eCAFE - Course and Faculty Evaluation, University of Hawaii

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations


Instructor: Andrei Natarov

Available Survey Results

CHEM100, Fall 2014
CHEM162, Fall 2014
CHEM100, Spring 2014
CHEM162, Spring 2014
CHEM162, Fall 2013

Andrei Natarov: CHEM100, Fall 2014

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Chemistry
Course: CHEM 100 - Chemistry and Society Crn (Section): 76177 (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  
1.75 16 1.0 Freq(%) 8 (50%) 6 (38%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 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  
1.75 16 0.45 Freq(%) 4 (25%) 12 (75%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.38 16 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (63%) 6 (38%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 15 0.62 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 8 (53%) 6 (40%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 16 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 2 (13%) 9 (56%) 4 (25%)
6. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
4.06 16 0.77 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 10 (63%) 4 (25%)
7. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
4.2 15 0.56 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 10 (67%) 4 (27%)
8. Textbook andor other reading materials
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.56 16 1.21 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 2 (13%) 4 (25%) 5 (31%) 4 (25%)
9. Sensitivity to student problems and general rapport
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.13 16 0.81 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (25%) 6 (38%) 6 (38%)
10. Effective use of demonstrations, models, or visual aids
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.4 15 0.51 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (60%) 6 (40%)
11. Absence of distracting mannerisms, pauses, etc.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.19 16 0.66 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 9 (56%) 5 (31%)
12. The instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.44 16 0.63 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 7 (44%) 8 (50%)
13. The instructor's voice was clear and understandable.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.94 16 0.93 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 4 (25%) 6 (38%) 5 (31%)
14. The instructor has an interesting style of presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.06 16 0.93 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 3 (19%) 6 (38%) 6 (38%)
15. The instructor's presentation of abstract ideas and theories was clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.13 15 0.83 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 8 (53%) 5 (33%)
16. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.06 16 0.93 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 3 (19%) 6 (38%) 6 (38%)
17. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.13 16 0.72 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (19%) 8 (50%) 5 (31%)
18. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.19 16 0.75 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (19%) 7 (44%) 6 (38%)
19. Assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.75 16 1.06 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 5 (31%) 4 (25%) 5 (31%)
20. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.19 16 0.75 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (19%) 7 (44%) 6 (38%)
21. The course is highly recommended if it were taught by this instructor.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.06 16 0.93 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 3 (19%) 6 (38%) 6 (38%)
22. Audiovisual materials (or computers) were adequate and used appropriately.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.19 16 0.83 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 8 (50%) 6 (38%)
23. The exams gave students an opportunity to demonstrate what they had learned.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.31 16 0.87 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 6 (38%) 8 (50%)
24. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.31 16 0.95 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 2 (13%) 4 (25%) 9 (56%)
25. Other comments:
Honestly, I've been very on the fence about this class. It's interesting at times but at others... it can be strenuous to sit through an entire lecture. Professor Natarov is a kind person and will take the time to explain problems to his students during the review, but I wish that the homework would be explained in class? Or maybe have the lectures relate more to the homework? I felt that the lectures would be easy and nice, but the homework was the main problem. Sometimes the book would help, sometimes it wouldn't. Overall, it was an okay class, but I'm not particularly good at chemistry to begin with...
The homework for this course was very challenging, the classwork and tests we're much more reasonable. Prof Natarov did a good job of teaching
None
the professor is really nice, friendly and knowledgeable, the only thing I would like to point out is the environment of the lecture is really boring, therefore I hope the professor can find some ways to make the class more fun and excited
N/A
Andrei Natarov was very intellectual in his lectures, his accent makes it hard to understand sometimes and his colloquialism is straight scientific and is hard to sometimes grasp since I know that I personally do not talk like that. Otherwise his course is excellent, what he teaches is directly related to the book, he tries to give examples for us to better understand certain concepts. I also really really enjoy the book that he uses for his class because it is so easy to understand when I donʻt understand some things that are being taught or when I just want to read a little more into something. He has made learning so much bearable since chemistry is a hard subject, and since I havenʻt gotten a good background in chemistry entering college I am glad I took this to get a solid foundation that will be a huge benefit to my learning when I reach the upper level divisions in chemistry.

