eCAFE - Course and Faculty Evaluation, University of Hawaii

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations


Instructor: Ho Ng

Available Survey Results

CHEM162, Spring 2014
CHEM380, Spring 2014
CHEM463L, Fall 2013

Ho Ng: CHEM162, Spring 2014

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Chemistry
Course: CHEM 162 - General Chemistry II Crn (Section): 80435 (002)    
1. Class Level (pick one) - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Freshman   Sophomore   Junior   Senior   Grad   Other  
1.76 98 1.08 Freq(%) 55 (56%) 19 (19%) 12 (12%) 8 (8%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.99 98 0.1 Freq(%) 1 (1%) 91 (93%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.95 98 1.0 Freq(%) 2 (2%) 7 (7%) 18 (18%) 38 (39%) 33 (34%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.91 98 0.99 Freq(%) 3 (3%) 7 (7%) 13 (13%) 47 (48%) 27 (28%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.68 98 1.13 Freq(%) 4 (4%) 12 (12%) 21 (21%) 33 (34%) 26 (27%)
6. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
3.45 98 0.92 Freq(%) 3 (3%) 8 (8%) 39 (40%) 35 (36%) 11 (11%)
7. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
3.71 98 1.07 Freq(%) 4 (4%) 9 (9%) 23 (23%) 37 (38%) 25 (26%)
8. Textbook andor other reading materials
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.65 98 0.85 Freq(%) 1 (1%) 7 (7%) 31 (32%) 45 (46%) 14 (14%)
9. Sensitivity to student problems and general rapport
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.02 98 0.95 Freq(%) 1 (1%) 6 (6%) 18 (18%) 37 (38%) 35 (36%)
10. Effective use of demonstrations, models, or visual aids
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.71 98 1.12 Freq(%) 4 (4%) 11 (11%) 21 (21%) 34 (35%) 27 (28%)
11. Absence of distracting mannerisms, pauses, etc.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.66 98 1.05 Freq(%) 5 (5%) 6 (6%) 28 (29%) 37 (38%) 22 (22%)
12. The instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.76 98 1.07 Freq(%) 2 (2%) 13 (13%) 17 (17%) 37 (38%) 26 (27%)
13. The instructor's voice was clear and understandable.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.09 98 0.85 Freq(%) 1 (1%) 3 (3%) 15 (15%) 44 (45%) 33 (34%)
14. The instructor has an interesting style of presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.43 98 1.02 Freq(%) 2 (2%) 16 (16%) 33 (34%) 30 (31%) 16 (16%)
15. The instructor's presentation of abstract ideas and theories was clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.61 98 1.0 Freq(%) 3 (3%) 10 (10%) 26 (27%) 41 (42%) 17 (17%)
16. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.36 98 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 3 (3%) 8 (8%) 38 (39%) 49 (50%)
17. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.02 98 0.95 Freq(%) 1 (1%) 5 (5%) 21 (21%) 33 (34%) 36 (37%)
18. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.58 98 1.14 Freq(%) 3 (3%) 19 (19%) 17 (17%) 35 (36%) 23 (23%)
19. Assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.23 98 1.07 Freq(%) 4 (4%) 22 (22%) 32 (33%) 27 (28%) 13 (13%)
20. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.69 98 1.05 Freq(%) 3 (3%) 13 (13%) 15 (15%) 45 (46%) 20 (20%)
21. The course is highly recommended if it were taught by this instructor.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.57 98 1.08 Freq(%) 2 (2%) 17 (17%) 22 (22%) 34 (35%) 21 (21%)
22. Audiovisual materials (or computers) were adequate and used appropriately.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.99 98 0.86 Freq(%) 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 21 (21%) 46 (47%) 28 (29%)
23. The exams gave students an opportunity to demonstrate what they had learned.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.4 98 1.17 Freq(%) 9 (9%) 13 (13%) 21 (21%) 40 (41%) 15 (15%)
24. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.91 98 0.87 Freq(%) 1 (1%) 4 (4%) 23 (23%) 44 (45%) 25 (26%)
25. Other comments:
Really nice guy, very enthusiastic about the subject matter. Though sometimes his lectures might not really be helpful for the tests. Overall a good class
I would consider creating a different powerpoint style. The one that is from the textbook program was very wordy and unclear of the main points.
