|
1. Class Level (pick one)
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Freshman |
Sophomore |
Junior |
Senior |
Grad |
Other |
| 4.0 |
18 |
0.59 |
Freq(%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (17%) |
12 (67%) |
3 (17%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
2. Course
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Elective |
Required |
| 1.78 |
18 |
0.43 |
Freq(%) |
4 (22%) |
14 (78%) |
|
|
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 4.28 |
18 |
0.75 |
Freq(%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (17%) |
7 (39%) |
8 (44%) |
|
|
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 3.44 |
18 |
1.2 |
Freq(%) |
1 (6%) |
3 (17%) |
5 (28%) |
5 (28%) |
4 (22%) |
|
|
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 2.61 |
18 |
1.38 |
Freq(%) |
3 (17%) |
9 (50%) |
1 (6%) |
2 (11%) |
3 (17%) |
|
|
6. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 3.0 |
18 |
1.41 |
Freq(%) |
3 (17%) |
4 (22%) |
5 (28%) |
2 (11%) |
4 (22%) |
|
|
7. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 3.94 |
18 |
1.16 |
Freq(%) |
1 (6%) |
1 (6%) |
3 (17%) |
6 (33%) |
7 (39%) |
|
|
8. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 4.33 |
18 |
0.69 |
Freq(%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (11%) |
8 (44%) |
8 (44%) |
|
|
9. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 2.56 |
18 |
1.42 |
Freq(%) |
4 (22%) |
8 (44%) |
1 (6%) |
2 (11%) |
3 (17%) |
|
|
10. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 3.06 |
18 |
1.3 |
Freq(%) |
2 (11%) |
5 (28%) |
4 (22%) |
4 (22%) |
3 (17%) |
|
|
11. The instructor treated students fairly.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 3.78 |
18 |
1.17 |
Freq(%) |
1 (6%) |
1 (6%) |
5 (28%) |
5 (28%) |
6 (33%) |
|
|
12. Assistance from the instructor outside the class was readily available.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 3.44 |
18 |
1.29 |
Freq(%) |
1 (6%) |
4 (22%) |
4 (22%) |
4 (22%) |
5 (28%) |
|
|
13. The amount of work required is appropriate for the credit received.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 2.78 |
18 |
1.44 |
Freq(%) |
5 (28%) |
2 (11%) |
6 (33%) |
2 (11%) |
3 (17%) |
|
|
14. Assignments are graded fairly.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 3.12 |
17 |
1.41 |
Freq(%) |
2 (12%) |
5 (29%) |
3 (18%) |
3 (18%) |
4 (24%) |
|
|
15. The course materials (texts, handouts) make a valuable contribution to the course.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 3.29 |
17 |
1.31 |
Freq(%) |
2 (12%) |
2 (12%) |
6 (35%) |
3 (18%) |
4 (24%) |
|
|
16. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 2.59 |
17 |
1.42 |
Freq(%) |
5 (29%) |
4 (24%) |
3 (18%) |
3 (18%) |
2 (12%) |
|
|
17. Examinations cover the important aspects of the course.
|
| Mean |
N-Size |
Std Dev |
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
| 3.29 |
17 |
1.1 |
Freq(%) |
2 (12%) |
0 (0%) |
8 (47%) |
5 (29%) |
2 (12%) |
|
|
18. Other comments:
|
| Dr. Paull is a terrible lecturer. He digresses CONSTANTLY. He must not
listen to people because when they would ask him questions he would not
answer the question but talk about something else. This made it hard for
me to go see him out of class because I didn't trust that he would listen
to me and what I was having trouble understanding. His teaching style
consisted of talking. He did not organize the material in any clear way.
He did not effectively present the concepts but rather dumped very specific
situations on us (versus concisely presenting a concept and then
illustrating with examples). He fell asleep during our final presentations
which I think is extremely rude. I did not learn half of what I could have
from this course had he not been the instructor. |
| Expectations of how labs and write up should be written should be addressed
by the teacher BEFORE the assignment is turned in. All assignments were
unclear. If all students have a question on the same thing then it should
be the responsibility of the teacher to make sure everything is understood.