Andrei Natarov: CHEM162, Fall 2014     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Chemistry
Course: CHEM 162 - General Chemistry II Crn (Section): 70533 (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  
2.44 39 1.1 Freq(%) 4 (10%) 22 (56%) 9 (23%) 2 (5%) 0 (0%) 2 (5%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
2.0 36 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 36 (100%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.38 40 0.67 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (10%) 17 (43%) 19 (48%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.08 39 0.96 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 7 (18%) 15 (38%) 15 (38%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.59 39 0.97 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 3 (8%) 14 (36%) 14 (36%) 7 (18%)
6. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
3.58 40 1.01 Freq(%) 2 (5%) 3 (8%) 11 (28%) 18 (45%) 6 (15%)
7. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
3.69 39 1.03 Freq(%) 2 (5%) 1 (3%) 13 (33%) 14 (36%) 9 (23%)
8. Textbook andor other reading materials
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.5 40 1.01 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 5 (13%) 14 (35%) 13 (33%) 7 (18%)
9. Sensitivity to student problems and general rapport
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.55 40 0.9 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 5 (13%) 14 (35%) 15 (38%) 6 (15%)
10. Effective use of demonstrations, models, or visual aids
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.55 40 0.88 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 3 (8%) 19 (48%) 11 (28%) 7 (18%)
11. Absence of distracting mannerisms, pauses, etc.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.82 39 0.88 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 10 (26%) 19 (49%) 8 (21%)
12. The instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.78 40 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 3 (8%) 12 (30%) 16 (40%) 9 (23%)
13. The instructor's voice was clear and understandable.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.21 39 1.06 Freq(%) 3 (8%) 6 (15%) 13 (33%) 14 (36%) 3 (8%)
14. The instructor has an interesting style of presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.21 39 1.03 Freq(%) 3 (8%) 4 (10%) 18 (46%) 10 (26%) 4 (10%)
15. The instructor's presentation of abstract ideas and theories was clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.45 40 1.04 Freq(%) 3 (8%) 2 (5%) 14 (35%) 16 (40%) 5 (13%)
16. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 39 0.9 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 15 (38%) 15 (38%) 7 (18%)
17. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.92 38 0.88 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 7 (18%) 20 (53%) 9 (24%)
18. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.98 40 0.83 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 5 (13%) 24 (60%) 9 (23%)
19. Assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.23 40 1.12 Freq(%) 4 (10%) 4 (10%) 16 (40%) 11 (28%) 5 (13%)
20. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.65 40 1.12 Freq(%) 2 (5%) 4 (10%) 10 (25%) 14 (35%) 10 (25%)
21. The course is highly recommended if it were taught by this instructor.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.4 40 1.13 Freq(%) 2 (5%) 6 (15%) 14 (35%) 10 (25%) 8 (20%)
22. Audiovisual materials (or computers) were adequate and used appropriately.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.7 40 0.99 Freq(%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 9 (23%) 20 (50%) 7 (18%)
23. The exams gave students an opportunity to demonstrate what they had learned.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.88 40 1.11 Freq(%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 9 (23%) 13 (33%) 14 (35%)
24. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.05 39 0.94 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 7 (18%) 16 (41%) 14 (36%)
25. Other comments:
Although I do like the opportunity to receive point aside from exams, I was not a fan of the online HW assignments
This professor makes aspects of the course harder than they actually are. Horrible.
late to class almost every day
I couldn't understand a word he was saying.
Professor Natarov tries his best to explain everything but sometimes goes to fast and a lot of time people do not get to finish writing what is written on the board. His lectures are sometimes hard to understand and sometimes he rushes through the material. He tries his best to explain each chapter the best he can but it is still confusing sometimes. This class was not an easy class but professor Natarov tries his best to get you to understand and do well on the test which is what I likes about him. He also started to slow down and write more examples on the board after the first exam and though he sometimes erases the notes before everyone is finish I felt like that helped people learn the material better than him just going through the powerpoints like he did in the beginning of the semester.
I appreciate the grade not being curved, since it allows students to have a better idea of what they have to do in order to achieve their academic objectives. I also appreciate Dr. Natarov having office hours every day from 2:30-3:30pm. However, it would be much appreciated if he notified students about office hour cancellations more consistently.
i am one of the students who attended class regularly
sometimes the exams have over-expectations ie. the third midterm requires you to go from only temperature and molarity to pH level while the study guide gives you molarity, temperature, and Kb level. some more examples in earlier midterms as well, besides that fair class. grading scale allows even the stupid people who do the homework to pass with a C/D (i'm one of those stupid students) while the students wanting an A have to really know the material. thank you for having mercy upon idiots in college
Thanks For your help!
Sometimes Natarov would be 5 to 10 minutes late, which was frustrating, but otherwise did not take away from the class. I really like that he points out formulas and problems that will be on future exams because it gives us study points in a sea of material to study from. I also like that he isn't afraid to not use a powerpoint, that he can give a lecture from his own knowledge. However, power points usually help me understand the material easier and he seemed to trend towards not using the powerpoint at all halfway through the semester.
Very clear when delivering concepts, provides examples and goes over them in detail. Practice exams and summaries of each chapter made it clear on what concepts were the most important and what exactly to expect on the exams. Grading seems fair.
Keep up the good work!
Didn't put the mic near his mouth so it was a little hard to understand him during lectures. Other than that, he's good at explaining the material.
N/A
It's hard to see red pen on the board for big examples!!
More practice problems would have been nice. The homework was a bit hard to understand sometimes.

