University of Hawai'i eCAFE

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations

Instructor: Richard Chadwick

Available Survey Results

POLS 315, Spring 2012
POLS 315, Fall 2010
POLS 401, Fall 2010
POLS 630, Fall 2010
POLS 322, Spring 2010
POLS 382, Spring 2010
POLS 401, Spring 2010
POLS 651, Spring 2010
POLS 730, Fall 2009

Richard Chadwick: POLS 315, Spring 2012

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Political Science
Course:	POLS 315 - Global Politics/Intl Relations	Crn (Section):	85290 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.83	18	0.38	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (17%)	15 (83%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.67	18	0.59	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	4 (22%)	13 (72%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.22	18	0.88	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	2 (11%)	7 (39%)	8 (44%)

4. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.28	18	0.75	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (17%)	7 (39%)	8 (44%)

5. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Professor Chadwick is a wealth of information, as are many students as he has pointed out, and being able to listen to his perspective, take and understanding of various theories, concepts, and events is eye opening and inspiring.

The readings and weekly quizes really challenged me

3x3 Global Drills

Professor Chadwick was very passionate and allowed students to do written work to make up points missed on quizzes. This was great because it both helped the students to learn the material and improve their grade which decreased the amount of stress that the students felt.

I really benefited from the option to make corrections to the quizzes

The lectures was most valuable and the group discussions. His lectures were understandable and great to listen to. The group discussions were based on his lecture and/or a question he gave out for the students to ponder on and discuss about. In addition, he allowed us the opportunity to recommend suggestions to what could better the class discussions and/or his lectures.

Dr. Chadwick possesses a tremendous amount of knowledge about the material he covers in this course, and was able to answer any questions that students had regarding his lectures. Honestly Dr. Chadwick has one of the better class structures that I've experienced here at UH.

The way he quizes, it based of actual knowledge

He explained many of the important terms we needed clearly and gave us a summary before hand.

I enjoyed both required books for this course and thought that in-class discussions and lectures were very insightful.

I really liked the book Why Nations go to War. It was very informative and a new perspective

class discussions

I liked Professor Chadwick's style of lecture. He always related what we were reading to the course and could easily explain the relevence of the texts we would read.

Learning about future issues that are rising up was valuable.

6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

Doing the 3x3 drill during the second half of the semester didn't do anything to enhance my learning

I know the class ended up spending a lot of time on it, and no offense to Martin, however the 3x3 group activity felt lacking. I understand the focus and purpose of the simulation but besides a couple of the simulations the 3x3 activity was not engaging and became monotonous. This could have been because over half of the groups had the same topic. The 3x3 activity also seemed to drag on quite a bit and I felt it was cutting in to hearing what Prof. Chadwick had to offer us through lecture. The smaller group discussions we had early on, with Q and A right afterward felt more fruitful. Don't get me wrong, I do believe thinking long term, global problem and solution drills are good but as a class I didn't think we got very far in truly thinking and working together to come up with possible solutions. Sadly I do not hav a better idea of how to do this.

N/A

Martin Schwab's 3x3 global drills was somewhat poorly planned and not explained thoroughly so students had to guess at what they were doing throughout that portion of the course

Although interesting...I did not feel incredibly stimulated from the mock exercise. At times I felt extremely confused on what was going on...but overall the exercise was interesting and got me to think of politics in a completely different light...so my suggestion would be to have clearer directions for how the exercise should be conducted...maybe make a recording of a previous class and then show that recording to future classes to show how the exercise is conducted.

NONE

3x3 drills

N/A

I thought the 3x3 Global Drill was very invaluable and served little to no purpose as it pertains to this course.

The 3X3 drills need to be organized better. I think it would work better if you did a session where the groups could talk to their team members before they get up and present to the class.

the 3x3 drill

The simulation groups

7. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.83	18	0.38	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (17%)	15 (83%)

8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	18	0.49	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	12 (67%)	6 (33%)

9. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.56	18	0.62	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	6 (33%)	11 (61%)

10. The instructor broadened my understanding and grasp of the subject.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.59	17	0.51	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (41%)	10 (59%)

11. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	18	0.62	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	7 (39%)	10 (56%)

12. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would rate this INSTRUCTOR?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.56	18	0.62	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	6 (33%)	11 (61%)

13. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.11	18	0.83	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (28%)	6 (33%)	7 (39%)

14. Other comments:

This is a great course and it really makes you think and wonder what we are doing, why are we doing it, and so on.