-Some questions on the exam were only brushed upon during lecture, concepts that will be on the test should be gone into depth. -some questions also seemed like trivial as per say to actually pertaining to the class, ex. what is blood composed of, that seems more like an anatomy question compared to chemistry. -Having a cheat sheet was helpful though, because it is very difficult to remember everything, so this helped me -having a practice exam might be helpful to students
keep up the good work
Watching videos in class helped me in remembering the concepts. Especially the video about speeding up chemical reactions and the students in the school hallway.
Good guy, sometimes a little lost while teaching, but overall a nice guy and willing to help students.
Pros: If Mastering Chem takes points off for no reason he understands and gives points back. Posts scores fairly fast. Good that he gives extra credit. The Piaza site was very helpful and I think all classes could use that. Cons: Lectures are straight from the powerpoint. He reads off from the powerpoint and only does the easy problems on the board and still gets them wrong (like he's never looked at the powerpoint beforehand); students have to correct him often. He come at least 5 minutes late to every lecture and doesn't seem prepared. He often has technical difficulties. The exams were nothing like the practice problems he assigns, very frustrating. I did not feel like I demonstrated my knowledge on the exams, considering that I have an A in lab but probably a D in lecture. It also frustrates me that he does not give the curved scores on exams. I have to guess what grade I'm getting. I study a lot and make study guides which do not help me much on the exams. He really needs to give practice exams. So many students ask him to make one yet he still disagrees. I think he could do some experiments/demos in class to make it more interesting and relatable. You can tell from the attendance what people think about going to his lectures.
The online homework was hard and took some time to do but I felt they were really helpful in practicing the chemistry. As much as people complain, I feel that it was one of the most helpful aspects. The instructor did well during the lectures and was able to answer questions in and outside of lecture.
None
While he was clearly passionate about the subject, Professor Ng had no idea what he was teaching. He would stop in the middle of examples because he couldn't finish them, or ask students if they knew. His exams were based off of material that he purposely skipped over in class, or barely covered. Even if he did teach it in class, the topics were not explained in a way that made them easy to understand. I would not take a class taught by him again.
In my opinion, chemistry is generally boring, but Professor Ng did teach the required course material and made it fairly easy to understand. One suggestion I have is to be more enthusiastic and make it mare engaging for students that, like me, may find chemistry boring. I know that this is often difficult to do in a large lecture class, but just a little more effort in class could make a big difference. Overall, this class was well taught and helped me understand the material to the best of my ability.
n/a
Professor Ng is very knowledgable in his field and able to connect these theoretical applications to real life practices. The only distracting thing in this course is that he would drop the microphone quite frequently or he would forget to input a slide. I am glad I had this instructor over others of which I heard are more difficult to learn from.
Professor Ng knew the material he was teaching but he was not successful in conveying the information to the students. There were several classes where I felt he was not prepared enough and hence just did practice problems straight from the book instead of covering the ideas directly. Closer to the end of the course, his allocation of time for each chapter was poor which led us to not have enough time to study or prepare for the tests. The tests themselves were challenging which only made our situation worse. Professor Ng is a very approachable and helpful person but I think that he just needs to better understand that the students taking this class for the very first time know practically nothing about the material and therefore needs to rethink his approach.
Great Instructor, Incredibly over-qualified but still a very effective teacher.
The chance for extra credit was definitely appreciated! Also is very helpful during office hours, and is willing to accommodate students.
Poor teacher
I really enjoyed taking this class from Professor Ng. He is quite knowledgable about chemistry and he always linked the material to how it applied in real studies or in real world examples. Overall a great experience.
It was very helpful that we were allowed to have notes. It's nearly impossible for a student to memorize everything we learned throughout all chapters.
