eCAFE - Course and Faculty Evaluation, University of Hawaii

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations


Instructor: Russell Yost

Available Survey Results

GEOG680, TPSS680, Fall 2013
TPSS491, Spring 2013
TPSS667, Spring 2013
TPSS650, Fall 2012
GEOG680, TPSS680, Fall 2011

Russell Yost: GEOG680, TPSS680, Fall 2013

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Geography
Course: GEOG 680 - Geospatial Anlys/Nat Res Data Crn (Section): 79873 (001)    
Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Tropical Plant & Soil Science
Course: TPSS 680 - Geospatial Anlys/Nat Res Data Crn (Section): 79118 (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  
5.14 7 0.38 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (86%) 0 (0%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.17 6 0.41 Freq(%) 5 (83%) 1 (14%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
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%) 7 (100%)
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%) 0 (0%) 7 (100%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 7 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7 (100%)
6. I learned a good deal of factual material in this 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%) 6 (86%)
7. I learned to apply principles from this course to new situations.
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%)
8. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
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%)
9. I was stimulated to do outside reading about the course material.
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 (29%) 3 (50%)
10. I participated actively in class discussion.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.14 7 0.69 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%) 3 (50%)
11. 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  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
12. This course was helpful in developing new skills.
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%)
13. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 6 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%)
14. 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 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)
15. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.83 6 0.75 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 3 (50%) 4 (57%)
16. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.17 6 0.75 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 3 (50%) 2 (33%)
17. The instructor treated students fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
18. Assistance from the instructor outside the class was readily available.
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 (14%) 5 (83%)
19. The amount of work required is appropriate for the credit received.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.71 7 0.49 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 4 (67%)
20. Assignments are graded fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.86 7 0.38 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 4 (67%)
21. The course materials (texts, handouts) make a valuable contribution to the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.86 7 0.38 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 3 (50%)
22. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 7 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%)
23. Examinations cover the important aspects of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 7 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 2 (33%)
24. Which aspects of the course did you like the best?
The tools (geospatial methods/programs) that will allow me to conduct my research.
Exercise were useful
Practical applications of the material discussed.
semivariogram calculation and various interpolation methods
Interesting readings and thorough discussions of the readings were valuable in determining validity of methods. Interaction among students was valuable and helped further understanding of the material and concepts. The application of concepts to real world research was very valuable and utilizing students own research interests in the final project was a very good way to cement understanding of the various techniques. Having the groups and assigning differing speakers for discussion days was a great way for students to gain experience and confidence with the material. I also appreciated Matt's contributions to the class. It was interesting to have multiple approaches to the material since we all seem to get silo'd into our frame of reference, it was nice to have an entirely different disciplined approach to the material and concepts.
I thought the handouts where we calculated the semi-variogram and the kriging process were extremely helpful. Looking at the equations for the semivariogram and kriging leaves a lot of mystery as to how things actually work, doing the calculations with pen and pencil helped a lot. I think similar exercises for co-kriging and regression kriging would be really insightful. That being said, some knowledge of linear algebra is required to truly understand the kriging operation. I also thought that the emphasis on making sure the data was appropriate for kriging was extremely useful (i.e. structure in the semi variogram, normal distribution, stationarity, etc.). I know people that have used kriging in Arc and had not ever given one thought to any of that stuff, they just did the point and click through the wizard and made maps.
Lectures were generally very clear and well presented. Russel tried to encourage class discussion frequently and in several ways, though it didn't always work very well. Small group discussions on Fridays were often helpful or interesting. I like how he tried to engage the class so much in each students final project, but that they were still individual projects and not group projects. I have never had a class where all assignments and projects were posted to a class forum so that you could view all other students' work. This is an interesting approach ans was very helpful some of the time.
I really like that we were able to use the software like ArcGIS and R more. The lectures on different types of interpolation methods are also helpful. I also like the Friday lab session where we get the chance to participate in class, and learn how to read/look at published papers based on the knowledge we learned in the lecture sessions.
The content. I loved learning about Kriging and it is something I will utilize in the future.
dicussuon part
The discuss sessions on Fridays
25. Which aspects of the course did you like least?
Because the course material is very technical, perhaps more detail on the fine points of methodology would be good.
Discussion part Perhaps, instead offer exercise or lab that we can gain more skills.
Some papers were hard to understand.
none
The reading components felt a bit rushed and I had a hard time completing the readings before the Friday discussions. Perhaps assigning the readings so that we would have a week to complete before discussions. I also think that after learning the concept, the papers we discuss occasionally have a good example and a bad example so the students can grasp the pitfalls and learn appropriate evaluative techniques. We did some of this, but with the new concepts, we sometime felt that we didn't have the complete tools to fully accomplish the critique. We finally did get with the program and understood what was expected after a bit.
Bayesian kriging was lost on me. I needed a better understanding of how the simulations worked, and how all the different aspects tied together. I think much more time could be spent on that subject. I think that the discussion sessions were not all that productive. I think that time could be spent as a lab where students are working on understanding the calculations by working through them.
that it's at 8:30am (too early) Many of the papers we read for friday discussions were examples of poorly done science papers, which can be very useful but it would have been nice to also have papers that had impressive results and were more successful examples how to do things properly.
I think the lab is a little bit time-consuming.
The syllabus wasn't really great. I found it difficult to plan my time for this course because I was never entirely sure what was coming (or when deadlines were). Given instructions on Wednesday morning for reading for Friday, I had no time for this course at the end of the week. The time to read for me would have been earlier in the week or the weekend. A weeks notice on reading would have been useful. Defined deadlines and number for class exercises. Definition about the expectations for course work to avoid students spending more time on work that did not require it and added nothing to their grade. That said this course was on the cutting edge and therefore required the ability to evolve. It is understandable that the understanding of the instructors was not so much greater than that achievable by the students through reading the current literature and through practice and thought on the material.
The class starts too early
26. Other comments:
Dr. Yost is a highly experienced professor and researcher. His level of knowledge in this subject area is readily apparent. I was impressed by his ability to manage the class (and the other professor, since the course was cross listed), and his keen ability to perceive the level of progress of the students and teach accordingly. He is an asset to UH and there are few professors that convey a similar level of presence, and have the experience that he does.
Very interesting course, learned a lot of practical skills!
worth taking the course
Realizing that personalities can sometime dominate discussions, it would be advisable to somewhat control erroneous information before concepts are misinterpreted. In general, humbling an obnoxious student is sometimes desirable. I'm not suggesting that our class was excessively disruptive, but you obviously know your material, and can redirect the discussion before valuable time is wasted with self appreciating rambling, that is not conducive to learning for the whole class. You are a very kind and knowledgeable professor! Thank you for allowing me to attend this class. Hopefully, that is helpful.
I thought the course could cover a few more topics in geostatistics beyond spatial interpolation methods like kriging and IDW. For example: geographically weighted regression, hotspot analysis, cluster analysis, sensitivity analysis, more in depth on spatial autocorrelation. I was never really required to read the course text (Krivoruchko)and did not get a whole lot out of it, though it probably does have a lot of good information in it.
Overall, this class have met my expectations. I learned so much in this class that I may incorporate in research work. Most importantly, the professors are really nice.
So far I think this has been my favorite course of my university career. Something I wanted to do and was interested in. It was not easy, but nor was it beyond my capacity to understand. Very enjoyable.

