University of Hawai'i eCAFE

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations

Instructor: Russell Yost

Available Survey Results

TPSS 667, Spring 2013
TPSS 650, Fall 2012
GEOG 680,TPSS 680, Fall 2011

Russell Yost: TPSS 667, Spring 2013

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Tropical Plant & Soil Science
Course:	TPSS 667 - Graduate Seminar	Crn (Section):	82783 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
5.0	17	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	17 (100%)	0 (0%)

2. Course

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
2.0	17	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	17 (100%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.47	17	1.01	Freq(%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (29%)	11 (65%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.47	17	1.01	Freq(%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (29%)	11 (65%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.35	17	1.06	Freq(%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	5 (29%)	10 (59%)

6. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	17	1.12	Freq(%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	4 (24%)	5 (29%)	7 (41%)

7. I participated actively in the small group sessions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.65	17	0.61	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	4 (24%)	12 (71%)

8. I increased my awareness of my own interests and talents.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.19	16	0.98	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	3 (19%)	4 (25%)	8 (50%)

9. I improved my abilities to do the kinds of writing used by professionals in this field.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.07	15	1.1	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	2 (13%)	6 (40%)	6 (40%)

10. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.38	16	1.02	Freq(%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (38%)	9 (56%)

11. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.44	16	1.03	Freq(%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (31%)	10 (63%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.25	16	1.0	Freq(%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	8 (50%)	7 (44%)

13. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	16	1.03	Freq(%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (25%)	11 (69%)

14. The instructor treated students fairly.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.69	16	0.6	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	3 (19%)	12 (75%)

15. Assistance from the instructor outside the class was readily available.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.31	16	0.79	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (19%)	5 (31%)	8 (50%)

16. The amount of work required is appropriate for the credit received.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	16	0.63	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	6 (38%)	9 (56%)

17. Assignments are graded fairly.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.44	16	0.73	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (13%)	5 (31%)	9 (56%)

18. The course materials (texts, handouts) make a valuable contribution to the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.25	16	1.06	Freq(%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	6 (38%)	8 (50%)

19. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.38	16	1.02	Freq(%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (38%)	9 (56%)

20. Examinations cover the important aspects of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.13	15	0.92	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (33%)	3 (20%)	7 (47%)

21. Which aspects of the course did you like the best?

I enjoy the presentation aspect of the course. Not only does it improve our presentation skills but allows the opportunity to see the research conducted by fellow students.

Small group discussion as well as individual presentation and micro article preparation was good.

Small group discussions and class discussions

small group discussions

Dr.Russel Yost is an excellent teacher and I respect him as a great teacher,

The small group discussions.

The class discussions were good. The presentations were also good.

I liked that the course revolved around small group discussions. I'm not big on talking in front of large groups of people and this was a perfect setting for me to feel comfortable sharing my thoughts on the assigned readings. Though it is hard for me to admit, I rather enjoyed the presentation portion too. I was nervous as could be to give my presentation but felt that it was excellent practice not only talking in front of an audience but also for assembling a presentation.

Producing our own micro-article and producing and presenting our own presentation

The flexibility to adapt to the students's academic interests.

i learned a great deal from the small group discussion sessions. It was a somewhat casual atmosphere among us, but i feel everyone involved in the session gained a lot from it. The professors are very skilled in their field, as well as teaching, but the fact that we grad students are still learning all this, allows us to provide different insights and perspectives on eachothers' work.

I greatly enjoyed the class discussions because you gain so much insight from other students thoughts and ideas. Also, incorporating the Micro Article was extremely helpful!

I enjoyed learning about my colleagues research topics and interests

nice general overview. basically same as Kobayashi's Communications class but better.

None

22. Which aspects of the course did you like least?

I did not care for the micro-article exercise.

Everything was good in the seminar class

Nothing

I liked everything

The presentations.

Interpreting from the reading material what the microarticle was about was not the best aspect. Perhaps a class period giving examples of what to put in and how to best write for the microarticle would be good. In discussing with other students, the limited nature of the microarticle was not enough to thoroughly convey our class presentations that followed.

The small group discussions, 2 of the 4 members in my groups were consistently not prepared or disingenuous in their participation.

I did not understand well some of the papers.

n/a

none

Peer evaluations were awkward to handle logistically, either they should all be on paper or a better electronic system needs to be in place.

The 3 papers covered in class had nothing to do with plants or soils. Students presenting on their research is a gross waste of time and is not the purpose of a seminar.

23. What changes would you make in the readings?

The reading material was good.