There were too many times when the whole class was left to assume that an
assignment was to be done a certain way. Prerequisites for this class do
not reflect the material expected. Had I not taken statistics and ecology
(both not required prior to taking BOT 470) I would have not been able to
fully complete all the assignments. Prerequisites are made so students have
an idea of what to expect from a class and what knowledge they should have
coming into it. The knowledge required prior to entering BOT 470 lab is a
lot more than the prerequisites. |
| This class is very unorganized. Communication between TA, professors, and students is very poor. |
| Lectures on the blackboard were more effective than powerpoints. |
| The prerequisites for this class should include cell and molecular biology, and biochemistry. If I did
not take those classes prior to this class, I would be lost. The teaching style between the three
instructors was like night and day which made the course even harder. The use of study guides
distributed out more than days before the exam would have been nice as well. If a class has only
one instructor listed in the class schedule it should be taught by one teacher, otherwise have it so in
the class catalog. |
| Genetics, organic chemistry, and Cell and molecular biology are not requirements for this course.
Despite this, Dr. Paull teaches this course as if we all have a thorough knowledge of these topics
and just confuses the hell out of all of the students and makes it insanely hard to know what the
heck he wants us to get out of his lectures. His "study questions" do nothing for us and in no way
help us to focus our studying on specific important topics.
He is completely unnecessary for this course. Dr. Barton is more than knowledgable to teach this
course on her own. I dislike his teaching so much that I stopped going to his courses. I began
teaching myself out of the book and rarely showing up to his lecture and it is the best thing I ever
could have done for my grade in this course. And to let you know, I'm not a slacker who never
shows up for class or one of the F students, I expect an A in this course, and I thank the book and
Dr. Barton for that, not Dr. Paull.
I don't like that he talks down to his students. He treats us like we're idiots, he blatantly hits on
female students, his random tangents do not help to give real world examples to enrich the topic.
They just waste time. I do not appreciate any of these demeaning or patronizing things in courses
that I am spending THOUSANDS of dollars on.
Next semester, either get a better co-teacher or let Dr. Barton teach by herself.
Sorry to be so mean, but its how I feel. I respect his knowledge and his research credentials. His
jokes are sometimes pretty funny and, when relevant, add some humor to a somewhat dry topic,
but I don't think he's a good teacher or necessary for this course. |
| Frustrating to have so many unnecessary study questions pulled straight from the textbook website rather than have questions created by this instructor based on what was covered in lecture material. Very much wasted time trying to find answers to those irrelevant study questions and then studying them. |
| The powerpoints and lectures were a little difficult to follow along with. He
also often included cell and molecular biology sort of information but it
wasn't a prereq for the the class. Other than those minor complaints, i
really enjoy this class and both teachers. Paull was knowledgeable and
enthusiastic about his subject matter and drew the students in as well. |
| Dr. Paull is one of the worst instructors I have ever had in college. He zooms through difficult
material without understandable explanations. I felt like I was learning another language. The level
at which he was teaching the course should have required molecular biology, organic chem, and
genetics as pre-reqs. His study guides are not totally relevant to material covered and there is SO
much material covered I feel like I didn't learn anything because I'm too busy trying to memorize too
much material (pathways etc.) for me to really feel like I have a good understanding of the material
that is presented. The class should either be broken up into 2 semesters or taught in a different
way. WAY too much material is covered over the semester and WAY too much is expected for one
test. Maybe more tests so there isn't so much to know for each exam. |
| Very good |
| If you're gonna make this class like a capstones class, make it worth more
than 1 credit.
The final project was way too rushed, the fast plants project took too much
of our time.
Minilabs were ineffective. Did not connect the machines to plant physiology
and what we were learning enough.
Class size was too big! Have two sessions.
I did not enjoy this class. |
| Just have one project to give students more time to plan.
Maybe have more laboratory exercises about plant physiology. |
|