Russell Yost: TPSS491, Spring 2013     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Tropical Plant & Soil Science
Course: TPSS 491 - Experimental Topics Crn (Section): 88801 (003)    
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  
4.8 5 0.45 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%) 0 (0%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.2 5 0.45 Freq(%) 4 (80%) 1 (20%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%)
6. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.6 5 0.55 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 3 (60%)
7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
The use of real-life practical examples as part of the course exercises. Because they addressed problems that might arise when analyzing agricultural data.Also, the step by step approach was really helpful,especially for those of us that were not familiar with repeated measures analysis and SAS software. In addition, the willingness of the professor to take extra time to explain the concepts and doubts was important, in my case, to fully comprehend and understand the material taught.
The student presentation were the most valuable aspect of the class for me. I though it was really interesting to be able to hear about the projects other students are working on and then in turn be able to use repeated measures analysis on the data that I am working on.
Understanding the equations and how they are represented in the SAS command was very valuable. Also guidance as to how to interpret the data output from SAS.
Practice exercises as well as student given lectures
Learning the proper usage of code in SAS was the most useful to me.
8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
I personally did not find any aspect that was particularly troublesome or undesirable. However, the partial test was a little bit to long or the time for completing the test could have been too short.
My least favorite part was working on the weights data set. It would have been more interesting to be working on actual data from our respective field, so we know what to expect when working with various biological/agricultural data.
One or two of the first exercises were a little slow ( could have included more information)
I thought all aspects of the class were valuable. I wish that it was longer so we could have expanded to other examples and data set.
9. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%)
10. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%)
11. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%)
12. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%)
13. The instructor treated students fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%)
14. Assistance from the instructor outside the class was readily available.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.8 5 0.45 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%)
15. The amount of work required is appropriate for the credit received.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.8 5 0.45 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%)
16. Assignments are graded fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%)
17. The course materials (texts, handouts) make a valuable contribution to the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.8 5 0.45 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%)
18. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 5 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 3 (60%)
19. Examinations cover the important aspects of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 5 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 2 (40%)
20. Other comments:
Interesting course,it gave me new tools to analyze repeated measures data that I will surely use in the near future as part of my graduate study.
Great course, it was a great experience learning how to use SAS and how to interpret repeated measures data. Overall I would recommend this course to other students who are taking repeated measures and want to learn how to properly run their data in SAS.
I hope Dr. Yost will continue to have classes like this, concerning statistical prgramming and interpretation as well as anything having to do with understanding experimental design and interpretation.
I really enjoyed this class. I wish that the students had more exposure to statistics courses at UH.

