)
Very High or
Always
Very Low or
Never
n=15
av.=8.47
md=9
dev.=0.83
ab.=1
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
3
7
2
8
10
9
Organization – Section presentations
were well prepared and organized.
2.3)
Very High or
Always
Very Low or
Never
n=15
av.=7.67
md=8
dev.=1.45
ab.=1
0
1
0
2
0
3
1
4
0
5
1
6
5
7
2
8
6
9
Scope – The teaching assistant
expanded on course ideas.
2.4)
Very High or
Always
Very Low or
Never
n=15
av.=7.67
md=7
dev.=1.11
ab.=1
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
2
6
6
7
2
8
5
9
Interaction – Students felt welcome in
seeking help in or outside of the
class.
2.5)
Very High or
Always
Very Low or
Never
n=16
av.=8.38
md=9
dev.=0.81
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
3
7
4
8
9
9
Communication Skills – The teaching
assistant had good communication
skills.
2.6)
Very High or
Always
Very Low or
Never
n=16
av.=8.19
md=8
dev.=0.83
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
4
7
5
8
7
9
Value – The overall value of the
sections justified your time and effort.
2.7)
Very High or
Always
Very Low or
Never
n=16
av.=7.81
md=8.5
dev.=1.91
0
1
1
2
0
3
0
4
1
5
0
6
2
7
4
8
8
9
Overall – What is your overall rating
of the teaching assistant?
2.8)
Very High or
Always
Very Low or
Never
n=16
av.=8.38
md=8.5
dev.=0.72
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
2
7
6
8
8
9
3. Your View of Section Characteristics:3. Your View of Section Characteristics:
Difficulty (relative to other courses)
3.1)
HighLow n=16
av.=2.38
md=2
dev.=0.5
0
1
10
2
6
3
Workload/pace was
3.2)
Too MuchToo Slow n=16
av.=2.31
md=2
dev.=0.48
0
1
11
2
5
3
Integration of section with course was
3.3)
ExcellentPoor n=16
av.=2.31
md=2
dev.=0.48
0
1
11
2
5
3
Texts, required readings
3.4)
ExcellentPoor
n=13
av.=2.31
md=2
dev.=0.48
ab.=3
0
1
9
2
4
3
Homework assignments
3.5)
ExcellentPoor n=16
av.=2.38
md=2
dev.=0.5
0
1
10
2
6
3

3. A. SOBTI, 16F: LIFESCI 30A LAB 1M: MATH-LIFE SCIENTIST
12/20/2016 Class Climate evaluation Page 3
Graded materials, examinations
3.6)
ExcellentPoor
n=15
av.=2.4
md=2
dev.=0.51
ab.=1
0
1
9
2
6
3
Lecture presentations
3.7)
ExcellentPoor
n=15
av.=2.53
md=3
dev.=0.52
ab.=1
0
1
7
2
8
3
Class discussions
3.8)
ExcellentPoor
n=14
av.=2.57
md=3
dev.=0.51
ab.=2
0
1
6
2
8
3

4. A. SOBTI, 16F: LIFESCI 30A LAB 1M: MATH-LIFE SCIENTIST
12/20/2016 Class Climate evaluation Page 4
Profile
Subunit: LIFESCI
Name of the instructor: A. SOBTI
Name of the course:
(Name of the survey)
16F: LIFESCI 30A LAB 1M: MATH-LIFE SCIENTIST
Values used in the profile line: Mean
2. To What Extent Do You Feel That:2. To What Extent Do You Feel That:
2.1) Teaching Assistant Knowledge – The T.A. was
knowledgeable about the material.
Very Low or
Never
Very High or
Always n=15 av.=8.40
2.2) Teaching Assistant Concern – The T.A. was
concerned about student learning.
Very Low or
Never
Very High or
Always n=15 av.=8.47
2.3) Organization – Section presentations were well
prepared and organized.
Very Low or
Never
Very High or
Always n=15 av.=7.67
2.4) Scope – The teaching assistant expanded on course
ideas.
Very Low or
Never
Very High or
Always n=15 av.=7.67
2.5) Interaction – Students felt welcome in seeking help in
or outside of the class.
Very Low or
Never
Very High or
Always n=16 av.=8.38
2.6) Communication Skills – The teaching assistant had
good communication skills.
Very Low or
Never
Very High or
Always n=16 av.=8.19
2.7) Value – The overall value of the sections justified
your time and effort.
Very Low or
Never
Very High or
Always n=16 av.=7.81
2.8) Overall – What is your overall rating of the teaching
assistant?
Very Low or
Never
Very High or
Always n=16 av.=8.38
3. Your View of Section Characteristics:3. Your View of Section Characteristics:
3.1) Difficulty (relative to other courses) Low High
n=16 av.=2.38
3.2) Workload/pace was Too Slow Too Much
n=16 av.=2.31
3.3) Integration of section with course was Poor Excellent
n=16 av.=2.31
3.4) Texts, required readings Poor Excellent
n=13 av.=2.31
3.5) Homework assignments Poor Excellent
n=16 av.=2.38
3.6) Graded materials, examinations Poor Excellent
n=15 av.=2.40
3.7) Lecture presentations Poor Excellent
n=15 av.=2.53
3.8) Class discussions Poor Excellent
n=14 av.=2.57

5. A. SOBTI, 16F: LIFESCI 30A LAB 1M: MATH-LIFE SCIENTIST
12/20/2016 Class Climate evaluation Page 5
Comments ReportComments Report
4. Comments:4. Comments:
Please identify what you perceive to be the real strengths and weaknesses of this teaching assistant
and course.
4.1)
Agraj Sobti is a very knowledgable TA. He is very helpful and always assists the students with the labs.
Also, Agraj is very good at communicating. He replies to his emails very promptly.
He is a great communicator.
He was very willing to help, and good with programming.
He's a great TA, its just this programming is rather difficult but he does his best to help us
I think the labs are my only "con" to taking this course, especially if you don't have a knowledge of
coding. The class itself was thoroughly enjoyable and my time wasn't wasted, but I wish there was an
emphasis on teaching how to code rather than teaching commands and expecting us to pick up the
rest. I felt as though I was at a huge set back, and I often did homework solely to get it done since I
didn't feel myself absorbing the material as quickly at an appropriate pace. I will definitely miss this lab
nonetheless, specially because the TA and his assistant were amazing.
TA Agraj is very helpful, especially during office hours. He makes sure to answer questions people may
have on the discussion board.
The TA was very kind and knew what he was doing. His beginning presentations were usually well
planned and he is very approachable in and out of class.
The real strengths of this TA included being able to communicate the material extremely well. Although
the labs are quite difficult, he was able to explain everything extremely clear. Rather than simply writing
code, I was able to understand the code by going to his office hours. I recommended my TA to all my
friends, who also agreed that he was a really good TA.