Andrei Natarov: CHEM100, Spring 2014     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Chemistry
Course: CHEM 100 - Chemistry and Society Crn (Section): 87070 (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  
1.5 24 0.66 Freq(%) 14 (58%) 8 (33%) 2 (8%) 0 (0%) 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  
1.67 24 0.48 Freq(%) 8 (33%) 16 (67%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 24 0.83 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 2 (8%) 5 (21%) 16 (67%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.38 24 0.88 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 3 (13%) 6 (25%) 14 (58%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.04 24 1.16 Freq(%) 1 (4%) 2 (8%) 3 (13%) 7 (29%) 11 (46%)
6. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
3.92 24 1.06 Freq(%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 5 (21%) 9 (38%) 8 (33%)
7. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
4.08 24 1.1 Freq(%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 7 (29%) 4 (17%) 12 (50%)
8. Textbook andor other reading materials
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.75 24 1.03 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 3 (13%) 7 (29%) 7 (29%) 7 (29%)
9. Sensitivity to student problems and general rapport
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.33 24 0.87 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 3 (13%) 7 (29%) 13 (54%)
10. Effective use of demonstrations, models, or visual aids
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.13 24 0.95 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 6 (25%) 6 (25%) 11 (46%)
11. Absence of distracting mannerisms, pauses, etc.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.26 24 0.92 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 4 (17%) 6 (25%) 12 (50%)
12. The instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.21 24 0.83 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (25%) 7 (29%) 11 (46%)
13. The instructor's voice was clear and understandable.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.08 24 0.97 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 4 (17%) 8 (33%) 10 (42%)
14. The instructor has an interesting style of presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 24 1.02 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 6 (25%) 6 (25%) 10 (42%)
15. The instructor's presentation of abstract ideas and theories was clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.08 24 1.1 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 3 (13%) 4 (17%) 5 (21%) 12 (50%)
16. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 24 0.7 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (13%) 10 (42%) 11 (46%)
17. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.21 24 0.98 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 6 (25%) 4 (17%) 13 (54%)
18. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.38 24 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 2 (8%) 8 (33%) 13 (54%)
19. Assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 24 1.34 Freq(%) 2 (8%) 3 (13%) 5 (21%) 5 (21%) 9 (38%)
20. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.35 24 0.93 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 7 (29%) 13 (54%)
21. The course is highly recommended if it were taught by this instructor.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.04 24 1.2 Freq(%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 7 (29%) 2 (8%) 13 (54%)
22. Audiovisual materials (or computers) were adequate and used appropriately.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.13 24 1.03 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 5 (21%) 5 (21%) 12 (50%)
23. The exams gave students an opportunity to demonstrate what they had learned.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.27 24 0.88 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 3 (13%) 7 (29%) 11 (46%)
24. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.29 24 0.86 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (25%) 5 (21%) 13 (54%)
25. Other comments:
Very good Chemistry 100 teacher! I would 100% take this professor again.
It was really easy for me to understand the concept in this course because of the way that they were taught, I usually struggle in science courses but I had a much easier time understanding the themes of this course.
Natarov is the best.
Hard to follow course material, the homework is too challenging and I didn't learn much.
Given assignments that were not scheduled at all in the syllabus was unfair. The essay assignments made no sense in a Chemistry/Science course especially for college level and felt it was very irrelevant.
great teacher

Andrei Natarov: CHEM162, Spring 2014     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Chemistry
Course: CHEM 162 - General Chemistry II Crn (Section): 80434 (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  
1.66 152 1.03 Freq(%) 92 (61%) 22 (14%) 25 (16%) 5 (3%) 0 (0%) 2 (1%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.93 152 0.25 Freq(%) 10 (7%) 137 (90%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.12 152 0.78 Freq(%) 2 (1%) 3 (2%) 16 (11%) 83 (55%) 46 (30%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.74 152 1.02 Freq(%) 7 (5%) 11 (7%) 28 (18%) 73 (48%) 32 (21%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
2.99 152 1.29 Freq(%) 27 (18%) 25 (16%) 41 (27%) 39 (26%) 19 (13%)
6. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
3.2 152 1.0 Freq(%) 10 (7%) 22 (14%) 59 (39%) 50 (33%) 11 (7%)
7. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
3.05 152 1.06 Freq(%) 15 (10%) 24 (16%) 62 (41%) 38 (25%) 12 (8%)
8. Textbook andor other reading materials
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.43 152 0.91 Freq(%) 3 (2%) 17 (11%) 62 (41%) 52 (34%) 18 (12%)
