eCAFE - Course and Faculty Evaluation, University of Hawaii

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations


Instructor: Lauren Tamamoto

Available Survey Results

FSHN381, Fall 2013
FSHN381, Fall 2013

Lauren Tamamoto: FSHN381, Fall 2013

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Human Nutritn,Food & Animal Sc
Course: FSHN 381 - Experimental Foods Crn (Section): 74712 (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  
3.6 10 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (40%) 6 (60%) 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  
1.9 10 0.32 Freq(%) 1 (10%) 9 (90%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 10 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 6 (60%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 10 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 6 (60%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.6 10 0.7 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 7 (70%)
6. The instructor presented concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 10 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 6 (60%)
7. The instructor was accessible to students.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.8 10 0.42 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 8 (80%)
8. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
4.3 10 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 5 (50%)
9. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
4.6 10 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (40%) 6 (60%)
10. I developed the ability to solve real problems in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.3 10 1.06 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 6 (60%)
11. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.7 10 0.67 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 8 (80%)
12. I enjoyed this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.2 10 0.92 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (30%) 2 (20%) 5 (50%)
13. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 10 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (50%) 5 (50%)
14. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.8 10 0.42 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 8 (80%)
15. How can the instructor improve the teaching of this course?
improve lecture topics
I think that she should teach students about the subjects she includes in her take home examinations. At least provide students with some sort of back ground information first and THEN ask students to elaborate and explain in further detail.
clearer due dates/expectations outlined on syllabus. match lecture material with lab work and cover said material before the tests.
No suggestions
Syllabus was a little overwhelming. When it came time to assignments she was good at communicating due dates and requirements. Maybe shorten the syllabus and leave the details for when the assignments actually come around? Lecture more about topics related to the take-home exams. I felt like the take-home exam questions weren't really related to our labs and we didn't talk about it in lecture, so the questions on there were kind of out-of-the- blue.
More teaching of basic concepts of food science would have been helpful.
I hope, she can change the teaching method. I feel, I learn more with a traditional teaching instructor than with learner-centered teaching instructor. When a traditional instructor deliver the new knowledge in class, it really bring out the students interest, eager to learn more, and understand the material better. I feel, I am so lost at the beginning of the course. I don't know what the instructor expects us to know and how deep down of the material we have to answer the take home exam. I hope, she can still continue the traditional teaching method and adopt some learner-centered teaching such as group work.
16. What two or three single words best describe this instructor?
smart driven young
friendly, knowledgable, positive
Intelligent, Kind, Invested
Bubbly Easy to talk to Enthusiastic
Enthusiastic, friendly and welcoming.
Friendly, smart, knowldegable
very nice instuctor
17. Assignments are graded fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.7 10 0.48 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (30%) 7 (70%)
18. Which aspects of the course did you like the best?
eating food in lab
Taste testing products
learning how and why food is the way it is, and developing products of our own
Learning food science from people who do food science for a living! Teachers very personable and welcoming.
I enjoyed the entire lab aspect. Experimenting with ingredients and finding out how the affected the end product.
The labs were the most interesting: testing different cooking techniques and seeing how food reacts during cooking.
The lab - application of learning material
Work in the lab and explore the experiment, it is very fun. I enjoy this part.
19. Which aspects of the course did you like least?
48+ hour take home exams
There was a lot of writing... but then again it is a writing intensive and it helped me to improve my writing.
the tests were very comprehensive and little information was previously talked about in class. the work load was overbearing at times.
All the writing.
I understand it's a WI course but there's so much work! This was my most enjoyable class, but I think it took up more than 50% of my study time between all classes. Some of the questions are repetitive (on the exam/homeworks). Exams are a lot of work when you factor in spending time for research.
20. My overall evaluation of this course is...
B
Time consuming, but also time worthy. Good course. Will learn a lot.
this class definitely got me more interested in food science. i really enjoyed it
Great. Most I've ever put into a class. Really enjoyed learning and exploring my academic side (extensive writing, analyzing, etc) Love Dr. Tamamoto & Tim, feel like they really care. <3
I enjoyed this course. It was one of my better classes this semester.
Very good, very fun class, but be prepared to do a ton of work!
Just neutral.
21. Other comments:
Merry Christmas!
thank you!

