University of Hawai'i eCAFE

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations

Instructor: Hsin-I Hsieh

Available Survey Results

CHN 451, Fall 2012
CHN 455, Fall 2012
CHN 750C, Fall 2012
CHN 452, Spring 2012
CHN 456, Spring 2012
CHN 451, Fall 2011
CHN 455, Fall 2011
CHN 634, Fall 2011
CHN 452, Spring 2011
CHN 470, Spring 2011
CHN 451, Fall 2010
CHN 455, Fall 2010
CHN 650C, Fall 2010

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN 451, Fall 2012

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	East Asian Languages & Lit
Course:	CHN 451 - Structure of Chinese	Crn (Section):	70658 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
3.85	13	0.69	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	1 (8%)	10 (77%)	1 (8%)	0 (0%)

2. Course

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
1.77	13	0.44	Freq(%)	3 (23%)	10 (77%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.23	13	0.73	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (15%)	6 (46%)	5 (38%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.08	13	0.76	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (23%)	6 (46%)	4 (31%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.54	13	0.97	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (15%)	4 (31%)	5 (38%)	2 (15%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.77	13	0.93	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	4 (31%)	5 (38%)	3 (23%)

7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Prof. Hsieh is always thinking of ways to explain complicated linguistic concepts using language and metaphors relevant to our generation. Plus he's always happy. :-)

As I have never taken a linguistics class before, Professor Hsieh was very considerate in the beginning of the course to allow me to understand the IPA system versus my only knowledge of the Chinese phonetic system.

discussion were useful

When we focused on Chinese grammar and structure, such as the glides.

Prof Hsieh went out of his way to indroduce alternative materials and compare his viewpoint with that of the textbook author's, and gave the class a good idea of different perspectives on the subject matter.

The order of the Chinese character

His controversial approach to phoenetics

I appreciated that he had a very well written text book. His text book was very useful especially since I often got lost in his chinglish lectures.

I like the homework on laulima, it's very convenient and efficient! And how Profeesor Hsieh sends us the lecture notes and examples, those are really valuable and helped me understand the subject better!

when the instructor stuck to the examples from the textbook

i think this prof is very knowledgable

8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

I would rather have paid for copies of the relevant parts of Lin's textbook than buy the book. I feel like we concentrated on only a few chapters but went really in-depth.

Although it was useful to learn how the English phonology works as a reference, I feel like we might have spent too much time on it rather than studying Chinese phonology.

n/a

I REALLY hated having our homework online and not having it announced ahead of time on the syllabus. It made it too easy to forget we had homework. I would prefer paper handouts of homework that we have to fill in. Too bad it is UH's dumb policy to go digital. Don't blame the instructor for this nonsense.

n/a

I think that Hsieh moved through the material very quickly so it was difficult to follow his lectures sometimes.

Nothing really...

when the instructor tried deviated from the textbook

9. The instructor was available for consultation with students.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.85	13	0.8	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (38%)	5 (38%)	3 (23%)

10. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.85	13	0.9	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (46%)	3 (23%)	4 (31%)

11. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.69	13	0.85	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (54%)	3 (23%)	3 (23%)

12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.15	13	0.69	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (15%)	7 (54%)	4 (31%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.31	13	0.75	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (15%)	5 (38%)	6 (46%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.08	13	0.86	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (31%)	4 (31%)	5 (38%)

15. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.38	13	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	6 (46%)	6 (46%)

16. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.23	13	0.73	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (15%)	6 (46%)	5 (38%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.23	13	0.83	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (23%)	4 (31%)	6 (46%)

18. Other comments:

I liked Dr. Hsieh's course. I felt that even though at the beginning it was a review for those of us with previous linguistic courses under our belt, by the end of the semester I was learning cool new ways of analyzing Chinese linguistically. (SR -> UR!) Additionally, Dr. Hsieh's class is one of the few in which the concepts necessary for the homework are completely covered in class. It was a welcome relief.

Professor Hsieh is so passionate about his knowledge of Chinese linguistics. I am very happy to have had him for my very first linguistics class.

n/a

I would maybe focus more on Chinese phonology and morphology and have the homework pre-announced in the syllabus, but overall this class was good and fun.