I think more of the 3x3 global drills should take place! However, maybe instead of focusing the drills on what the paper was on, present a question/hot topic to each group for a global impromptu debate... Pass out a paper to the class containing 3 possible topics of choice, allow each group to decide what their topic is out of the 3 (don't allow more than two groups to cover one topic), and have them research actual policies/laws regarding those topics, as well as problems/solutions. Something like that, that involves not just solutions to global problems, but specific ways in which the policies and laws regarding those issues can be created/adjusted/abolished/etc... Overall, awesome course!

I would have enjoyed this course a lot more if it focused only on Professor Chadwick's lectures and course material. The 3x3 global drills took away from his material and made students less passionate about the class.

thanks for a great semester!

I liked his style of teaching

N/A

Richard Chadwick: POLS 315, Fall 2010 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Political Science
Course:	POLS 315 - Global Politics/Intl Relations	Crn (Section):	73249 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
3.27	11	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	6 (55%)	4 (36%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

2. Course

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
1.5	10	0.53	Freq(%)	5 (50%)	5 (50%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.73	11	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	1 (9%)	9 (82%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.36	11	0.81	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (18%)	3 (27%)	6 (55%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.27	11	0.9	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (27%)	2 (18%)	6 (55%)

6. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.36	11	0.81	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (18%)	3 (27%)	6 (55%)

7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

The discussion and the lectures

EVERYTHING! He is incredibly smart, it blew me away. Great professor, great instructor, good with letting you make up tests but making those quiz's hard keeps you on your toes and studying! Goes off on rants (which I love) and brings in knowledge from textbooks, his own experiences and current events. I haven't yet figured out his political affiliation, but I have a feeling I rather not no.

Simulation

Engaging Discussions with students.

international relations and current political issues

8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

Nothing really, this class is awesome

Nothing.

Some quiz questions...

Losing track of time

9. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.64	11	0.67	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	2 (18%)	8 (73%)

10. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.45	11	0.69	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	4 (36%)	6 (55%)

11. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.45	11	0.82	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (18%)	2 (18%)	7 (64%)

12. The instructor broadened my understanding and grasp of the subject.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.55	11	0.69	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	3 (27%)	7 (64%)

13. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.36	11	0.81	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (18%)	3 (27%)	6 (55%)

14. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would rate this INSTRUCTOR?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.45	11	0.82	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (18%)	2 (18%)	7 (64%)

15. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.18	11	0.87	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (27%)	3 (27%)	5 (45%)

16. Other comments:

Would have been even greater if the class involved "model UN" where students can debate issues of great importance as they step into the shoes of a particular country's ambassador. Also, lectures tend to go off on a tangent and need to focus specifically on the dynamics of these international relations, as well as the empirical data.

Should have picked a better book for the International Relations Theory.

the class is much boring because of the lectures....it has to come up with some class activities base on the lectures or the readings of the weeks

Richard Chadwick: POLS 401, Fall 2010 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Political Science
Course:	POLS 401 - Teaching Political Science	Crn (Section):	78059 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
3.67	3	0.58	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (33%)	2 (67%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

2. Course

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
5.0	3	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (100%)

5. 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%)

6. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

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%)

7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Both texts were great. Professor Chadwick is vary knowledgeable about the subject.

I got to see learning from a different perspective. As a TI you are able to see what students are struggling with and what aspects they are excelling in. I really enjoyed it.

His style of teaching is very different and really entertaining.

8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

Professor Chadwick dislikes criticism which means that when he makes claims that are wrong (like: the french revolution took place in 1789 not 1815 like he said in class) I don't feel like i can correct him without him getting defensive and angry.

I wish there was a bit more interaction with the class, but I understand it is hard to allow 6 TI's to participate all the time in the course of the semester.

Nothing.

9. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.

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%)

10. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and 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%)

11. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

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%)

12. The instructor broadened my understanding and grasp 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%)

13. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	2	1.41	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (50%)	0 (0%)	1 (50%)

14. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would rate this INSTRUCTOR?

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%)

15. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.67	3	0.58	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (33%)	2 (67%)

16. Other comments:

Chadwick went off on tangents a lot, but these tangents were always informative. Sometimes it was difficult to know what was expected of you as a student.

Richard Chadwick: POLS 630, Fall 2010 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Political Science
Course:	POLS 630 - International Relations	Crn (Section):	76603 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
5.0	4	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (100%)	0 (0%)

2. Course

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
1.5	4	0.58	Freq(%)	2 (50%)	2 (50%)

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
4.75	4	0.5	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	3 (75%)

6. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

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%)

7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

The free style enabled discussion and critical thinking. The books and materials provided were very appropriate and very deep in content. The professor was very insightful.

the discussion in the class is very good.