I feel that Professor Ng is an awesome person in general, and is very caring and relatable to his students. Professor Ng shows great interests and understanding for his area of teachings. The only thing I disliked about his teachings and the course was that lectures were not very helpful. I felt we were learning things that did not apply to our exam. i also felt that he forgot that there were some materials that we did not learn, that he continued to assume we did. Professor Ng is a great professor but needs to make his lesson plans more comprehensive. The mastering chemistry homework was the only reason why I passed exams...because it taught me how to apply things. After the first half of the semester I did not attend lecture because i felt it was not necessary
none
One thing about the course that I found very difficult was the assigned work. Most of the work did not correlate with the labs or the exams, and as we went over them in class, the course instructor seemed to be as confused as the students. I really enjoyed the enthusiasm of the instructor, however his techniques were not very resourceful.
The amount of homework given was too much to be completed in one week. I also felt unprepared for some concepts on the exam due to the fact we didn't discuss those concepts as in depth as they appeared on the test
He was always late to class wasting the students time. Very disappointing.
Mastering Chemistry was very useful and helpful in learning the concepts. I love that Prof. Ng offers extra credit too because this class is obviously difficult. The Power Point presentations were ok but kind of tedious and confusing at times. Sometimes the Prof. seemed unsure about what he was talking about or what was on the slides. It was also quite irritating when he dropped the microphone. Prof. Ng is definitely a nice guy though and his class isn't impossible. He's fair with his curve and offering of a cheat sheet.
none
Professor Ng uses example problems in the book's examples on the lecture slides and in class. It may be better to additionally have problems that are not already worked out to have more variety and build students' confidence on them.
Physical demonstrations would be helpful for the titration chapter. Also, the homework is a little extensive and some of it is much more difficult than what we see in class and on the exams.
Most students learned better with practice exams in previous Chemistry classes, but even though some students asked for a practice exam, none was provided. It gives students a better understanding of what is going to take place on the actual exam and knowing EXACTLY what to study for. Chemistry is not an easy subject to master and it would of helped to go over more of what we were being tested on.
Professor Ng was very helpful and very intelligent. I think if he is given more time in front of a classroom he could become a really great instructor.
Honestly speaking, Professor Ng is a vey knowledgable man in Bio-Chem. I can vouch that if he were to be a Bio-Chem teacher he would excel in explaining the material. But when it comes to Chemistry he struggled A LOT throughout the semester. For example, the way he presents is very poor. Professor Ng would always look at the slides on the screen and read off of them. Not once was he able to explain without looking at screen. Besides the fact that he did not make the slides himself and is using Pearson's power points the examples that he does are sometimes wrong. When doing an example i would think the teacher would be confident enough to explain and complete the example; however Professor Ng would copy the solution on the slide and still get it wrong. Only until fellow students say he did something wrong would he change it. If the class did not speak up, students would be mistaken about how to do the problems. Tests are another story, the way he makes his tests are fair. He puts cumulative problems onto the test from each chapter and past chapters, but the way he tells the students to study is the problem. For the first two midterms he would tell us one thing but when test time comes around the test would be completely different from the material he told us to study. The first midterm he told us that their would be mostly equations and gave us practice problems from the book solely based on equation and computation, however when the test came out there were hardly any computation and mostly conceptual questions. The second midterm he told us that the test would be based on mostly equations again, including the practice problems that he gave us; hardly any conceptual questions were offered for practice. Test came around and the test was filled with conceptual questions and a tickle of computation. I review everything so thankfully i did adequate on the tests, but for a teacher to tell you one thing and do another really makes it so that students cannot trust his words. He should create practice exams so that students know what to expect instead of throwing curve balls all the time. Lastly, it is really hard to tell how you're doing in his class. The grading scale is only compiled of the median which is the average, and what's considered an A, that's it. Hardly anyone shows up to his class anymore, a huge lecture hall in Bilger 152 and only a few 90 come to class. He is a knowledgable man and i can vouch for him, but he needs to improve on his teaching.
Prof. Ng is a nice guy. I know he is very passionate about Chemistry. But, he was incredibly hard to understand. He has a clear voice and can provide real world applications of the concepts...But the actual math of the chemistry was beyond me. It was unfortunate when we would do problems and he would ask if someone could calculate the answer for him. Our class is not very friendly... or active participants. It would have been nice if he already had the numbers because calculating it would take attention away from actually understanding how to do the problem. He should have already known the answer, instead of arguing with a student over who was correct. Good guy, good intentions. But,makes careless errors and relays on student participation to run the class. No.Mass classes are tough crowds.
