eCAFE - Course and Faculty Evaluation, University of Hawaii

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations


Instructor: Estelle Codier

Available Survey Results

HON491, Fall 2013
NURS613, Spring 2010
NURS617, Spring 2010

Estelle Codier: HON491, Fall 2013

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Honors/Selected Studies Prog
Course: HON 491 - Junior Seminar Crn (Section): 79473 (006)    
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  
2.75 4 0.96 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 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  
1.25 4 0.5 Freq(%) 3 (75%) 1 (25%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
6. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.25 4 0.96 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 2 (50%)
7. The instructor presented concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)
8. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
9. I learned to apply principles from this course to new situations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
10. I developed the ability to communicate clearly about this subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
11. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
12. I developed more confidence in my ability to communicate effectively through writing.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
13. The instructor inspired me to be critical of ideas and materials.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
14. The instructor stresses important points in lectures/discussions.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
15. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
16. The instructor puts material across in an interesting way.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
17. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
18. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
19. The instructor seems knowledgeable in many areas.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
20. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
21. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
22. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
23. The instructor suggests specific ways students can improve.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.25 4 0.96 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 2 (50%)
24. Reading assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
25. Other comments:
She's wonderful and very lively! Such an interesting class and definitely got students to step out of their comfort zone and discuss with their peers.
Very interesting class. Would recommend it to others.
Best teacher I have ever had!