Lauren Tamamoto: FSHN381, Fall 2013     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Human Nutritn,Food & Animal Sc
Course: FSHN 381 - Experimental Foods Crn (Section): 74713 (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  
3.71 7 1.11 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (57%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
2.0 7 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 7 (100%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.57 7 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (43%) 4 (57%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.43 7 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (57%) 3 (43%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.43 7 0.79 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 2 (29%) 4 (57%)
6. The instructor presented concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.14 7 0.69 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 4 (57%) 2 (29%)
7. The instructor was accessible to students.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.71 7 0.49 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 5 (71%)
8. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
4.43 7 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (57%) 3 (43%)
9. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
4.57 7 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (43%) 4 (57%)
10. I developed the ability to solve real problems in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.14 7 0.9 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 2 (29%) 3 (43%)
11. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.71 7 0.49 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 5 (71%)
12. I enjoyed this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.71 7 0.49 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 5 (71%)
13. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.57 7 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (43%) 4 (57%)
14. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.57 7 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (43%) 4 (57%)
15. How can the instructor improve the teaching of this course?
Sometimes it can get confusing in class with the instructions or the comments made between Dr. Tamamoto and the TA on lab reports. Made it hard to edit because sometimes they were drastic differences.
There could be more lectures to learn about material that could be on the tests rather than receiving a test with many concepts we barely know about.
Have more lectures relative to the exams.
By using the lecture time to go over topics that we may be seeing on the exams to give better direction when researching answers to exam questions.
16. What two or three single words best describe this instructor?
Very Enthusiastic
Approachable, understanding
Energetic and intelligent
Creative, relatable, encouraging
17. Assignments are graded fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.2 7 0.45 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (57%) 1 (14%)
18. Which aspects of the course did you like the best?
I loved the lab portion where we kind of develop our food product. It was very interesting.
I really enjoyed the lab and the being able to experiment!
the lab was the best part
The experimental aspect of the class. It was interesting.
The connection between food and science.
I liked the labs when we were cooking because it allowed us to physically see the outcomes of adding and taking away certain ingredients. Though some of the food products didn't come out the way we wanted, the process is what really helped us to learn. I also enjoyed learning some background knowledge of conducting sensory evaluations.
19. Which aspects of the course did you like least?
Journals. Didn't feel like they were relevant to the course.
I felt that the lectures and journals could relate more to the course to allow us students to not only learn more about ourselves, but also be able to develop the skills when experimenting with food.
take home tests was the aspect I liked the least.
The amount of work given at once.
The writing intensive portion. Journals could have been more useful if they related to the course subject. It became more important to finish the journal than to write a quality journal.
I didn't really like the fact that we had to present so much times. It would be nice just to present three times throughout the semester; at the end of each experiment. I didn't like the fact that we had to write two journals each week at the beginning of the semester. It was very tiring and it would've been way too repetitive, considering the topics chosen were all somewhat related. But it was nice to not have to write in such a formal matter.
20. My overall evaluation of this course is...
Love this class! Love Dr. Tamamoto! A lot of work but most of the time it's worth it.
It was a great course and I did enjoy it!
I enjoyed this class a lot. It was a lot of hard work but it was very fun. I learned a lot in this course and met many people that made this class great.
It was a nice class.
Excellent teacher who made the course very enjoyable.
I thought that Dr. Tamamoto was a very enthusiastic and sweet teacher. The class was definitely hard at times but it seemed like she wanted us all to do well. I appreciated the opportunities for extra credit because that really helped boost everyone's grade. I felt like once I had the lab report out of the way, the class seemed to get a little easier. Writing the lab report was the most stressful aspect since it was a lot of points and my group was depending on me to do well.
21. Other comments:
extra credit opportunities were worth it!