Chadwick welcomes true discussions, rather than demanding agreement with him or the texts. Questions and criticisms of the material are met with thoughtful, generous responses. Students are treated equally, and with respect.

8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

Attendance by other students.

May be when someone just talked about unrelavent topics or started using some abstract words.

You lose me with the physics examples every time!

9. 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%)

10. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and 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%)

11. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

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%)

12. The instructor broadened my understanding and grasp of the subject.

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%)

13. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.

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%)

14. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would rate this INSTRUCTOR?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.75	4	0.5	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	3 (75%)

15. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.5	4	0.58	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (50%)	2 (50%)

16. Other comments:

This course and similar courses needs to be offered more often and to a students from other fields of study.

Definitely an asset to the department. I enjoyed the class immensely.

Richard Chadwick: POLS 322, Spring 2010 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Political Science
Course:	POLS 322 - American Foreign Policy	Crn (Section):	85616 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
3.75	12	0.45	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (25%)	9 (75%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

2. Course

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
1.44	9	0.53	Freq(%)	5 (56%)	4 (44%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.67	12	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	2 (17%)	9 (75%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

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%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

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%)

6. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.17	12	0.58	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	8 (67%)	3 (25%)

7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Profesor Chadwick is very knowledgeable of 20th Century American foreign policy. I like how he expounded on major events.

When we had the debate on a simulation held in class about Foreign Aid Policy around the world.

The environment the instructor offered was conducive to learning yet laid back in a good way. The text offered in the course was very easy to read yet extremely comprehensive. Chadwick is a career educator who provides a very welcoming environment and lectures in a colloquial way that is "grandfatherly" like but it seems to be suited for a subject like American Foreign policy. Flexibility in assignments and a very free and open discourse was appreciated. Chadwick knows his subject matter very well and is a great asset to this institution.

reading a chapter a week and discussing it and hearing lecture on it was very valuable and effective because it was a good amount of reading yet not extremely demanding so everyone was able to do it. it was just right in workload, with journals readings and quizzes, challenging but not exhausting

The text, groupwork

8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

None

Quizzes and exams were rather simple but the weekly exams serve their purpose in helping students focus on the main points. Lectures can get off topic at times but usually provide some insight into foreign policy and politics.

simulations

Lectures were a little hard to follow.

9. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.67	12	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	2 (17%)	9 (75%)

10. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.

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%)

11. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

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%)

12. The instructor broadened my understanding and grasp of the subject.

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%)

13. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.17	12	0.58	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	8 (67%)	3 (25%)

14. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would rate this INSTRUCTOR?

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%)

15. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?

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%)

16. Other comments:

I have taken three classes with this professor and it just doesn't make me feel weak to attend his lectures because he is an excellent instructor and very smart. Using all his knowlege in grasping the students to understand the concept of the materials and whatever it is presented in the course materials. With this i have strongly recommended Dr. Chadwick to be an excellent instructor.

Supplementing the textbook with some other reading material would be nice. The quizzes and exams could also be made to be a little more challenging. It would be nice to get some feedback on the weekly writing assignments or assign topics for the weekly writing assignment so that they may be used for a point for discussion in future classes.

Richard Chadwick: POLS 382, Spring 2010 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Political Science
Course:	POLS 382 - Political Leadership	Crn (Section):	89109 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
3.08	13	0.86	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	4 (31%)	4 (31%)	5 (38%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

2. Course

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
1.36	11	0.5	Freq(%)	7 (64%)	4 (36%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.86	14	0.36	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (14%)	12 (86%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.43	14	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	6 (43%)	7 (50%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.14	14	1.17	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	2 (14%)	4 (29%)	7 (50%)

6. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.54	13	0.66	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	4 (31%)	8 (62%)

7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

I like the readings the most. There was three books that were required readings but they were very interesting to read.

I really thought that the book discussions were most valuable. It helped me understand the material and relate it to current issues. I also liked the group project at the end, it really gave a different perspective to the class and let us simulate real political topics.

The four required books. These books were wonderful application to not just class but life. I will keep these books for the rest of my life. Also i found a weekly write up to be effective. It keeps us (students) engaged to the course, week by week. It also calls for a moment of reflection, i feel too many times, the message just goes in one ear and out the other. With the requirement of a write up, your forced to sit down and contemplate the message, really soak up relevance and importance.

Books

Simulation activity and Lectures

The small group sessions & the lectures.

EVERY SINGLE CLASS IS VALUABLE.

The content when presented in charts and graphs and on board were well presented.

The interactions with student was very good because it kept the students awake and focused.

the book discussions

Got me out of my comfort zone, gave me tools for future development.