I think he's really smart and knows a lot but I think he has trouble talking in front of large groups, like during lecture.
He's good but sometimes seems a little ill prepared because he flips through his slides stating which ones he don't think is important. Should at least read over the power point at least once so that you know what you need or don't need.
Overall, good instructor.
The exams were VERY hard! When given practice homework, it seemed to not be the equivalent to the problems on the exams. There is ENTIRELY TOO MUCH HOMEWORK! Mastering Chemisty homework PLUS a follow-up homework is ridiculous!! I wish the study questions directly reflected the problems to be on the quiz. I'm not looking for a way out, I'm getting A's in all my other classes, except for chemistry. I have another class that has a few exams before the final. We have lecture, which covers powerpoints and we are given a study guide for the exam that directly reflects what will be seen on the exam. SO, you learn the material in lecture, you study for the material in your study guide, then you get tested on the stuff you studied and already learned. This not only ensures you get a fair grade, but you also learn, re-learn and get tested on what you learned. I retain the information a lot better. Chemistry is very discouraging and makes you want to change your major. Chemistry rains on your parade of dreams.
Professor Ng seems knowledgeable about the subject, but he needs to be more prepared for class. There were times when students were confused because what he presented was confusing. He needs to listen to students' concern as well. He was very enthusiastic about the subject, however, which made class bearable to be in. Chemistry is generally a hard subject and he needs to find a more effective way to help students learn the material.
Instructor Ho Ng speaks very clearly which can be a problem when he himself makes a mistake in solving problems on the board. When he makes a mistake, it affects me greatly on the exam because then it makes me second guess myself on what is right or wrong and what was a mistake or not a mistake. I may have possibly made the same mistakes as he made in lecture. The exam is about 25 questions which isn't enough to demonstrate what I've learned, moreover it's too much problems to solve in such a given amount of time. Chemistry is quite a difficult subject already, so I have to rely on resources outside of lecture/text in order to better understand the subject.
He breaks down the material and problems effectively so that the finest detail is understood by all. The tests were fair and consistent with the material.
His use of Piazza was very helpful. Also he was quick to respond to problems and questions about homework and exams.
Exams were extremely unfair. It's not fair to challenge us on an exam or throw curve balls at us that were different from the suggested practice problems. I went into the exams thinking I understood the concepts well and left very upset because the questions were not like what we had practiced. I would definitely fail the class if there was my a curve and if the class average on an exam is 14/25 that's not exactly a good sign. Mastering chem is never helpful but it was very nice of him to make it so the hints and wrong answers don't take off credit.
Sometimes Dr. Ng would be a little confusing while explaining different concepts. When he would do example problems on the board, he seemed unsure of himself sometimes, which would make it even more confusing for the students.
Professor Ng makes the concepts easy to understand and he is very helpful in answering students' questions. I also like how he utilizes the piazza site which allows each student to ask and answer questions regarding all things science related. This is very useful in networking with other students that have similar course concerns.