Very controversial approaches to phoentics, great guy to get along with, radical theories.

Thanks for a great semester!

Great Professor!

thank you for teaching me lots of thing in this class.. this is mali

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN 455, Fall 2012 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	East Asian Languages & Lit
Course:	CHN 455 - Chinese Pragmatics & Discourse	Crn (Section):	73751 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
3.67	15	0.9	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	5 (33%)	8 (53%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)

2. Course

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
1.47	15	0.52	Freq(%)	8 (53%)	7 (47%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.27	15	0.8	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	8 (53%)	6 (40%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.13	15	0.92	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	2 (13%)	6 (40%)	6 (40%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.13	15	1.25	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	1 (7%)	1 (7%)	4 (27%)	8 (53%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.87	15	1.19	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	3 (20%)	2 (13%)	4 (27%)	6 (40%)

7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Life lessons great teacher

the topic of agenda

Understanding And improving cooperation With others

The opportunities to have class discussions.

Discussions about pragmatics

group discussions

Life lessons

Very sincere and very applicable to life. Teacher's words and teachings were very valuable. Uses very good examples to demonstrate lessons.

8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

Everything was final

none

All valuable

Sometimes we spent more time than was necessary on one topic,

Tree diagrams.

student presentations

Some explanation of concepts unclear

9. The instructor was available for consultation with students.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	15	0.93	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	3 (20%)	6 (40%)	5 (33%)

10. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.73	15	1.33	Freq(%)	2 (13%)	0 (0%)	3 (20%)	5 (33%)	5 (33%)

11. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.73	15	1.33	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	2 (13%)	3 (20%)	3 (20%)	6 (40%)

12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.8	15	1.21	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	1 (7%)	3 (20%)	5 (33%)	5 (33%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.27	15	1.03	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (13%)	0 (0%)	5 (33%)	8 (53%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.07	15	1.16	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	7 (47%)	6 (40%)

15. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

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 fair in grading and criteria of grades.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.27	15	0.88	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	1 (7%)	6 (40%)	7 (47%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.07	15	1.16	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	7 (47%)	6 (40%)

18. Other comments:

Great professor! Raise his pay!!

he made me understand all the knowledge and understand in a different way

excellent lnstrucTor And invigorating Course Material

Discussion topics can be quite interesting

Happy to have Dr Hsieh again :)

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN 750C, Fall 2012 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	East Asian Languages & Lit
Course:	CHN 750C - Rsch Sem: Structure	Crn (Section):	79294 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
4.83	6	0.41	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (17%)	5 (83%)	0 (0%)

2. Course

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

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.83	6	0.41	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (17%)	5 (83%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

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

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	6	0.89	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (33%)	2 (33%)	2 (33%)

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	6	0.89	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (33%)	2 (33%)	2 (33%)

7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Professor Hsieh is really professionl in this field, and I admire his hard work.

I think the most valuable aspects of the course are that the instructor introduced an interesting theory of cognitive grammar and some insightful talks in the class.

8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

The least valuable aspect of the course, I would say that this theory would probably requires more than one semester to learn it. So far we probable have a whole picture; however, more detailed explanation are needed to help us learn it.

9. The instructor was available for consultation with students.

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%)

10. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	6	1.03	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (33%)	0 (0%)	4 (67%)

11. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

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%)

12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.

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

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

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%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.2	5	0.45	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (80%)	1 (20%)

15. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

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%)

16. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.

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%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.2	5	0.84	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (20%)	2 (40%)	2 (40%)

18. Other comments:

No survey responses were found.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN 452, Spring 2012 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	East Asian Languages & Lit
Course:	CHN 452 - Structure of Chinese	Crn (Section):	80618 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.53	17	0.62	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	6 (35%)	10 (59%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.24	17	0.9	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	2 (12%)	6 (35%)	8 (47%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.82	17	0.95	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (12%)	3 (18%)	8 (47%)	4 (24%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.53	17	1.07	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	3 (18%)	6 (35%)	4 (24%)	4 (24%)

5. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

how the professor presented the material to us and gave us detailed lectures with good examples. Having weekly homework is good as well.

The course provided new insights into the linguistic characteristics of the Chinese language.