9. Sensitivity to student problems and general rapport
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.51 152 1.11 Freq(%) 10 (7%) 15 (10%) 44 (29%) 54 (36%) 29 (19%)
10. Effective use of demonstrations, models, or visual aids
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
2.97 152 1.17 Freq(%) 21 (14%) 26 (17%) 53 (35%) 34 (22%) 15 (10%)
11. Absence of distracting mannerisms, pauses, etc.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.42 152 1.09 Freq(%) 9 (6%) 19 (13%) 46 (30%) 52 (34%) 24 (16%)
12. The instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.34 152 1.17 Freq(%) 15 (10%) 16 (11%) 47 (31%) 48 (32%) 25 (16%)
13. The instructor's voice was clear and understandable.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
2.64 152 1.15 Freq(%) 29 (19%) 43 (28%) 39 (26%) 34 (22%) 6 (4%)
14. The instructor has an interesting style of presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
2.77 152 1.16 Freq(%) 28 (18%) 30 (20%) 51 (34%) 33 (22%) 9 (6%)
15. The instructor's presentation of abstract ideas and theories was clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.08 152 1.15 Freq(%) 19 (13%) 26 (17%) 43 (28%) 52 (34%) 12 (8%)
16. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.32 152 1.08 Freq(%) 9 (6%) 25 (16%) 45 (30%) 54 (36%) 19 (13%)
17. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.69 152 0.95 Freq(%) 5 (3%) 3 (2%) 59 (39%) 50 (33%) 33 (22%)
18. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.68 152 0.97 Freq(%) 6 (4%) 9 (6%) 40 (26%) 69 (45%) 27 (18%)
19. Assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
2.73 152 1.14 Freq(%) 27 (18%) 35 (23%) 50 (33%) 32 (21%) 8 (5%)
20. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.39 152 1.1 Freq(%) 11 (7%) 19 (13%) 41 (27%) 60 (39%) 20 (13%)
21. The course is highly recommended if it were taught by this instructor.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
2.77 152 1.16 Freq(%) 29 (19%) 25 (16%) 59 (39%) 28 (18%) 10 (7%)
22. Audiovisual materials (or computers) were adequate and used appropriately.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.33 152 1.14 Freq(%) 12 (8%) 22 (14%) 43 (28%) 52 (34%) 22 (14%)
23. The exams gave students an opportunity to demonstrate what they had learned.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.56 152 1.14 Freq(%) 10 (7%) 19 (13%) 28 (18%) 65 (43%) 29 (19%)
24. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.57 152 1.17 Freq(%) 15 (10%) 9 (6%) 33 (22%) 65 (43%) 30 (20%)
25. Other comments:
-- snipped --
I liked in the beginning when you had the powerpoint and would add written notes to the presentation instead of using a note app on your iPad. I felt like it was easier to follow. Very knowledgeable but just needs an effective way of sharing the knowledge. I was not fond of your ipad note method.
When Natarov gave presentations through his iPad at times, it would shut off. Also, tests were rather hard when study guides were not provided, which is not a bad thing but not knowing what to expect on tests was a challenge.
-- snipped --
I liked that he wrote out the notes and gave examples during class. I was able to copy down the notes without feeling that I am just copying the notes and not understanding what he is saying. The lectures were good. I liked that he provided practice exams because those really helped to prepare for the exam.
I like the practice exams, they prepared me well for the exams. Mastering chemistry homework was sometimes too hard and irrelevant to the lecture material.
Professor Natarov means well but has a difficult time orating clearly. I feel that if his lectures were more than just writing on an iPad and his ability to speak clearly improved that he would be a great professor. His exams are fair. Part of the issue is that sometimes the microphone isn't pointed in the right direction or he mumbled a word. Overall, he is not the worst at UH but also one that I wouldn't readily recommend.
-- snipped --
The test were a little too high stake and leaves little room for careless errors.
-- snipped --
I whole-heartedly disagree with his grading system, in that every question counts as one percent of one's overall grade on all of the tests. This means that all students can do at best is keep their grade stagnant, which is very difficult since this means that one would have to get a perfect. Thus, for the student who bombs one test, it would be pointless to try to do his/her best, since it will be literally impossible to bring his/her grade up.
-- snipped --
Sometimes it was difficult to understand Natarov due to his accent, but this is something that is out of his control. He is very knowledgable about chemistry and did a great job of making sure we had the resources to understand the subject. He was always available when needed and was overall an awesome instructor.
-- snipped --
Notarov is a wonderful teacher and can really break things down when he explains, which was extremely valuable. His accent was the reason for a lot of complaints, but quite frankly I think the students who complained about his teaching were the students who were too lazy to actually try and listen to what he was saying through his thick accent and paying attention. Because it's easier to just play on their computers and visit social medias than it is to pay attention and follow along to decipher what Notarov had to say. His deep explanations made him a little bit slower in teaching though. Which was frustrating for my Chemistry Lab, where I was often behind in lecture. Not gonna lie though, it may have made me learn the material better by having to teach myself , then hearing it again from Notarov in class.
-- snipped --
Good instructor, kind of hard to understand in a large lecture room, but he is knowledgeable upon the subject.