Russell Yost: TPSS667, Spring 2013     Back to top

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) - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
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 - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
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 17 0.98 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 3 (18%) 4 (24%) 8 (47%)
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 17 1.1 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 2 (12%) 6 (35%) 6 (35%)
10. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.38 17 1.02 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (35%) 9 (53%)
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 17 1.03 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (29%) 10 (59%)
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 17 1.0 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (47%) 7 (41%)
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 17 1.03 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (24%) 11 (65%)
14. The instructor treated students fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.69 17 0.6 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 3 (18%) 12 (71%)
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 17 0.79 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (18%) 5 (29%) 8 (47%)
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 17 0.63 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 6 (35%) 9 (53%)
17. Assignments are graded fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.44 17 0.73 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (12%) 5 (29%) 9 (53%)
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 17 1.06 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 6 (35%) 8 (47%)
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 17 1.02 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (35%) 9 (53%)
20. Examinations cover the important aspects of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.13 17 0.92 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (29%) 3 (18%) 7 (41%)
21. Which aspects of the course did you like the best?
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.
The small group discussions.
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 enjoyed learning about my colleagues research topics and interests
Small group discussion as well as individual presentation and micro article preparation was good.
small group discussions
None
Producing our own micro-article and producing and presenting our own presentation
The class discussions were good. The presentations were also good.
Small group discussions and class discussions
nice general overview. basically same as Kobayashi's Communications class but better.
Dr.Russel Yost is an excellent teacher and I respect him as a great teacher,
The flexibility to adapt to the students's academic interests.
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.
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!
22. Which aspects of the course did you like least?
The presentations.
NA
none
Everything was good in the seminar class
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.
The small group discussions, 2 of the 4 members in my groups were consistently not prepared or disingenuous in their participation.
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.
Nothing
Peer evaluations were awkward to handle logistically, either they should all be on paper or a better electronic system needs to be in place.
I liked everything
I did not understand well some of the papers.
I did not care for the micro-article exercise.
n/a
23. What changes would you make in the readings?
I would like to see them be more challenging.
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."
none
Instead of diversified reading topic, topic related to plant science should be selected.
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.
None
Maybe exchange some reading for an outside guest lecturer.
Nothing
none
To read and understand the material very clearly
Not much, maybe include more current controversial issues in agriculture.
The reading material was good.
I thought the readings were well suited to our class.
24. What changes would you make in the discussion sections?
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.
possibly each student could introduce a topic for an individual lecture in class
I think small group discussion was really good so i don't think there should be any changes in discussion section.
none, broke down into groups well for optimal discussion size
Somehow put a grading aspect to the small group discussions to ensure even participation
I think we did what we could to discuss in a short amount of time.
No changes required
none
more active participation
None, the seem fine they way the currently work.
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.
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.
25. State in two or three sentences how this course could be improved.
Having more time to talk about and refine our microarticles would be great. Perhaps two weeks to get through everyone's, as it is now, but then another week afterward for people to make some changes and then re-evaluate how the articles read.
more time .
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.
this is a good course. I think it is fine
Actually conduct a seminar on current work in the field.
If possible, make the presentation process have two distinct parts: 1) presenting in front of the class and getting feedback/grade for it; and 2) have a revision/correction process if feedback indicates mistakes or missing content.
More guidance for the microarticle.
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.
It is essentially the exact same course as Kobayashi's, so TPSS should just pick one, or the topic should be changed.
more time for seminar presentation
Maybe include a field trip to emphasize the topics and concepts brought in the papers. The field trips could be related to the research project of the students taking the course.
Feedback from your peers on presentation style is invaluable! Would it be possible for students to present for five minutes at the beginning of the semester, receive peer evaluations, then present their 10 minute presentation incorporating these suggestions? Then you would know if you successfully improved or not which could be very helpful if your next presentation isn't for a while.
26. Other comments:
Thanks.
Good course. Very helpful in preparing for experiment design and forethought and eventual thesis defense. Helps to give a sense of where one stands as a graduate student whether one is preparing for research or continuing their project. Both professors very skilled in their field and helpful to students with questions.
none
In an effort to prepare for comprehensive exams, maybe TPSS graduate students can give talks that review the different concepts (i.e. endosymbiont theory, photosynthesis processes, etc.) that we will be expected to explain in an oral comprehensive exam. As a guideline, perhaps faculty can come up with questions to help graduate students generate a review-type of lecture, which will then help other graduate students in TPSS to prepare for their oral comprehensive exams.
none
Interesting and unique course.
It was a pleasure taking this course with Dr. Yost. I really enjoyed the questions he asked the students after each presentation and also his insights during class discussions!