The professor's ability to relate the course concepts/materials across a wide variety of disciplines. I particularly liked (although I didn't always understand what I was doing) drawing sentence structure "trees". The professor was very patient and supportive in ensuring everyone in the class understood how to do this.

Class discussions were both fun and knowledgeable. We were learning from the the things we say!

very fun atmosphere

I value the atmosphere of the class. It is fun and interactive, and we learned and matered how to draw CCG trees.

Practicing use of written and oral Chinese.

Assignments and lectures.

The tree structure for the chinese sentences and the discussion of the translation from Chinese to english and vice versa especially when certain pattern exist in one language but not the other because then we are able to see why sometimes the translation become tricky and difficult.

6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

everything is pretty good.

I feel that this course, while teaching a fair amount about linguistics, failed to help me improve my understanding of the Chinese language. I do not feel more fluent (and only slightly more knowledgeable) in Chinese than I did before taking the class.

I found everything the professor presented to be of value.

Maybe the lectures because it was difficult to understand.

not very good examples for sentence analysis

The overall theories had more to do with universal grammar applications than any Chinese. No one would learn Chinese better knowing the theories taught, and no one could teach Chinese better knowing them either.

Amount of assignments are manageable, but sometimes require too much time.

I really didn't get much out of the linguistic theories.

None

However sometimes its difficult for us to understand certain topic and we as student need more example given inorder for us to understand how the pattern is use correctly, instead of repeatedly using the same one over and over.

7. The instructor was available for consultation with students.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	17	1.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	5 (29%)	4 (24%)	7 (41%)

8. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.18	17	0.88	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	2 (12%)	7 (41%)	7 (41%)

9. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.94	17	1.03	Freq(%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	3 (18%)	8 (47%)	5 (29%)

10. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.29	17	0.77	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (18%)	6 (35%)	8 (47%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.47	17	0.62	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	7 (41%)	9 (53%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.0	17	0.87	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	3 (18%)	8 (47%)	5 (29%)

13. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.47	17	0.62	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	7 (41%)	9 (53%)

14. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.24	17	0.75	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	10 (59%)	6 (35%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
3.93	15	1.03	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (13%)	2 (13%)	6 (40%)	5 (33%)

16. Other comments:

Dr. Hsieh is always available and makes time for student consultation.

this course is pretty good.

Professor Hsieh is a brilliant person with more wisdom of the Universe than most people we are likely to meet in our lifetimes. However, he does not comprehend well the ways in which to give this knowledge and wisdom to his students. I would love to have Professor Hsieh as a neighbor with whom I could sit, drink a beer, and talk about the world, but as a professor trying to teach students he has much to understand about both style and method of instruction.

I not lingustics person.

Professor Hsieh is an excellent instructor who is very patient and genuinely concerned with how well his students do. He makes every effort to ensure the students understand the materials presented, and is more than fair in his grading and evaluation of student assignments. He is very personable and really enjoys his work.

It was a fun semester and I will really miss this class! Hope to see you again in the future classes Hsieh Laoshi!

Grading was highly subjective and very inconsistent.

Overall, I enjoyed this class.

None

sometimes the professer wanted us to understand his theory or topic right away but I feel thats a little too much for the student because we are still the beginner in learning the gramatical pattern in the linguistic point therefore we do not have much background knowledge on the field so at times its there are certain materials that are hard for us to comprehend right away. Also there are student that learn fast and other are behind because they do not comprehend the material so I hope he would just help out those students instead of getting mad at them when he/she do not understand since they are trying their best.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN 456, Spring 2012 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	East Asian Languages & Lit
Course:	CHN 456 - CHN Semantics & Communication	Crn (Section):	89232 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.22	9	0.97	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	0 (0%)	4 (44%)	4 (44%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.56	9	1.13	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (22%)	2 (22%)	3 (33%)	2 (22%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.13	8	1.55	Freq(%)	1 (13%)	3 (38%)	0 (0%)	2 (25%)	2 (25%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.22	9	1.56	Freq(%)	2 (22%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	3 (33%)	2 (22%)

5. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Class lectures

The discussion-based curriculum made for a very comfortable learning environment.