Change your grading system. It does not make sense that you do not allow extra credit in a system where you literally see your grade fall during the semester. You should grade everything by an average rather than starting at 100% and decreasing grades when a student makes a mistake on the homework or exam. No one is perfect.
The grading policy is not very fair. Other chem professors provide a curve but Natarov doesn't curve.
This teacher needs to take into account that our grades are a reflection of his teaching ability. I feel that many peers voiced to me and others that the exams and grading was much too harsh and he is not grading on a curve which will result in many poor grades. There is so room for extra credit. Our knowledge is based off what he actually taught us and therefore everyone's grades should be looked at in order to assign correct grades earned. The teacher overall was difficult to understand and follow through a thought. Use of projector notes was nice when they were clean and the machines were not acting up .
Liked how there were practice exams before the actual exams
Curving the overall course grades (C being a 65%) is a good idea in theory, however, the students that naturally struggle in Chemistry and feel a tad more secure with an exam curve might refrain from taking this class. Some students naturally perform better knowing that there is a sort of cushion and will put in more work knowing they have room to make mistakes.
-- snipped --
-- snipped --
Grading for this class was tough, especially for a challenging course such as Chemistry. Every exam question that you get wrong subtracts 1% from your final grade. Being on scholarship that has a high GPA requirement (3.5) made me worry more about just passing the exams rather that really understanding the material. Should consider weighing grades and giving out practice exams.
-- snipped --
-- snipped --
-- snipped --
-- snipped --
-- snipped --
I understand why you have the grading system the way you have it but I feel as though the exams are "unfair" if that is an appropriate word. As a student trying to get an A it seems as though to get one you have to be perfect. Since each exam problem is worth 1% this is basically a class based ONLY on exams, not even exams where you can receive partial credit or actually show understanding of a topic. The exams are multiple choice only. This class ultimately comes down to 85 multiple choice questions... if you happen to not get more than 10 wrong you still have a chance of getting an A in the class. While I am 100% sure people will get A's, it just seems sort of counterproductive to the learning process. Instead of testing their understanding these multiple choice exams are essentially a one shot deal. If you get 10 questions wrong, that's it no A, no possibility, it's gone. With that setup there is no way to show improvement or new understanding. Once the deed is done, it's final and no matter how you feel about it, even if you aced the final exam and already got 10 wrong, nothing changes... It just sucks, but that's life... haha.
-- snipped --
I understand that teaching for such a big class cannot be easy, but the truth is that lectures did not help me that much to understand the subject. The homework did help me a great deal. Im not sure what the professor can do to improve the class, however, he should try something to improve the way the class is taught, which would be very beneficial for students in the future.
Having only 100 points in the class is an awful idea. Need better testing strategies
-- snipped --
-- snipped --
-- snipped --
This is a tough class no matter who the teacher, Natarov proved to be a difficult teacher in that his lectures sometimes were hard to follow due to a combination of his accent as well as a large focus on the math side of chemistry. Instead of going over concepts thouroughly Natarov would focus more on the equations that would be needed for the test. Mastering chemistry was ineffective and frustrating.
-- snipped --
One thing that was difficult for me this semester is that Natarov changed his presentation style mid-semester. Going from the ipad to the white board. He went through examples very quickly and most of the time I did not have time to write all of the problem down before he moved on to something else. The practice tests at the beginning of the semester were very helpful but he discontinued giving those out after the second test.
Sometimes the lecture is a bit confusing
-- snipped --
The class was difficult in itself, but I loved Natarov's style of teaching using technology. One piece of constructive criticism would be to include practice exams for every exam. The practice exams helped solidify our knowledge in class, and finalize that we were able to understand everything learned in class.
I recommend you put up slides we all can't learn from your hand writing alone we are not you. We are not as smart as you and require resources we can review over and over again and need material to study that is broken down better and in detail.
-- snipped --
Andrei Natarov is definitely knowledgeable in chemistry and he goes over a lot of examples in class that are very useful for homework and exams. I think his classes would have been better if he spoke louder and made class more interesting. Nonetheless if you make an effort to do the work and follow along in his lectures his class should be fairly easy for most.
-- snipped --
He needs to realize that teaching in a university setting means that there will be students who obviously will walk out of class during classtime and he should be able to handle it and not be totally phased by it and take it out on the class by withholding practice exams. He needs to learn to speak without such a heavy accent and facilitate actual teaching. I think he is an awesome person and great in a small setting but extremely poor voice delivery in class as well as handwriting.... a fifth grader has much better handwriting than him. It was quite poor.
His accent was a little hard to understand at times. It would be helpful if he had went over more problems similar to those in masteringchemistry. A grading curve would've been nice. He had a good understanding of the course material though.
Very easy to talk to, always available to help
-- snipped --
-- snipped --
-- snipped --
hard to learn if your not interested in chemistry
I think there need to be more assignments and opportunities to improve the grade. Also, I don't like that each question on the test is 1% of the grade.