Russell Yost: TPSS650, 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) - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
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 - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
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 9 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 2 (22%) 5 (56%)
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?
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.
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.
begin the course with some more lecture material and then in the latter half of the course focus on discussions based on the lectures.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Modeling and learning new ideas.
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.
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
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.
The class notes, they are well organized and contain a lot of valuable information.
Writing the reviews.
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.
27. Which aspects of the course did you like least?
Review papers and term project, but they are necessary too.
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.
discussions when students were reluctant to communicate
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.
The discussion, too long, and not constructive in several sessions.
The lecture style seemed disjointed. I think the class could have had more of a challenge.
The discussion sections. They seemed forced and were inefficient, especially with the same students routinely contributing. Could have been more productive with structure.
28. Other comments:
awesome class, enjoyed it.
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.
Great course, Dr. Yost is a great teacher. I would recommend this course to my peers.
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 FridayĆ¢??s two-hour discussion seemed too long, and not learning much. Monday and Wednesday are fine.
Thank you!

Russell Yost: GEOG680, TPSS680, 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) - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Freshman   Sophomore   Junior   Senior   Grad   Other  
4.71 7 1.25 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%) 1 (14%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.43 7 0.53 Freq(%) 4 (57%) 3 (43%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.86 7 0.38 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (86%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.6 5 0.55 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 4 (57%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 4 (57%)
6. I developed the ability to communicate clearly about this subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.14 7 0.9 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 2 (29%) 3 (43%)
7. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.57 7 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (60%) 4 (57%)
8. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
Kriging, Bayesian Kriging and introduction to R package are the most valuable knowledge I learned from the class.
I have many ideas and methods to obtain my goals for the proposal when I have learn from this class.
The exercises
the classroom work and discussion
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
Some of the lecture material was confusing.
The readings were useful but often much of the content was beyond most of the class subject matter.
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 loved this class, I learned so much, it was all very useful
wish the course lasted all year long. too short.
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?
NA
10. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 7 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (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  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%)
12. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.8 5 0.45 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%)
13. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.8 5 0.45 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%)
14. The instructor treated students fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7 (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 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (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  
4.8 5 0.45 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%)
17. Assignments are graded fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (86%)
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  
4.8 5 0.45 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (43%) 2 (29%)
19. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 7 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 3 (60%)
20. Examinations cover the important aspects of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.43 7 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (57%) 4 (80%)
21. Other comments:
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
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.
Thank you!
Interesting course and uselful subject. For the future,change the exercises so students have to execute commands rather than follow them.
Thank you for such an interesting and helpful class!
Great professor. HOpe to work with him in the future!!!
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.
NA