I liked some examples given. Class is fun when Dr. Hsieh tells us stories to relate to the topic.

The course provided new insights into the linguistic characteristics of the Chinese language.

6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

None

It was hard to have a discussion when we were asked to accept only one possible answer.

Sometimes we would like clearer explanations rather than telling the students are incorrect in their interpretations of the material.

theory 456

7. The instructor was available for consultation with students.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.89	9	1.36	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (22%)	2 (22%)	0 (0%)	5 (56%)

8. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.22	9	1.56	Freq(%)	2 (22%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	3 (33%)	2 (22%)

9. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.11	9	1.62	Freq(%)	2 (22%)	1 (11%)	3 (33%)	0 (0%)	3 (33%)

10. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.67	9	1.41	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	3 (33%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	4 (44%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	9	1.22	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	3 (33%)	0 (0%)	5 (56%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
3.33	9	1.22	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	3 (33%)	2 (22%)	2 (22%)	2 (22%)

13. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

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%)

14. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.67	9	1.5	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	2 (22%)	1 (11%)	4 (44%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
3.44	9	1.13	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (22%)	3 (33%)	2 (22%)	2 (22%)

16. Other comments:

Some of the materials are a bit too philosophical for me.

He had very little patience with students, or for questions.

The instructor did not explain context clearly. It wasn't informative at all.

We have weekly assignments, it is very good for practice.

Professor Hsieh needs to make sure students understand what he's saying, not by simply asking if they understand. Check student's comprehension by asking specific questions otherwise they will continue to just say, "yes, I get it" when they are not getting the point he's trying to make. This has happened constantly throughout the course.

You are a good Chinese professor, I learned a lot in this semester, thanks. Thanks for helping me to write the recommendation letter, I like your theory and your teaching style.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN 451, Fall 2011 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	East Asian Languages & Lit
Course:	CHN 451 - Structure of Chinese	Crn (Section):	70705 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

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%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	12	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	6 (50%)	5 (42%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.17	12	0.72	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (17%)	6 (50%)	4 (33%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.92	12	1.08	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (17%)	1 (8%)	5 (42%)	4 (33%)

5. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Use of examples to explain concepts.

Class discussions and the professor's approach to presenting the material. The course material was very technical and 'dry'. Had it not been for the the professor's unique efforts to make the material understandable on a very basic level, I probably would have dropped the course.

The fact that he uses very helpful examples to explain his thoughts.

Diagrams in class

his examples are great in helping us the subject matter. he also creats his own worksheets and notes on the side to help us further understand what he is lecturing about.

The textbook and some handouts were useful.

6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

Some of the subject matter didn't seem important.

Sometimes those examples he gives are confusing

The homework

everything was pretty valuable

Going to class sometimes.

7. The instructor was available for consultation with students.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	12	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	6 (50%)	5 (42%)

8. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.09	11	0.83	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (27%)	4 (36%)	4 (36%)

9. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.08	12	0.79	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (25%)	5 (42%)	4 (33%)

10. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.

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%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.42	12	0.51	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (58%)	5 (42%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.27	11	0.79	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (18%)	4 (36%)	5 (45%)

13. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	12	0.67	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	4 (33%)	7 (58%)

14. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.17	12	0.94	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	1 (8%)	5 (42%)	5 (42%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.17	12	0.94	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	1 (8%)	5 (42%)	5 (42%)

16. Other comments:

Dr Hsieh is a very funny and engaging teacher.

I think if the course could be structured so that every two weeks or so there is a review of the previous material covered, it would be very helpful overall with regard to understanding and retaining the course information.

i like this course, and professor is nice.

This class had a lot of difficult subjects, concepts and terms, and it was hard to understand what was going on. Dr. Hsieh did his best to try and relate some of these terms and concepts to real life applications. The course content didn't seem to interest the class since it was for linguists, but it's not the teacher's fault.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN 455, Fall 2011 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	East Asian Languages & Lit
Course:	CHN 455 - Chinese Pragmatics & Discourse	Crn (Section):	74125 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.54	13	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (46%)	7 (54%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.15	13	0.99	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	2 (15%)	4 (31%)	6 (46%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.85	13	0.9	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (46%)	3 (23%)	4 (31%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.08	13	0.76	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (23%)	6 (46%)	4 (31%)

5. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Good course content

Professor Hsieh really let the students discuss what they learned and what they think about the material. It was more of a group effort than individual work and I think that really let the students develop a deeper understanding of the material.

discussion of pragmatics pertaining to life and everyday situations

His lecture was fun and educational, I didn't get bored in his class.