I did not like that there were so few questions on the exams, only two wrong on the exam and you already miss out on an A. Mastering Chemistry is also the worst thing ever invented (probably a sadistic endeavor, maybe a hidden camera somewhere filming our outraged reactions?) but cannot think of any other alternatives as grading a giant class would be hell.
AWESOME PROFESSOR! THE BETTER CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR I HAD!!! Dr. Natarov knows what he is teaching. He is also open to a lot of questions and is very approachable. i like him a lot as a professor! He can improve by making himself clearer in speaking, but as a non-native English speaker myself, I believe it is not a very significant factor in his teaching. He is overall great and knowledgeable with the subject matter. UH should hire more professors like him. He understands me as a student and is willing to commit to teaching and helping his students.
-- snipped --
he was aight.
Professor Natarov was a very approachable and knowledgeable professor, but I unfortunately couldn't understand him most of the time through his accent.
He only curves the course down. That mens, 65% to 80% is a C and 80%-90% is a B. He does not curve B grades to A. In my opinion that is unfair
The exams in this class are only 17 questions and each exam is worth 17% of the class grade each. Every exam problem is one percent of your grade and there is no curve
* Showing 36 out of 62 survey responses.

 

Andrei Natarov: CHEM162, Fall 2013     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Chemistry
Course: CHEM 162 - General Chemistry II Crn (Section): 70551 (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  
2.28 110 0.69 Freq(%) 9 (8%) 67 (61%) 27 (25%) 6 (5%) 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  
1.99 110 0.1 Freq(%) 1 (1%) 106 (96%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.14 110 0.88 Freq(%) 2 (2%) 3 (3%) 15 (14%) 48 (44%) 42 (38%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.9 110 0.93 Freq(%) 3 (3%) 3 (3%) 23 (21%) 48 (44%) 28 (25%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.25 110 1.12 Freq(%) 10 (9%) 13 (12%) 42 (38%) 30 (27%) 15 (14%)
6. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
3.38 105 0.91 Freq(%) 3 (3%) 12 (11%) 42 (40%) 38 (36%) 10 (10%)
7. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
3.3 105 1.05 Freq(%) 6 (6%) 17 (16%) 33 (31%) 38 (36%) 11 (10%)
8. Textbook andor other reading materials
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.52 105 0.9 Freq(%) 3 (3%) 6 (6%) 43 (41%) 39 (37%) 14 (13%)
9. Sensitivity to student problems and general rapport
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.53 105 0.9 Freq(%) 4 (4%) 4 (4%) 42 (40%) 42 (40%) 13 (12%)
10. Effective use of demonstrations, models, or visual aids
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.28 105 1.08 Freq(%) 8 (8%) 14 (13%) 35 (33%) 35 (33%) 12 (11%)
11. Absence of distracting mannerisms, pauses, etc.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.44 105 1.02 Freq(%) 8 (8%) 4 (4%) 40 (38%) 40 (38%) 13 (12%)
12. The instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.59 110 1.03 Freq(%) 5 (5%) 7 (6%) 39 (35%) 36 (33%) 23 (21%)
13. The instructor's voice was clear and understandable.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.0 110 1.08 Freq(%) 10 (9%) 23 (21%) 40 (36%) 25 (23%) 9 (8%)
14. The instructor has an interesting style of presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
2.99 110 1.1 Freq(%) 10 (9%) 25 (23%) 39 (35%) 24 (22%) 10 (9%)
15. The instructor's presentation of abstract ideas and theories was clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.29 110 1.04 Freq(%) 7 (6%) 14 (13%) 40 (36%) 36 (33%) 12 (11%)
16. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.38 110 1.02 Freq(%) 6 (5%) 12 (11%) 38 (35%) 39 (35%) 13 (12%)
17. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.75 110 0.92 Freq(%) 3 (3%) 3 (3%) 36 (33%) 44 (40%) 24 (22%)
18. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.87 105 0.96 Freq(%) 3 (3%) 5 (5%) 22 (21%) 47 (45%) 27 (26%)
19. Assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
2.95 110 1.09 Freq(%) 12 (11%) 22 (20%) 43 (39%) 23 (21%) 9 (8%)
20. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.53 110 0.88 Freq(%) 2 (2%) 8 (7%) 40 (36%) 41 (37%) 13 (12%)
21. The course is highly recommended if it were taught by this instructor.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.12 110 1.16 Freq(%) 13 (12%) 13 (12%) 44 (40%) 24 (22%) 14 (13%)
22. Audiovisual materials (or computers) were adequate and used appropriately.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.34 110 0.95 Freq(%) 5 (5%) 10 (9%) 49 (45%) 33 (30%) 12 (11%)
23. The exams gave students an opportunity to demonstrate what they had learned.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.88 105 0.93 Freq(%) 1 (1%) 7 (7%) 25 (24%) 43 (41%) 29 (28%)
24. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.89 105 1.07 Freq(%) 4 (4%) 5 (5%) 26 (25%) 32 (30%) 37 (35%)
25. Other comments:
When Professor Natarov went away from the power point slides and decided to bring the course completely to the black board the class became much more interesting to learn because it kept me on my feet by allowing me to follow along with him as he wrote out his lectures and explanations. When a professor is involved and cares about the subject, the students leave the class with a solid foundation. Handouts with important equations with helpful notes would be great. They dont even have to be handed out.. If he just had a little web page where he had links to helpful sheets like that we could download them ourselves. Ideas like these are simple and need to be taken into account for science related subjects.
