eCAFE - Course and Faculty Evaluation, University of Hawaii

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations


Instructor: David Johnson

Available Survey Results

David Johnson: LAW583, Spring 2013

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Law
Course: LAW 583 - Real Estate Develop & Finance Crn (Section): 89394 (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  
5.06 17 0.43 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 14 (82%) 2 (12%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.0 17 0.0 Freq(%) 17 (100%) 0 (0%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.82 17 0.39 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (18%) 14 (82%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.59 17 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (12%) 3 (18%) 12 (71%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.24 17 0.83 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 8 (47%) 7 (41%)
6. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.88 17 0.33 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (12%) 15 (88%)
7. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.76 17 0.44 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (24%) 13 (76%)
8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.12 17 0.86 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 2 (12%) 8 (47%) 6 (35%)
9. The instructor treated students with respect.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.76 17 0.56 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 2 (12%) 14 (82%)
10. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.65 17 0.61 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 4 (24%) 12 (71%)
11. I was able to get individual help when I needed it.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.65 17 0.61 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 4 (24%) 12 (71%)
12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.53 17 0.62 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 6 (35%) 10 (59%)
13. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.47 17 0.72 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (12%) 5 (29%) 10 (59%)
14. I am generally pleased with the materials (texts, handouts) required for this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.53 17 0.72 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (12%) 4 (24%) 11 (65%)
15. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.41 17 0.87 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 5 (29%) 10 (59%)
16. I feel that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.65 17 0.7 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (12%) 2 (12%) 13 (76%)
17. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.41 17 0.87 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 5 (29%) 10 (59%)
18. My overall evaluation of this course is...
I really enjoyed this course. For someone who is very interested in Real Estate, this is a good course to take.
This course was interesting! While the projects definitely challenged me intellectually, the projects are a great idea because they are more relevant to helping clients in the "real world" than having a final exam, which are typical of other classes. I'm glad that I got the experience of writing letters to clients through the projects. I liked having the professor's short outlines because they focus on the more important concepts. Those helped me a lot! My only criticism is sometimes the professor explained some of the concepts in a confusing manner. Clarifying the concepts would make the concepts easier to understand.
Excellent! The assignments for this course allowed me to get practice in real world situations and I feel as though I am now not only more comfortable with the subject matter but also with writing client memos. The readings for this course were very relevant and challenging but manageable.
I felt the materials surveyed law and concepts that will be extremely helpful and useful to my practice as a lawyer. I am glad I took the course.
I found the course to be very practical. I highly recommend it for people genuinely interested in real estate law as you'll learn a lot.
I enjoyed the material and the textbook is an excellent resource. Professor Johnson has strong knowledge in the subject and seems to enjoy teaching it. Some PDF files need to be updated, but overall the files were very helpful.
superb class. enthusiastic teacher.
This course recommended only for people who are passionate about the subject. The material is hard to engage unless you have some background or experience with it. Professor Johnson is intelligent, prepared, and jovial. His short outlines help frame each class. Because the material felt disjointed, I found using the short outlines was critical to following the lectures. There was a period mid-semester where no outlines were available, and my comprehension of that course material commensurately suffered. Parts of the class are statute-heavy (mechanics liens and condominiums). These areas were critical to understand but engaging the material is difficult. The lectures were fast-paced and hard to follow. It was clear that Professor Johnson had a clear understanding of the statutes, but I don't think it was conveyed effectively. Assessment is based on three projects. These were a nice break from the typical law school 3-hour exam. Expectations for these assignments, however, were sometimes murky. Based upon the model answers, brevity seemed more important than clarity. Also, the first assignment contained several errors, spelling and syntax problems, and was generally confusing. Overall, I would recommend taking this course pass/fail.
I thought that this course was really relevant and really enjoyed the material. I like the style of teaching and thought that having projects and then going over them was really helpful for learning. The idea of credit/no credit would also be great since I think it would add value if we could collaborate with classmates to work out problems. I find I learn more and understand better with that type of system.
Great teacher, would like to see the life and financing of a project from beginning to end.
19. Other comments:
I think the instructor of this course is what makes what could have been quite dull material exciting! He has a genuine interest and passion in the subject and that enthusiasm inspired me to want to learn more about real estate and development where I did not have much interest prior.
Professor Johnson was very knowlegable and taught us a subject that can be difficult to engage students in but was very alive and enthusiastic. The expetations were unclear at times. I am grateful for his guidance throughout the course.
The various diagrams presented are extremely important to the course, but they suffer from the vagaries of handwriting. If possible I'd suggest having a TA design typed copies of all diagrams in a packet that could be distributed via Laulima, not unlike Handout 1. Could be annotated or with space left over for students' own annotations.