Estelle Codier: NURS613, Spring 2010     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Nursing
Course: NURS 613 - Pathophysiology for Adv Pract Crn (Section): 3318 (431)     3531 (432)    
1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 1 (25%) 8 (57%)
2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 2 (14%) 1 (25%) 6 (43%)
3. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 0 (0%) 6 (43%) 5 (36%)
4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.57 14 1.34 Freq(%) 1 (7%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 3 (75%) 1 (25%)
5. I developed the ability to communicate clearly about this subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 2 (50%) 3 (21%)
6. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 2 (50%) 7 (50%)
7. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.25 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 4 (29%)
8. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
the pathoschematics
I REALLY enjoyed the avatar learning tools!!! It was an effective and motivating way to both learn by viewing as well as creating the avatar. PLEASE continue this method of teaching/learning! I also enjoyed the online discussions. Having other people's input increased my knowledge and awareness of issues outside of my realm of nursing practice.
Chapter readings, quizzes, SL rounds, pathoschematics, ppt presentations & case studies
I liked the weekly quizzes and opportunity to build on knowledge base. not having a final is a new experience for me and one I really like as it is so much less stressful. I guess the fact that I had to do my own education instead of being spoon fed was a good experience. Some of the class methodology does not teach much on advanced pathophysiology but we did get some insight into how it might feel to have a particular disease. the class presentations were all excellent ways to learn the material as well. The avatars were interesting but again more on the psychology of the disease process than the pathology. The patho schematics were a way to make us look into the pathophysiology but the focus was psychosocial for much of it.
Everything about the course were valuable for me.
Both student presentations. The Avatar learning in which we used virtual rounds and gave us an opportunity to interact in a virtual clinical setting. Discussions also gave us the chance to bounce ideas off of one another. The weekly schematics helped to increase our learning. Loved it all!!!
Case studies were good because they were "real life" scenarios that you were able to learn from.
All aspects of the course were relevant and helpful in its own way. The opportunity to use Second Life was most engaging and proved to be a terrific learning tool.
Doing the case and patho presentations were helpful in learning the details of a process. Even the patho schematics were helpful in knowing the "quick and dirty" of a disease process.
The content it self is of course very valuable.
The most valuable aspects of the course were the two main projects: the patho presentation and the case study. These were very valuable because we could choose any topics that we wanted, which allowed us to study them in depth and put together comprehensive presentations for the class. I learned a lot from these two assignments. It was also very valuable that we could choose exactly what illness/conditions/pathologies to focus on each week for our patho-schematic assignments. This allowed us to tailor the course to our specific interests.
As it is online, it allowed us to go at our own pace of reading the chapters and learning. Since there's no clinical lab part of this course, it is very doable at home! This course literally forced me to not only look into my textbook, but online journals, current evidence-based information, as well as increased use of the UH Manoa library system and John A. Burns Health Sciences library. Second life rounds was also a beneficial learning tool to enhance our learning experience to get a taste of applying what we learned to the real world setting. Quizzes really forces us to read the text!
Estelle is very expedient in replying to emails. She has set up her class in such a way that you can attain the grade you want. Usage of avatars and second life extra credit discussions were very effective tools in the learning process. Thank You!
reading the chapters though some wording/level of reading was difficult to undestand at times. Second life was helpful in order to process information as it would be related to the patients. Did enjoy that.
presentations were good. i feel that creating a patho presentation was an excellent way to learn about the topic of choice.
9. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
group discussion
I wasn't sure, at times, what exactly was expected from the pathoschematic assignments. There were many times when I was told I had information "missing". However, it is VERY difficult to squeeze all the pertinent information into the one page table that we are given. Overall, though, the pathoschematics DID help me learn a lot about several different diseases. THANK YOU!
Group discussion
The tendency to make it an undergraduate class and focus on what a nurse would do not an NP, which of course is what we need to do as NP students and know the advanced pathophysiology as compared to just knowing a little bit. I did not learn much from the psychosocial aspects as that is undergraduate work, I did however learn more to be self directed to learn the more graduate level of the pathophysiology processes. The class discussions were like busy work because it was undergraduate level as was the focus on the psychosocial of the patho schematics. there is so much science and evidence based science on the pathophysiology for NP graduate level and that is what was lacking. the online avatar clinic simulations could have been great however, there needs to one class that shows everyone how to do it correctly and have the whole class participate at an NP level. without that, it was not helpful at all to me. those who could do it were offered much more extra credit which did not seem fair...
none
In my opinion all aspects of this class were valuable.
Group discussions didn't do much for the overall learning experience. Sharing knowledge is great, but being required to do 5 entries at least 3 hours apart means that most people just write something to write something. It would have been better to mix up the group members every two weeks or so, in order to gain knowledge from everyone in the class. Posting the modules one at a time for the week meant that in order to fully participate in a discussion, you had to log in almost every day. It would have been better to post all modules on Monday morning so that the students can work at their own pace.
Interestingly all aspects of the course were valuable in their own way. It's difficult to say what was least valuable. The discussions assignment was tedious, but provided a good venue for thoughtful discussion. But if I had to choose one aspect of the course, this would probably be it.
The virtual world part of the class was the least valuable. It distracted from learning patho---trying to learn how to maneuver and to even get into the system (virtual world) dampened my interest in participating/learning. Am worried about the next course where this will be mandatory.
Online discussion was not useful. SecondLife also was not useful.
Including second life in this course was unnecessary and gimmicky. The weekly pathoschematics had a fundamental value as they made you think about the disease you were researching however I got little feedback other than a grade and we never got to see other students work that might have been very valuable. It seemed like just busy work. I don't feel we should have been required to give permission for our work to be used by others.
The least valuable aspect of the course was the online discussions. The required 5/week discussions post were much too much in my opinion. It was too time consuming and took away study efforts that could have been spent on reading the assigned chapters and extra credit. I did enjoy having the discussion groups; however, I think there should be less required posting and I think the groups should be mixed up more. While I liked my group, it got a little tiring towards the end hearing the same several people. I liked the weeks where the groups were switched up.
The second life rounds were too short. I feel we could have learned more through longer sessions of second life. The online forum discussions was good in addition with second life sessions but again, it could have been longer second life sessions. The patho schematics did not seem very valuable. I'd rather focus on a complex advanced pathophysiology topic during second life sessions or in the laulima forums that require us to look at labs, patho, etc, rather than doing patho schematics that take a long time to do and I tend to forget what was inserted in the chart. Is the textbook same as what the undergraduate nursing students are using? We should be using more advanced/complex reading such as McCance & Huether's latest edition patho book, but I do hear about other nursing schools in the advanced patho courses using the same book we're using which is by Copstead and Banasik. So actually, I have no absolute say in which book is necessarily better. I do online research of the topic of the week anyway through our medical school's health sciences library.
It was not a matter of ineffectiveness, more the matter of lack of time. This course is very time consuming with a wealth of knowledge to be gained, but while progressing as a full time student and working adult; this can take a toll on the learning process or at least the knowledge that is retained.
weekly schematics too much work. Live online discussions may be better for flow and exchange of information.
10. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.57 14 0.65 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
11. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 1 (25%) 6 (43%)
12. The flexibility of this course helps all kinds of students learn.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 4 (29%) 1 (7%) 0 (0%) 6 (43%)
13. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 3 (21%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 5 (36%)
14. Assignments make students think.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.79 14 1.25 Freq(%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 3 (21%) 4 (29%) 4 (100%)
15. Other comments:
KEEP HER!!
At times, felt that the amount of "busy work" hampered learning d/t time requirements (especially if taking other courses). Perhaps do pathoschematics every other week or a select #; or maybe alternate... one week pathoschematic; one week discussion. Recommend not have to do pathoschematic the same week as student ppt presentations & case study.
Some assignments really made you think at a graduate NP level, others did not. some of the presentations by the students were for nurses not graduate APRNs. the course rarely made this distinction.
I had so much fun in this class. Dr. Codier was very creative and innovative. The second life rounds she started was really fun and very useful.
Dr. Codier is a very experienced and has knowledge above and beyond what I expected. Coming into this class I thought that it would be one of my worst classes ever partly because it is an online and partly because I'm the only psychiatric nurse and everyone else are from medical areas. Of course I was wrong. In fact I never felt like an outsider and I directly contribute this to Dr. Codier teaching facilitation style. Ironically Patho has turned out to be the best class I have ever taken. Dr. C keep up the good work.
A lot of patho presentations were just regurgitated information. It would have been better if each presentation had been tied to a specific case so that you could see how the pathophysiology affects the person. It was unfair that the majority of extra credit was provided in Second Life. Not everyone wanted to or was able to participate in rounds. There were approximately 12 second life rounds compared to the 3 non-second life extra credit opportunities. That is a great disparity, especially for students who have multiple jobs, family commitments, and a full credit load. The beauty of online classes is that you are supposed to be able to do your assignments and attend class more easily than face-to-face classes. This class required the student to be "in class" almost five days a week. Group discussions are dependent on everyone in the group. I felt as though I was constantly logged in to Laulima, and that I was spending more time on this class than the other face-to-face classes that I was enrolled in. It also felt as though we were teaching ourselves throughout the semester. It's hard to learn when you can tell that all some people have done is take information out of a book and put it in a power point. Personal stories and experiences help each other learn what has worked and what hasn't worked. That was lacking this semester.
Sometimes I wasn't always clear on what she wanted on her presentations and on her pathoschematics.
This has been a tremendously challenging course due to its multifactorial demands, but the outcome is Zen.
Lots of very busy work took away from learning patho. I can see the strategy of the assignments, but perhaps having the big projects and discussion only would have made it easier to keep up. Felt much more than a 3-credit course.
In this class I felt like I was learning on my own. I had asked the instructor for help and she did not provide me with help, instead she said that it was not fair to the other students if she helped me. Grades were given arbitrarily. Though an example of a syllabus and schematic were given in the beginning of the semester, it did not clearly define how to do a schematic. The example given and the deductions given for the grade did not coincide. Example: I was deducted for using uncommon symbols in my schematic, when those same symbols were used in the schematic which did not make sense when used in the common manner. Second life would have been more useful if it was used more for live discussions of the topic rather than case studies. Having a pretend patient for a case study where you can only ask questions and everyone's trying to ask questions at the same time was not helpful.
I am extremely disappointed because pathophysiology has been one of my favorite areas and I was looking forward to learning so much more. Grading was inconsistent,random, and seemed to have no relevance to the quality of the work. We were told in effect to dumb down the pathoschematics, to make them simple enough so that they could be understood by a first year nursing student!!! We were not allowed, even at the start of the course, to submit a draft of the schematic to figure out if we were on the right track, rather we were told to use the sample, which was unclear. The assignments might have made a nursing student think, but when all you have to do is blog 5 times a week to satisfy the discussion grade, without consideration for the quality of the submission, I have to wonder how valuable that is. I tried to read posts on other groups pages and found it interesting that Ms Codier applauded certain students who would ramble on and on without saying much of substance while others were criticized for lengthy posts. I am paying for a graduate education and expected to be challenged and educated by this course not just frustrated. I feel like I just wasted a semester tuition and a lot of time.
The workload for this course is very heavy and too much. Again, the online discussions took up too much time and effort. The weekly patho-schematics and two main assignments were good though, but also required a lot study efforts. Because of the heavy workload, it was hard to do some of the extra credit assignments (second-life and virtual rounds), which were very interesting and very valuable. I would have done more extra credit if I hadn't been so busy trying to keep up with the regular work.
The new concept of second life is beneficial to us students. Make it more longer and complex. Take out the patho schematics because it's no use in helping us learning the various types of diseases out there. Patho schematics seem to be too basic. Second life, laulima discussions, quizzes, case study avatars, patho powerpoint presentations, and advanced textbook reading should be core assignments for the course. It's good to test us weekly with quizzes just as how we're doing now, to see if we're competent in what we've learned for the topic of the week.
Great job Estelle!!!!!
thank you
liked that we could choose the topics for the schematics, but didn't like the schematics itself...in terms of format. would have liked to see schematics of the other students for learning purposes.