N/A

the way how we thinking, and different way of responding.

The weekly homework assignments helped me gain more understanding about the topic because I had to research it on my own.

6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

easy to get lost in his lecture

N/A

discussions regarding world economic problems--don't understand how this relates to chinese pragmatics

N/A

We could do less homework. There was usually one assignment per week which is a bit high for a non-WI course.

I don't think an entire week should be spent on one topic - this pace is too slow.

7. The instructor was available for consultation with students.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.46	13	0.78	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (15%)	3 (23%)	8 (62%)

8. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.31	13	0.85	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (23%)	3 (23%)	7 (54%)

9. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.69	13	1.11	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	3 (23%)	1 (8%)	6 (46%)	3 (23%)

10. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.23	13	1.01	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	2 (15%)	3 (23%)	7 (54%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.31	13	0.95	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	1 (8%)	4 (31%)	7 (54%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.25	12	0.87	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (25%)	3 (25%)	6 (50%)

13. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.15	13	0.9	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (31%)	3 (23%)	6 (46%)

14. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.38	13	0.77	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (15%)	4 (31%)	7 (54%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.08	13	0.95	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	2 (15%)	5 (38%)	5 (38%)

16. Other comments:

Sometime, the instructor doesn't know what he is teaching.

Hi, Professor Hsieh, I like to listen your lecture in your class. It taught me a lot of life experience, Thanks a lot, I learned a lot.

N/A

Grading policies were not clear, and the class seemed a bit disorganized. Also, I'm not sure how many of the things we discussed relate to Chinese pragmatics, and I still don't really know what "Chinese pragmatics" is. I think more handouts and specific reading material would be more helpful, and perhaps following a text. I often felt lost and unsure about what Dr. Hsieh was talking about and its relevance to the course. Dr. Hsieh is obviously knowledgeable but often seemed unable to effectively communicate/explain to us his thoughts, so I think a text/reading materials would help. Also, he sometimes talked fast in Mandarin or Cantonese so I couldn't understand what he was saying (many students were native speakers, but not all). It would've been nice to be able to quantitatively know how we were doing in the class so we could get feedback about how to improve our grade if we were doing poorly. I had no idea how I was doing throughout the semester as we were not given any quantitative assessments.

N/A

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN 634, Fall 2011 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	East Asian Languages & Lit
Course:	CHN 634 - Chinese Syntax and Semantics	Crn (Section):	78667 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	6	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (67%)	2 (33%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.17	6	0.41	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (83%)	1 (17%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

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%)

4. 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	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (67%)	2 (33%)

5. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

The instructor's insight.

Chinese sentences'structure in space different with English sentences's structure.

6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

Sometimes the class lacks of a specific goal for the meeting.

non

7. The instructor was available for consultation with students.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	6	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (67%)	2 (33%)

8. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	5	0.71	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (20%)	3 (60%)	1 (20%)

9. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

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%)

10. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	6	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (100%)	0 (0%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	6	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (67%)	2 (33%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.33	6	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (67%)	2 (33%)

13. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	6	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (67%)	2 (33%)

14. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.4	5	0.55	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (60%)	2 (40%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.17	6	0.41	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (83%)	1 (17%)

16. Other comments:

interesting course.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN 452, Spring 2011 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	East Asian Languages & Lit
Course:	CHN 452 - Structure of Chinese	Crn (Section):	80645 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

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

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.27	11	0.9	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	0 (0%)	5 (45%)	5 (45%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	11	1.18	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (18%)	1 (9%)	3 (27%)	5 (45%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.82	11	1.08	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (18%)	1 (9%)	5 (45%)	3 (27%)

5. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

The teacher was lenient enough but not too much.

I enjoyed exploring a new aspect of language.

The tutors picked by the instructor to explain how to do the homework exercises did quite a good job.

analytical skill

analysis of chinese grammatical structures

Textbook and homework assignments were very helpful.