Ho Ng: CHEM380, Spring 2014     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Chemistry
Course: CHEM 380 - Prof Ethics for Chemists Crn (Section): 86097 (001)    
1. Class Level (pick one) - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Freshman   Sophomore   Junior   Senior   Grad   Other  
3.58 12 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 5 (42%) 5 (42%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.75 12 0.45 Freq(%) 3 (25%) 9 (75%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 12 0.49 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (33%) 8 (67%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.58 12 0.51 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (42%) 7 (58%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.64 12 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (33%) 7 (58%)
6. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
4.5 12 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (50%) 6 (50%)
7. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
4.58 12 0.51 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (42%) 7 (58%)
8. Textbook andor other reading materials
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.17 12 0.72 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 6 (50%) 4 (33%)
9. Sensitivity to student problems and general rapport
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.42 12 0.51 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7 (58%) 5 (42%)
10. Effective use of demonstrations, models, or visual aids
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.5 12 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (50%) 6 (50%)
11. Absence of distracting mannerisms, pauses, etc.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.33 12 0.65 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 6 (50%) 5 (42%)
12. The instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 12 0.49 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (67%) 4 (33%)
13. The instructor's voice was clear and understandable.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 12 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (50%) 6 (50%)
14. The instructor has an interesting style of presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 12 0.49 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (67%) 4 (33%)
15. The instructor's presentation of abstract ideas and theories was clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.42 12 0.51 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7 (58%) 5 (42%)
16. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 12 0.67 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 4 (33%) 7 (58%)
17. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 12 0.78 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 4 (33%) 6 (50%)
18. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 12 0.65 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 6 (50%) 5 (42%)
19. Assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.58 12 0.51 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (42%) 7 (58%)
20. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.58 12 0.51 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (42%) 7 (58%)
21. The course is highly recommended if it were taught by this instructor.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 12 0.49 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (33%) 8 (67%)
22. Audiovisual materials (or computers) were adequate and used appropriately.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.58 12 0.67 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 3 (25%) 8 (67%)
23. The exams gave students an opportunity to demonstrate what they had learned.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.83 12 0.83 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (42%) 4 (33%) 3 (25%)
24. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.17 12 0.83 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (25%) 4 (33%) 5 (42%)
25. Other comments:
The subjects were very interesting, each case with it's own conditions. The knowledge obtained from the class is necessary for anyone going into a scientific field and the way the presentations are made provided interaction. The problem (mine not class) was I was shy and while I read every article, the class was somewhat large with its share of outspoken people. Still was interesting to see different peoples point of view and thoughts on topics.
I liked this course. It helped me improve my presentation skills and the discussions were fun.
This class was very enjoyable. Student-led lectures allowed each student improve speaking/presentation skills, and whenever stuck, Dr. Ng was always there to help out as the moderator. Discussion topics covered a nice range, including the last five that were free for us to choose. This class also taught me a lot about the world of research - what is considered a fraud, misconduct, etc., what patents are, and so forth. Great also that there is no textbook (no money to spend!) I think this is a class that all students involved in/pursuing research should definitely take. Thank you for a great semester!

Ho Ng: CHEM463L, Fall 2013     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Chemistry
Course: CHEM 463L - Advanced Biochemistry Lab Crn (Section): 79225 (001)    
1. Class Level (pick one) - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Freshman   Sophomore   Junior   Senior   Grad   Other  
4.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
2.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 3 1.15 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%)
6. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
4.67 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%)
7. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
4.67 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%)
8. Textbook andor other reading materials
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.33 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 1 (33%)
9. Sensitivity to student problems and general rapport
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
5.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%)
10. Effective use of demonstrations, models, or visual aids
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.33 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 1 (33%)
11. Absence of distracting mannerisms, pauses, etc.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
5.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%)
12. The instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 1 (33%)
13. The instructor's voice was clear and understandable.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%)
14. The instructor has an interesting style of presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%)
15. The instructor's presentation of abstract ideas and theories was clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 3 1.15 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%)
16. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%)
17. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%)
18. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 3 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%)
19. Assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 0 (0%)
20. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 1 (33%)
21. The course is highly recommended if it were taught by this instructor.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%)
22. Audiovisual materials (or computers) were adequate and used appropriately.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%)
23. The exams gave students an opportunity to demonstrate what they had learned.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%)
24. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%)
25. Other comments:
The course could have been more organized and explanations of protocols and theories behind them could have been discussed slightly more clearly.
Great lab for the fact that students were given the chance to work in groups on their "own" assigned project for a while. It was good as it allowed the techniques to be taught but in a way that performing the techniques actually yielded the results and that troubleshooting could be learned along the way as everything was not guaranteed to work. Dr. Ng often asks the students to figure out answers for themselves. Could have had more reading or been assigned more items to research on in order to bring more into the lab (to feel more prepared). Very enjoyable format and it would be wonderful if the lab could keep operating on a small scale with small groups. More tests/quizzes would have been fine!
Course was very engaging and informative. Structuring the course around a research project made the experiments more purposeful and enjoyable. Continuity of experiments was valuable in understanding the purpose of each step to the overall goal of the project. However, the lack of structure in the course made it difficult to prepare for labs and assignments. Overall, a very beneficial and highly recommended course.