Instead of diversified reading topic, topic related to plant science should be selected.

Nothing

none

To read and understand the material very clearly

I would like to see them be more challenging.

Maybe exchange some reading for an outside guest lecturer.

None

Not much, maybe include more current controversial issues in agriculture.

Maybe one or two more interesting required readings could be helpful. Controversial or 'confusing' papers are very interesting two pick apart and discuss; to learn what "not to do."

I thought the readings were well suited to our class.

none

A seminar should FOCUS on current work in the field of study. If students present anything it should be a presentation on a paper either chosen by the professor or published the year the course is offered.

24. What changes would you make in the discussion sections?

It would be better to have discussion within our own groups rather than with the entire class. I felt the entire class sharing period of discussion was too short to get into a discussion.

I think small group discussion was really good so i don't think there should be any changes in discussion section.

No changes required

none, broke down into groups well for optimal discussion size

more active participation

I think the best part of the seminar was getting to know the other students. I would much prefer it to be "coffee hour" style - with one presentation per student per class, followed by constructed mingling. I especially think that TPSS needs some unity right now, and the best way to do this is to keep a strong cohort.

I think we did what we could to discuss in a short amount of time.

Somehow put a grading aspect to the small group discussions to ensure even participation

None, the seem fine they way the currently work.

My suggestion would be to have one group present the weekly paper and have the other groups responsible for asking questions and offering comments. I think this would encourage a greater amount of discussion on the topic and allow for covering more ground on the subject as well. Having each group present on the same paper seemed to result in the sharing of similar thoughts/ ideas.

possibly each student could introduce a topic for an individual lecture in class

none

25. State in two or three sentences how this course could be improved.

Instead of reading and summarizing the topic, different research methodology should be discussed in group so that new students can be familiar with the research methodology.

Perhaps discuss topics surrounding how to better prepare for comprehensive exams. At least have one session on baseline concepts that every graduate student in horticulture/agriculture is expected to know.

this is a good course. I think it is fine

Russell Yost: TPSS 650, Fall 2012 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Tropical Plant & Soil Science
Course:	TPSS 650 - Soil Plant Nutrient Relations	Crn (Section):	79064 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
4.89	9	0.33	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	8 (89%)	0 (0%)

2. Course

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
1.22	9	0.44	Freq(%)	7 (78%)	2 (22%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.56	9	0.73	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	2 (22%)	6 (67%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	9	0.71	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (22%)	5 (56%)	2 (22%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.89	9	0.78	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (33%)	4 (44%)	2 (22%)

6. I learned to identify main points and central issues in this field.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.11	9	1.05	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	3 (33%)	4 (44%)

7. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	9	1.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	4 (44%)	3 (33%)

8. I participated actively in class discussion.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.22	9	0.67	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	5 (56%)	3 (33%)

9. I improved my abilities to do the kinds of writing used by professionals in this field.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.67	9	0.5	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (33%)	6 (67%)

10. I try to relate what I learn in this course to my own experience.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.11	9	0.93	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	0 (0%)	5 (56%)	3 (33%)

11. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.44	9	0.73	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	3 (33%)	5 (56%)

12. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.67	9	0.5	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (33%)	6 (67%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.78	9	0.97	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	2 (22%)	4 (44%)	2 (22%)

14. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.89	9	0.78	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (33%)	4 (44%)	2 (22%)

15. The instructor treated students fairly.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.67	9	0.5	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (33%)	6 (67%)

16. One real strength of this course is the classroom discussion.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.22	9	1.48	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	2 (22%)	3 (33%)	0 (0%)	3 (33%)

17. The instructor was able to stimulate and lead group discussions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.78	9	1.48	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	2 (22%)	4 (44%)

18. Assistance from the instructor outside the class was readily available.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	8	0.76	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (13%)	2 (25%)	5 (63%)

19. The instructor was willing to help.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.56	9	0.53	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (44%)	5 (56%)

20. The amount of work required is appropriate for the credit received.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.44	9	0.53	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (56%)	4 (44%)

21. How can the instructor improve the teaching of this course?

This course could be improved by providing background information on the topics we would be covering before we began discussions. Since each student has a different background, if one student isn't familiar with the basics of the subject, it becomes hard for them to contribute to the discussion.

begin the course with some more lecture material and then in the latter half of the course focus on discussions based on the lectures.

A slide at the end of each powerpoint summarizing the main points of each lecture would be helpful. Sometimes the lectures were not organized well and included not-so-concrete concepts and ideas so it was, at times, difficult to know what information to focus on.