6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

I had a very hard time understanding the concepts.

The overall subject matter isn't necessarily useful but I would definitely not call it invaluable.

The material was not clearly written, and the instructor did not explain it in a clear or organized way to make it easily understandable.

exams

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.73	11	0.47	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (27%)	8 (73%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.09	11	0.94	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	1 (9%)	5 (45%)	4 (36%)

9. The instructor was available for consultation with students.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.09	11	0.83	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (27%)	4 (36%)	4 (36%)

10. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.8	10	0.92	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (10%)	2 (20%)	5 (50%)	2 (20%)

11. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.91	11	1.14	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (18%)	1 (9%)	4 (36%)	4 (36%)

12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	11	1.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	2 (18%)	4 (36%)	4 (36%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.27	11	0.79	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (18%)	4 (36%)	5 (45%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.09	11	0.94	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	1 (9%)	5 (45%)	4 (36%)

15. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.18	11	0.6	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	7 (64%)	3 (27%)

16. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.9	10	0.57	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (20%)	7 (70%)	1 (10%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
3.91	11	0.94	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	2 (18%)	5 (45%)	3 (27%)

18. Other comments:

I don't understand how this course is relevant for anybody except people studying linguistics. The name of the course "Structure of Chinese" seems to imply that we would learn the structure of Chinese sentences in a way that we can apply it to everyday use when constructing sentences for writing or speaking purposes. However this is not the case. It's hard to explain what is being taught in this course. Only if you actually attend the class will you see what I mean. Although the instructor is cordial and sometimes humorous, he is not capable of teaching.

I really like how Dr. Hsieh explain the class material by using examples. The examples that he gave can help the students to have a better understanding of the class materials. Dr. Hsieh is a really good teacher and I really enjoyed taking his class.

I would like to have a little more challenge for this course. Objectives need to be more clearly defined. Dr. Hsieh no doubt has passion to teach this course. The only downside is the instruction was somewhat confusing so it did create some challenge for me to comprehend the content but he would try different ways to help us understand. It is his teaching passion kept me going.

Good professor!

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN 470, Spring 2011 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	East Asian Languages & Lit
Course:	CHN 470 - Language and Culture of China	Crn (Section):	88679 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.62	13	0.51	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (38%)	8 (62%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.62	13	0.51	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (38%)	8 (62%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.62	13	0.51	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (38%)	8 (62%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.54	13	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (46%)	7 (54%)

5. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

course topics focusing on chinese culture as it relates to current events and recently published intriguing journal articles

Mr. Hsieh was passionate about his teaching and was able to effectively communicate his expectations and lessons to the class.

I felt that the most valuable part was the discussions and lectures in class because Dr. Hsieh is very energetic, descriptive and communicates very well with us in class lectures. Also Dr. Hsieh is very knowledgeable in the Chinese language and cultural aspect that he uses a lot of common sense and daily life examples to share with us and gives us a different perspective on the topics. The papers and class discussion forum was also very valuable because it gives us a chance to interact and communicate with each other not only in the classroom setting but also through laulima on the internet.

This course gives great insight on chinese culture and the history behind the language. The professor is extremely understanding and has a irreplaceable knowledge of the subject. I have taken the professor several times and I have never been disappointed with the quality of the class.

Class discussion on ancient Chinese philosophies as they are applied to modern circumstances.

I enjoyed the openness of the course. By that I mean, it was partially based around discussion which allowed us to really explore different ideas put forth by each other.

6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

The midterm was somewhat frustrating.

Well, there are not really anything that is least valuable except for the fact that maybe the classroom is a little bit far and that it would be really nice if the classroom was in Moore Hall.

There was a bit of excessive reading in this class.

N/A

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.69	13	0.48	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (31%)	9 (69%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.54	13	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (46%)	7 (54%)

9. The instructor was available for consultation with students.

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

10. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.23	13	0.73	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (15%)	6 (46%)	5 (38%)

11. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.38	13	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (8%)	6 (46%)	6 (46%)

12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.77	13	0.44	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (23%)	10 (77%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.77	13	0.44	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (23%)	10 (77%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.58	12	0.51	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (42%)	7 (58%)

15. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.46	13	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (54%)	6 (46%)

16. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.54	13	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (46%)	7 (54%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.75	12	0.45	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (25%)	9 (75%)

18. Other comments:

I like this class, I learn a lot of new things. new ways of thinking.