Hard to understand when talking. Would be more interesting if there were communication with students throughout the lecture because he doesn't ask students questions to check if they understand. Also doing experiments would be interest students more.
He tried very hard to teach all of us, even though it's very difficult to teach 200+ students at one time.
After about two weeks of class, I stopped going to lecture and just read the lectures online (which I am greatful that he put his lectures online with much detail) He only read off his slideshows during class and never had any physical, interesting demonstrations. His voice was difficult to understand, both with his accent and he spoke softly, even with the microphone it was a little difficult. His explanations on the chalk board were often hard to read too.
N/A
I liked that he went through a step by step process on how to solve the problems.
none
I really like how this instructor gives us a practice exam and goes over it as a review session during class. It's VERY effective and HELPFUL.
I think that if Prof. Natarov made his midterms a little longer in terms of the number of questions on the tests, students would do better overall in his class. Prof. Natarov should also continue to use masteringchemistry.com to assign homework assignments. The homework problems assigned are relevant to the midterms and are an important and useful study tool.
Prof. Natarov talks very softly, even when he uses a mic.
Talks very softly
I recommend that the mastering chemistry requirements be cut in half or the amount of questions be lessened because it was a lot of work to complete for one assignment.
It's hard to hear him in the back of class so if he could speak up it would help out students in the back. I sat in the front so it was fine, but just a tip. One thing that was really distracting, was the microphone would always fall of his shirt and would cause a super loud noise. It would help the class if he figured out how to securely attach the microphone
none
The classroom we were in physci 217 has very poor sound system. He used the one that was hooked up to the desk that came with the room. I don't know if Andrei could have gotten his own handheld sound system but it is not very fair to the students and the professor to have a shitty microphone provided by the university. Every class period the mic would cut off make a very loud screeching sound which is very distracting. It is not fair that we students pay all the money we do, for this shit. I feel Andrei would have been able to teach us better if students could understand him from time to time.
Mastering Chemistry is a horrible program to use for homework. Rather than feeling like I'm applying what I've learned, I tend to just get frustrated when using the program.
Even though there was lots information he did a great job at getting it out to students. The only thing that I thought was somewhat of a problem was that he would start lecture facing the board and hardly ever turn around. Sometimes students had questions and he never noticed. Toward the end of the semester there was a big improvement. Also it would be nice for him to engage students He probably asked the class if there were any questions Maybe 6 times during the whole semester. Many students including myself were too intimidated to ask questions. Maybe if he began each lecture with " does anyone have any questions" I think it would be helpful Lastly a short introduction about himself on the first day of class would be nice since we would be learning from him for a semester. He did very well with preparing the class for each test. I appreciated the reviews and the practice exams, they were very helpful. Overall, I don't like chemistry very much because it's always been a tough subject for me to grasp but I was very suprised at how well I understood everything we learned throughout the semester. I enjoyed the course because I was learning and doing well in my exams.
Practice exams were very useful and helpful. The study sessions are also good. However, I think you should pay attention to the time in order to go through all the questions on the practice exam.
Not accommodating.
Natarov started off a bit rocky but once he decided to take charge of the course on his own by teaching from his personal journal, the course really took off. His own content was much more organized than the Pearson slides and encouraged students to come to class. I'd definitely recommend him as a professor for other 161/162 classes because he is able to break down a subject into practical components instead of shoving it down student's throats as a technical mass of information. Great guy overall.
The use of powerpoint was very beneficial in the beginning of the course. When you stopped using the slides and went strictly on chalkboard work, much of my attention was diverted to copying everything down. I missed a few important concepts that I needed to learn during class, and had to read the book and get additional help just to understand what you were talking about in the lecture. Taking away our review class at the end of the semester is also a bad idea. I found the classes we used to review before the midterm the most beneficial as it gave me an opportunity to see what I was doing wrong/right.
Chemistry is a struggle for me, and this is the first semester where I UNDERSTAND it. Andrei gives very good tests with no surprises on it. I would highly recommend him for another student.