Lectures/presentations seemed disjointed without a narrative and connection to a broader topic. Could have used "notes" section for each powerpoint slide to elaborate and provide some sort of continuity between slides and for the overall topic. This could have been done in lieu of recorded lectures. Also, lectures seemed open-ended and did not seem to have a "take-home message" or definitive "bullet points" to remember. Would have been interesting to present recent contrasting research findings on the same slide. The discussion sessions could have been more productive if shortened to one hour instead of stretching it to two hours, and the second hour of the discussion session could have been used for lecture, thus providing extra time to cover additional topics, or go in depth into current topics. The discussions could have been more productive if there was a guiding framework/outline, rather than having them completely open-ended. For example, "considering the objectives, are the experimental methods appropriate? are the results communicated effectively? do the explanations in the discussion appropriately justify the observed results? if there was anything that could be improved in this experiment, what would that be? etc..." Instead of providing publications for discussion, could have had each student find a publication of their choosing related to the subject matter to share and present in order to increase participation in discussion. This could place more responsibility on the student to be involved and increase familiarity with current research. Perhaps consider not having a final exam and placing more weight on the term project. With the critical reviews and term project, those are 4 heavily weighted assignments that require a considerable amount of time and effort. With the smaller exercises and the amount of reading and comprehension necessary for discussion, the workload of this course was considerable.

I thought the lectures could have been more in-depth --> and start more with the basics of the topic. I felt like we had more time than necessary on each unit. It would have been great to have more of the most current research included.

Incorporate information from other disciplines in the ppt's to better explain concepts (such as chemistry, physics, biochemistry, and molecular biology). Science is increasingly becoming interdisciplinary, therefore to better prepare students for the future in their field I feel it is imperative to expose them to other ways to view their discipline.

Cannot think of anything. Maybe discuss the roles of each nutrient in certain key plants/crops.

The time spent on discussion was too long. It can be guided more closely to avoid wasting time on irrelevant talks. There were several times that students drifted away from the main topic.

22. Assignments are graded fairly.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.44	9	0.53	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (56%)	4 (44%)

23. The course materials (texts, handouts) make a valuable contribution to the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.78	9	0.97	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	2 (22%)	4 (44%)	2 (22%)

24. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.56	9	1.01	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (22%)	1 (11%)	5 (56%)	1 (11%)

25. Examinations cover the important aspects of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.44	9	0.73	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (67%)	2 (22%)	1 (11%)

26. Which aspects of the course did you like the best?

I liked how the course was discussion based. It provided a good intellectual medium for students to discuss the topics and issues that were important to them.

Although the reviews required a lot of work I liked them because they were a good way to learn and critically read and review scientific literature

group discussions and critical reviews

Dr. Yost temporarily made two of the three weekly classes lecture classes which was very nice and helped me focus on the main points. Wish this type of teaching had been consistent.

The critical review assignments were very useful in two ways: 1) to develop the skill of detailed critiquing of a publication to find possible flaws and subsequent improvements, and 2) to develop professional scientific writing skills. The use of Laulima was appropriate and useful.

Writing the reviews.

Modeling and learning new ideas.

The class notes, they are well organized and contain a lot of valuable information.

27. Which aspects of the course did you like least?

Sometimes the deadlines for different spreadsheets, reviews and other assignments were all due very closely together. Maybe spread out the due dates for assignments so they don't closely overlap with another.

discussions when students were reluctant to communicate

should include more theory

Students were relied on too much to contribute to discussion. The area of discussion was either too general or too specific. It's difficult to learn from this type of teaching.

The discussion sections. They seemed forced and were inefficient, especially with the same students routinely contributing. Could have been more productive with structure.

The lecture style seemed disjointed. I think the class could have had more of a challenge.

Review papers and term project, but they are necessary too.

The discussion, too long, and not constructive in several sessions.

28. Other comments:

Great course, Dr. Yost is a great teacher. I would recommend this course to my peers.

the writing workshop was also a very beneficial activity for learning how to read review and analyze articles. The reviews were good practice for proposal writing.

awesome class, enjoyed it.

Thank you!

This is a four credit, writing intensive course. Overall I the class is very informative and the professor was enthusiastic in transferring the knowledge. The only drawback is Fridayâ??s two-hour discussion seemed too long, and not learning much. Monday and Wednesday are fine.