A lot the course content was very applicable to our every day lives.

I really like how Dr. Hsieh explain the class material by using examples or by telling stories. The examples that he give can help the students to have a better understanding of the class materials. Dr. Hsieh is a really good teacher, I really enjoyed taking his class ^_^ and I'm looking forward to take more of Dr. Hsieh's classes.

I would recommend Dr. Hsieh's class to other students because learning in Dr. Hsieh's class is a total different experience because the things we learn can really be applied to real life like immediately and there were very memorable life lessons, histories and cultures that we have learned from our classmates as well during student presentations. I really enjoyed Dr. Hsieh's class and have made some friends in it as well.

A great class, great professor!

Professor Hsieh is a fantastic professor. I wish I would have taken more of his courses.

Dr. Hsieh is a wealth of knowledge and opens up the students to new ways of looking at certain aspects of life.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN 451, Fall 2010 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	East Asian Languages & Lit
Course:	CHN 451 - Structure of Chinese	Crn (Section):	70774 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.41	17	0.87	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	1 (6%)	5 (29%)	10 (59%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.24	17	0.9	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	2 (12%)	6 (35%)	8 (47%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.18	17	0.95	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	3 (18%)	5 (29%)	8 (47%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.35	17	0.93	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	2 (12%)	4 (24%)	10 (59%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.53	17	0.62	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	6 (35%)	10 (59%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.24	17	0.97	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	3 (18%)	4 (24%)	9 (53%)

7. The instructor was available for consultation with students.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.53	17	0.72	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (12%)	4 (24%)	11 (65%)

8. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.88	17	1.22	Freq(%)	1 (6%)	1 (6%)	4 (24%)	4 (24%)	7 (41%)

9. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.25	16	0.93	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	2 (13%)	5 (31%)	8 (50%)

10. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.25	16	1.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	3 (19%)	3 (19%)	9 (56%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.29	17	0.92	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	2 (12%)	5 (29%)	9 (53%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.41	17	0.71	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (12%)	6 (35%)	9 (53%)

13. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.35	17	0.79	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	0 (0%)	8 (47%)	8 (47%)

14. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.

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

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.19	16	0.83	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (6%)	1 (6%)	8 (50%)	6 (38%)

16. Other comments:

Didn't learn very much, but it's alright. As long as I get an A. If I don't get an A, there will be rage.

He's a good professor. Very caring about the students needs and goals.

The instructor is a lot of fun!

It was very interesting to learn about the IPA and the structure of words.

Dr. Hsin-I Hsieh not only gave us the foundation necessary for studying phonetics, phonology, and morphology, but he also exposed us to many of the current theories being considered by linguists today. His teaching method is truly effective in that he was able to explain everything through the use of very readily understandable metaphors. In addition to teaching us mainstream theories, he was also able to show us how some theories may be disproven. Furthermore, he involved us in discussions on some of his own theories. The comprehensive nature of his teaching style allowed his lessons to exceed anything that could be learned from just a textbook. By taking this course, I have not only increased my understanding of Chinese, but I now also have a better understanding of the structures of languages in general.

Prof. Hsieh is a very kind and enjoyable instructor who is very understanding of his students. He made every class interesting with his examples and lessons. I only wish there were more interactive activities (maybe even more homework) and varying methods of teaching, because each class was pretty much a lecture and it would be hard for us to keep up with the material, sometimes. I also felt extremely lost in the class since we weren't issued a syllabus at the beginning of the semester. I don't know what our objectives are, so I don't know if we have fulfilled them. Many times, I felt like I was traveling forward without seeing where I was going.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN 455, Fall 2010 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	East Asian Languages & Lit
Course:	CHN 455 - Chinese Pragmatics & Discourse	Crn (Section):	74445 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.67	9	1.32	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	0 (0%)	5 (56%)	2 (22%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.33	9	1.22	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	2 (22%)	4 (44%)	1 (11%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.56	9	1.01	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (11%)	4 (44%)	2 (22%)	2 (22%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.22	9	1.2	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	3 (33%)	3 (33%)	1 (11%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.78	9	1.3	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	0 (0%)	2 (22%)	3 (33%)	3 (33%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.22	9	1.2	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	3 (33%)	3 (33%)	1 (11%)

