eCAFE - Course and Faculty Evaluation, University of Hawaii
eCAFE Home | FAQ | Contact

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations


Instructor: Judith Stilgenbauer

Available Survey Results

Judith Stilgenbauer: ARCH 341, Fall 2012

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Architecture
Course: ARCH 341 - Int Arch Studio A Crn (Section): 79581 (004)    
1. Class Level (pick one)
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Freshman   Sophomore   Junior   Senior   Grad   Other  
3.17 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
2. Course
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
2.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
6. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
7. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
8. I developed a greater sense of personal responsibility.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
9. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
10. I performed up to my potential in this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
11. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
12. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
Actually having a site with rules and regulations like zoning althoughthat should have had more of an impact on the projects.
The site analysis learning process was most valuable.
I learned a lot about myself, as a student and as a designer. I know this is partial because of experience, but this semester with Judith has been very enlightening. The reviewers she invites to our presentations are enormously helpful. Judith challenged me while allowing me to explore different approach and allowing to figure out what ways were better than others. She began to make us design our projects with realistic restrictions and guidelines, such as being practical and providing ADA accessibility.
13. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
model should have been due 1 week before presentations
The lack of having a more structured process for the development of the projects.
14. 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 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
15. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
16. The instructor broadened my understanding and grasp of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
17. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
18. The instructor maintains an atmosphere of good feeling in class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
19. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
20. The instructor suggests specific ways students can improve.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
21. The instructor was available and willing to help with individual problems outside of class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
22. The instructor uses class time well.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
23. Work requirements and grading system were clear from the beginning.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
24. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
25. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
26. The amount of material covered in the course is reasonable.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%)
27. The instructor makes the course difficult enough to be stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
28. What did you find most valuable and helpful about the instructor?
she is very passionate about landscape architecture, she brings professional experience, something that the university does not always offer.
-ORGANIZED -TIMELY WITH UPDATES AND DEADLINES -EASY TO TALK TO WHEN DOING ONE ON ONE DESK CRITIQUES -VERY KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE -FIRST PROFESSOR TO TEACH US ABOUT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE/GREEN ROOFS -REALISTIC ABOUT OUR SCHEDULE AND ALWAYS AWARE THAT WE HAVE OTHER CLASSES
She was very knowledgeable about landscape architecture. She knows her stuff
Her knowledge of the subject, provides many examples of landscape design. Supportive as well as critical during critiques. Challenges students to constantly improve their designs.
her experience, critical eye, motivation, humor
29. What did you find least valuable and helpful about the instructor?
-- snipped --
She could have been a little more firm on grading.
* Showing 1 out of 2 survey responses.

 
30. Please list your suggestions for improving the course and/or the instructor's teaching style and methods.
have things due 1 week earlier than they "should" that way students are always ahead of schedule
The course would be more beneficial with more lectures on landscape architecture and green design context.
31. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
32. Class assignments provided an effective aid for learning the subject matter.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
33. The course materials (texts, handouts) make a valuable contribution to the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
34. The projects were valuable in understanding the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
35. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
36. My overall evaluation of this course is...
GOOD STUDIO. I LEARNED A LOT ABOUT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AS WELL AS MORE OF THE SMALL DETAILS THAT AN ARCHITECT IS REQUIRED TO KNOW. PROGRESSED AND DEVELOPED MY SKILLS AS AN ARCHITECTURE STUDENT. GREAT PROFESSOR. HOPE TO HAVE ANOTHER CLASS WITH HER IN THE FUTURE.
Overall good course with a lot of information on site and landscape design
Allows for a deeper understanding of landscape architecture, "green architecture". Provides a different approach to design.
awesome
37. State in two or three sentences how this course could be improved.
see above
Maybe a little too fair in terms of grading. Prior studios have had a much more strict grading curve.
If possible, find sustainable systems which the class can visit and understand how they are applied.
38. Other comments:
one of my favortie studio so far, I think Judith was a really interesting teacher, I would love to take a different class with her.