Russell Yost: GEOG 680,TPSS 680, Fall 2011 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Geography
Course:	GEOG 680 - Geospatial Anlys/Nat Res Data	Crn (Section):	79079 (001)
Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Tropical Plant & Soil Science
Course:	TPSS 680 - Geospatial Anlys/Nat Res Data	Crn (Section):	78769 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
4.83	12	0.94	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	10 (83%)	1 (8%)

2. Course

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
1.33	12	0.49	Freq(%)	8 (67%)	4 (33%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.92	12	0.29	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	11 (92%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.58	12	0.51	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (42%)	7 (58%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

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%)

6. I developed the ability to communicate clearly about this subject.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.25	12	0.75	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (17%)	5 (42%)	5 (42%)

7. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	12	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (50%)	6 (50%)

8. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

The projects. It would have been nice to use Friday as project time (at least half). I think Monday and Wedneday could have always been discussion periods (with students broken into smaller groups).

The lab exercises were very useful for the course because they helped understand real-world applications of the subject.

I have many ideas and methods to obtain my goals for the proposal when I have learn from this class.

the classroom work and discussion

Kriging, Bayesian Kriging and introduction to R package are the most valuable knowledge I learned from the class.

The exercises

Exercises were most valuable, as they provided opportunities to apply the theory learned in lecture. I am able to catch onto theories that are lectured on, but they are more strongly reinforced through examples and exercises, as I am more of a hands-on learner. Experiencing the pros/cons of the software, their outputs, and the application of various methodologies of interpolation/prediction were extremely valuable and helpful in developing a greater understanding of the lecture material.

The exercise gives me more practical application of the course, the lecture material and reading material also gives me better understanding on the concept of geo-statistic.

I think the excercises or the labs that we held in PSB310 were the most helpful for me to gain a complete understanding of the geostatistical methods we discussed in lecture.

I appreciate gaining a working knowledge of what tools are available in geospatial statistics. WHile I dont think that I could write the programing to do it, I do understand what the different methods are good for and how to use them

Geostats

Dr. Yost utilized lalima for the benefit of the students. Also all lectures were provided online in ppt format. Another valuable part of the course were Friday disscussions

9. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

The readings were useful but often much of the content was beyond most of the class subject matter.

Some of the lecture material was confusing.

The idea of having a discussion section is great, if there was more participation, myself included. Granted, some students are shy or do not have the greatest command of English, but perhaps requiring a short write-up/review/comments (1/2 page) of the various papers would at least get more students reading the material and might give them confidence to speak up. Also, the discussion section could be shortened to give time for a "lab" section for exercises/questions could improve participation.

I don't think I can point out what is the least valuable aspect in this class, maybe because I most of the knowledge which has been thought in this class are quite new for me.

I think the text book reading assingments were more confusing than helpful most of the time. Perhaps there is a simpler text out there to use?

I loved this class, I learned so much, it was all very useful

wish the course lasted all year long. too short.

10. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	12	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	12 (100%)

11. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.92	12	0.29	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	11 (92%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.58	12	0.51	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (42%)	7 (58%)

13. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.75	12	0.45	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (25%)	9 (75%)

14. The instructor treated students fairly.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	12	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	12 (100%)

15. Assistance from the instructor outside the class was readily available.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	12	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	12 (100%)

16. The amount of work required is appropriate for the credit received.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.75	12	0.45	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (25%)	9 (75%)

17. Assignments are graded fairly.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.92	12	0.29	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	11 (92%)

18. The course materials (texts, handouts) make a valuable contribution to the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	12	0.78	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (17%)	4 (33%)	6 (50%)

19. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.25	12	0.87	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (25%)	3 (25%)	6 (50%)

20. Examinations cover the important aspects of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.58	12	0.51	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (42%)	7 (58%)

21. Other comments:

Thank you!

Interesting course and uselful subject. For the future,change the exercises so students have to execute commands rather than follow them.

i believe Dr Yost is a wonderful teacher. His long teaching and research history is on display in his class as he is professional, easy-going and can relate all aspects of the coursework and our questions to the task on hand.

This is a very good class. I liked it a lot. It provided me with valuable knowledge about geospatial statistics and helped understand how it works and how to apply it. One thing I would like to learn more is BME, which was briefly introduced in the class. Hopefully, this will be included more detail in next class

Thank you for such an interesting and helpful class!

I think that it would be valuable to somehow address the temporal aspect of geostatistics or like we suggested in class perhaps it is time to offer a Geostatistics 2 as a spring follow up course that goes more in depth into bayesian methods and temporal geostatistics.Overall I really enjoyed this course. At first I was scared that I would not be able to keep up due to my minimal background in statistics but the lectures were well presented and the exercise reinforced the take home messages.

Great professor. HOpe to work with him in the future!!!