7. The instructor was available for consultation with students.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.67	9	0.87	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (56%)	2 (22%)	2 (22%)

8. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.56	9	1.13	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	0 (0%)	2 (22%)	5 (56%)	1 (11%)

9. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.11	9	1.17	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	4 (44%)	2 (22%)	1 (11%)

10. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.33	9	1.12	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	0 (0%)	4 (44%)	3 (33%)	1 (11%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	9	0.87	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (22%)	2 (22%)	5 (56%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
3.56	9	1.13	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	0 (0%)	2 (22%)	5 (56%)	1 (11%)

13. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.33	9	1.22	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	2 (22%)	4 (44%)	1 (11%)

14. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.78	9	1.3	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	0 (0%)	2 (22%)	3 (33%)	3 (33%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
3.44	9	1.24	Freq(%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	5 (56%)	1 (11%)

16. Other comments:

Docter hsin was very unprofessional, he on many occasions strayed for WEEKS at a time talking about Barak Obama and politics and at MANY times flirted and talked about prostitution with students in the class. He was extremely opinionated and political since day one and made no effort to explain pragmatics and diverted to oral conversational assignments like talking about Maslow hierarchy of needs and concepts in psychology and dating issue(like relationships). He never related his stories to pragmatic in class. Also on many occasions he talked solely in Chinese completely ignoring anyone that was not from mainland china, having full out conversations to those people sometimes for an entire class. Though Chinese was required at a 200 level for this class, he made little effort to stick to that basis in Chinese and had full lectures solely Chinese. and later after translated from the mainland Chinese students in class the conversations were nothing more than the topics of his interest I mentioned above. This teacher has lost his passion and needs to be monitored. Students that have taken his other classes and previous students that have taken this calss I found out only opt to take his class because he gives everyone an A,(or promises one) he does not take attendance nor can he remember any ones name. there is zero homework and zero paper trail ...LITTERALLY ZERO..NOTHING ...the mid term and the final were oral based, and literally just checked, not graded, if we talked are not. the topic for the mid term was simply telling a story about comparative advantage, and most people just told stories about dating. the final is going to be about telling what we learned, witch is very little. so the grade then will be very subjective. i have talked to many teachers in the Chinese department, and they all say that i am not the only one who has felt this way, and many students have complained about the craziness of the class. i have showed up more than anyone and have one of the best attendances and participate every day yet i fear for my grade only because there is zero paper trail so I fear my final grade will be subjective like if he likes me or not. He told me that "girls" have and can show up only for the final and get an A. THIS IS NOT A LIE. and when asked how his stories relate to pragmatics he would get highly offended or just stop talking. I honestly think someone from the department should sit in on his class, re evaluate him. it truley is a crazy class.

The class period for this course is only 50 minutes per day but 3 times per week. I feel the department should consider changing it to a 3-hour class per week or at least two times per week to save students from commuting.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN 650C, Fall 2010 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	East Asian Languages & Lit
Course:	CHN 650C - Cognitive Grammar	Crn (Section):	78592 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

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%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals 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%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.2	5	1.1	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (40%)	0 (0%)	3 (60%)

4. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this 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%)

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

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%)

6. The instructor was available for consultation with students.

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%)

7. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.2	5	1.1	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (40%)	0 (0%)	3 (60%)

8. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

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%)

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

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%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.6	5	0.55	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (40%)	3 (60%)

11. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

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%)

12. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.

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%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.6	5	0.55	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (40%)	3 (60%)

14. Other comments:

Professor Hsieh cares a lot about his students. He does whatever he can to help us.

Professor Hsieh is very inspiring and encouraging students' academic interest and studying, not only this specific course, but all of our academic studying. I had not much background of cognitive background and was worried before, but during this course with Professor Hsieh's encouragement and consultation I found myself even more interested in this subject. I appreciate his teaching!