8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

Group activities. Most students were opinionated to the point that they overpowered those that were quite. It didnt feel like a true legislative session.

I didn't think that any part of the course was not valuable.

Your lectures that merely paraphrased the assigned readings. I felt that at the beginning of the semester you talked about things outside of the parameter of the books we were reading. However that could be because you set the foundation for the rest of the course, with topics of Stephen Covey, and Maslow, and ruler of China. Though, as the semester progressed, I felt most of the lectures talked about the readings, that most of us, read the night before. I enjoyed when you talked about other issues and make relevance to the readings and/or life in general, i.e. stress bucket.

The lack of a solid & firm schedule. It seemed to change and it was hard to keep track of what was needed to be done for each week.

NONE THAT I CAN THINK OFF.

Class was very disorganized, content very hard to grasp without being a specialist in the field.

None.

discussions with the group

At times unorganized, unstructured.

9. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.93	14	0.27	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	13 (93%)

10. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.21	14	0.8	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (21%)	5 (36%)	6 (43%)

11. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.62	13	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	3 (23%)	9 (69%)

12. The instructor broadened my understanding and grasp of the subject.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.43	14	0.76	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (14%)	4 (29%)	8 (57%)

13. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	14	0.76	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (14%)	3 (21%)	9 (64%)

14. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would rate this INSTRUCTOR?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.64	14	0.5	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (36%)	9 (64%)

15. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.5	14	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (50%)	7 (50%)

16. Other comments:

NO COMMENTS.

Needs to be more organized, easier to understand for college students, otherwise teacher is good and course structure is good.

NONE

Richard Chadwick: POLS 401, Spring 2010 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Political Science
Course:	POLS 401 - Teaching Political Science	Crn (Section):	87777 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
4.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

2. Course

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
1.5	2	0.71	Freq(%)	1 (50%)	1 (50%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

6. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

The feel for what teaching politics is about.

8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

None.

9. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

10. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

11. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

12. The instructor broadened my understanding and grasp of the subject.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

13. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

14. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would rate this INSTRUCTOR?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

15. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

16. Other comments:

None.

Richard Chadwick: POLS 651, Spring 2010 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Political Science
Course:	POLS 651 - Political Leadership	Crn (Section):	89091 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)	0 (0%)

2. Course

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
1.0	1	0.0	Freq(%)	1 (100%)	0 (0%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	2	0.71	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (50%)	1 (50%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

6. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	2	0.71	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (50%)	1 (50%)

7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Everything

The materials covered for the class were very helpful in understanding all of the differernt aspects of political leadership.

8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

Nothing

Some of the discussions were sometimes off track but it's only because Professor Chadwick demonstrates his exceptional knowledge in many categories of Political Science.

9. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

10. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	2	0.71	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (50%)	1 (50%)

11. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

12. The instructor broadened my understanding and grasp of the subject.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

13. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

14. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would rate this INSTRUCTOR?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
5.0	2	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)

15. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.5	2	0.71	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (50%)	1 (50%)

16. Other comments:

Great class!!

Richard Chadwick: POLS 730, Fall 2009 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Political Science
Course:	POLS 730 - Sem: International Relations	Crn (Section):	79145 (002)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
5.0	6	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (100%)	0 (0%)

2. Course

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
1.0	5	0.0	Freq(%)	5 (100%)	0 (0%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

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%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	6	0.55	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	6	0.82	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (17%)	2 (33%)	3 (50%)

6. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	6	0.55	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)

7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Professor Chadwick's 40 plus years of thinking about the theory, data and culture and corresponding science, praxis and philosophy of American foreign policy.

All aspects were valuable.

The readings were outstanding. Class discussions were interesting and enjoyable. Professor Chadwick is incredibly knowledgeable, genuinely cares about his students, and clearly enjoys teaching.

8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

Some lectures and presentations were clearer to understand than others. As with all classes in this department and perhaps in all academe, more deliberation among an international student body, especially in a seminar setting guided by the expert, the professor might benefit all involved exponentially. Of course, international students have a responsibility to contribute more substantively and imaginatively to the discussions that do take place rather than the usual manner of deferring to or passively resisting their U.S. counterparts.

None

N/A

9. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.67	6	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (33%)	4 (67%)

10. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.2	5	0.84	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (20%)	2 (40%)	2 (40%)

11. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	6	0.55	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)

12. The instructor broadened my understanding and grasp of the subject.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.67	6	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (33%)	4 (67%)

13. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	6	0.55	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)

14. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would rate this INSTRUCTOR?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.67	6	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (33%)	4 (67%)

15. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.5	6	0.55	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (50%)	3 (50%)