The changing of the medium for teaching (from lecture slides to using the chalkboard) greatly improved the teaching style. The pace of the lectures also improved (while it may just be due to the shortness of time, the speed is better than what it was at the start of the semester). The only problem that I saw (I did not have a preference for this, but others may have) was that the labs were at times one to two weeks ahead of the lecture. I am not sure where the timing went wrong, as the pace for the lectures were more or less on schedule to that in the syllabus. In any event, I enjoyed the lectures and the teaching style towards the end of the semester. Going though mainly one, but sometime two examples at the end of each topic greatly helped in learning and reinforcing the topic that was just taught. It also helped with the steps that are used to solve the problems for that topic.
Masterchemistry questions are wayyyyy too hard
I used to love chemistry in High School but since taking chemistry in college I don't really like it any more. Poor communication during lectures and non interaction has diminished my enthusiasm. Not to mention the accent that is present during lectures makes it a little complicated to learn. Also providing slide shows that are basically copy and past from the book are poor. I am in college and able to read the book.
Deffinitely a rough start, but as the course went on, Natarov became a better lecturer. I would take another course taught by him.
the students who attend class shouldn't have to suffer for the ones who never show up.
He is lacking in the charisma department. He seems very shy.
Natarov is a good teacher. He explains concept well and gives examples to help for better understanding. He is sometimes hard to understand during class, but other than that, it's good.
he's a great teacher, but very difficult to understand because of his accent, even when sitting in the very first row.
The chalkboard problems were the best part they definitely helped understand. This is my second time taking the course because my first teacher did not know how to teach, this teacher made everything very clear and simple instead of making it harder than it was! The exams were over everything covered in depth in class and the practice exams were a huge help! I wish I would have had him in the first place. Excellent teacher! THANK YOU SO MUCH!
Natarov demonstrated a level of care for his students that was very commendable. From what I assume were "lower than expected" results for his first midterm, Natarov completely altered his teaching style for the better. While Natarov does have some areas he could improve, the fact that he drastically changed his style in such a short period of time means a lot as a student. :)
I think I started to learn a lot more from the course when he switched from using the slideshows to writing on the chalk board, because I could keep up with my note-taking. I also like that on mastering chemistry, that when I got stuck, there were options to show me how to solve the problem (without losing a lot of points). In terms of the testing, it would be better if it weren't all multiple choice, because I know that a lot of people were only showing up for the review session, and none of the other classes prior to the test.
Iʻm not very good with chemistry to begin with so no matter what this course will always be hard to me. Slides were helpful for my reviews and study sessions and Professor Natarov was very capable of explain how to get the answers of given problems. Sometimes the mic would be to soft that I couldnʻt hear or his accent was hard to understand sometimes but, other than that it was fine.
I really LOVED how he taught his lessons. They were "old school" where he lectured and wrote on the chalkboard. It made it a lot more interesting and better to follow along with. Powerpoints can become very boring after a while and I didn't learn as much with the powerpoints since they are readily available on Laulima. Writing on the board allowed me to be more engaged and follow along with the information being presented. A+++ for that teaching style! I wish more professors taught like that, but that's just me.
Never reply my email. No curve.
The course became more clear once he ditched the textbook PowerPoint and did chalkboard examples.
The class was alright but could have been a lot better. It's hard to see the board in class and if he uses the powerpoint he goes too fast. The exams are fair because it's similar to the practice exams given. He tries to be as fair as possible and often is available when you need him. Tries to help the students out as much as he can. Overall, he is an okay professor and could be better with practice for lectures.
didnt go to class
This class taught me how to take a practice test, remember exactly the problem types on it, and regurgitate that information on the exam. I got Aʻs but I didn't learn much Chemistry. I do imagine it is difficult to make a large lecture-hall type class engaging, but I would have hoped for a more interesting experience in CHEM 162.
Lazy, uninspired, an overall unpleasant professor. Do not take.
I want my money back from this course. He did not speak clearly, mumbled, barley used the mic, and talked to the chalk board. I taught myself chemistry more then he did. His accent made it difficult to understand him. Even when using power points the text was over lapping so could not read and when trying to de overlap text it was confusing on what went where for math problems or understand. Seriously thought this was an awful class, while I am learning from the book and google I am able to understand and pass the exam, but the teacher was not helpful at all.
For half the semester the professor used the chalkboard to demonstrate the mathematical portions of chemistry along with the vocabulary. The downfall is that Professor Natarov is lagging behind. He is behind on a chapter and is not preparing for those who are interested in furthering their education in chemistry.
Very good professor in terms of how much he cares about his students and how committed he is to addressing each question/issue. He is very good about answering questions and doesn't remind reviewing something if a student needs it. A couple things to improve on would be to (if possible) go a little bit slower as it seems that it is hard to keep up with the lectures sometimes. In addition, for the most part, the MasteringChemistry software has been ok, but it would've been nice to have a little less homework and avoid troublesome problems. Other than that, everything else is pretty good. It is sometimes a little hard to understand with the accent, but I can hear him pretty well most of the time and he is more than happy to repeat/clarify something if it doesn't makes sense. All in all, I would recommend this teacher.
Great course, however I do not like Mastering chemistry