Estelle Codier: NURS617, Spring 2010     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Nursing
Course: NURS 617 - Human Responses to Illness-A Crn (Section): 3319 (431)    
1. 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%)
2. 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%)
3. The instructor communicated effectively.
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. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
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. I developed enthusiasm about the course material.
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%)
6. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.
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%)
7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
learning pathophysiology intensely and in multiple ways Second life virtual world added a clinical aspect to the online course More time spent on individual systems
Development of charts: acid-base, cardiac, etc. helped me to gain a deeper understanding of pathophysiology principles. Enjoyed use of avatars and SL, student led rounds... keep this! Exams were nerve-racking, but I feel I learned a lot.
The various teaching methods were very helpful and kept the class interesting. I think the SL rounding was a great learning tool and really allowed interaction among the class.
8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
assignments and exams tended to be labor intensive, requiring a lot of time to perform well
I did not care for having to "draw" systems, but I understand reasoning... i.e., prepare students to be creative in learning/teaching
9. The instructor puts material across in an interesting way.
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%)
10. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
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%)
11. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.
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%)
12. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives 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%)
13. The instructor adjusts to fit individual abilities and interests.
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%)
14. The instructor was available for consultation with students.
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%)
15. Assignments make students think.
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%)
16. The assigned reading is well integrated into this 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%)
17. 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%)
18. Other comments:
This is an excellently designed course that pushed me to a higher level as needed by a graduate level student. I hope Estelle is teaching 618 to complete coverage of the patho systems.
Can we take the EI quiz? Would also love to have one class meeting early in semester to meet/establish rapport/network with peers.
the written exam was very helpful, although time consuming, it did help me retain the information. I also appreciated having the quizzes and assignments early so I could get ahead when I had free time and this extremely helped in managing my other classes.