eCAFE - Course and Faculty Evaluation, University of Hawaii

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations


Instructor: Hsin-I Hsieh

Available Survey Results

CHN451, Fall 2013
CHN451, Fall 2013
CHN455, Fall 2013
CHN452, Spring 2013
CHN456, Spring 2013
CHN451, Fall 2012
CHN455, Fall 2012
CHN750C, Fall 2012
CHN452, Spring 2012
CHN456, Spring 2012
CHN451, Fall 2011
CHN455, Fall 2011
CHN634, Fall 2011
CHN452, Spring 2011
CHN470, Spring 2011
CHN451, Fall 2010
CHN455, Fall 2010
CHN650C, Fall 2010

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN451, Fall 2013

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: East Asian Languages & Lit
Course: CHN 451 - Structure of Chinese Crn (Section): 70606 (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  
3.57 14 0.65 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 4 (29%) 9 (64%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.43 14 0.51 Freq(%) 8 (57%) 6 (43%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.43 14 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 4 (29%) 8 (57%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.93 14 1.07 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 5 (36%) 2 (14%) 6 (43%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.64 14 1.28 Freq(%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 5 (36%) 2 (14%) 5 (36%)
6. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.57 14 1.34 Freq(%) 1 (7%) 2 (14%) 4 (29%) 2 (14%) 5 (36%)
7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
Introduced new materials
Everything taught in the course was valuable
It is interesting learning about the various aspects of sounds and structure of the chinese language
learning about the structure of the Chinese language and how differnt parts of the language come together to form a sentence.
Everything was valuable.
metaphors!
There are many Chinese linguistics,it is very hard. But it's very valuable.
8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
There is no aspect of the course that was least valuable
None.
communicating effectively
I think should choose few valuable to teach. Otherwise, the students have to learn so many.
9. The instructor was available for consultation with students.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 14 0.88 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (36%) 4 (29%) 5 (36%)
10. The course objectives were clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.57 14 1.34 Freq(%) 2 (14%) 0 (0%) 4 (29%) 4 (29%) 4 (29%)
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  
3.5 14 1.29 Freq(%) 1 (7%) 2 (14%) 4 (29%) 3 (21%) 4 (29%)
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 14 1.11 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 2 (14%) 4 (29%) 6 (43%)
13. The amount of work required is appropriate for the credit received.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.14 14 0.86 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (29%) 4 (29%) 6 (43%)
14. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.0 14 1.18 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 3 (21%) 2 (14%) 7 (50%)
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  
4.29 14 0.73 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 6 (43%) 6 (43%)
16. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.36 14 0.63 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 7 (50%) 6 (43%)
17. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.0 14 1.18 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 3 (21%) 2 (14%) 7 (50%)
18. Other comments:
The course structure and objectives were unclear. I never really understood what we were supposed to be learning throughout the semester
Professor Hsieh makes learning Chinese linguistics very enjoyable and it's extremely funny to listen to all the metaphors he creates. I wish other instructors did this to teach other courses.
Including some class group activity related to the lecture would help learn the content
There are some very dry portions of the course, but I really appreciate Professor Hsieh's efforts to make those sections less dry.
It's tough course, I have to learn many Chinese linguistics. Even though I am Chinese, I still need to learn many new content. Teacher tried to make it simple and teach us. I think teacher choose few important points and then to teach.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN451, Fall 2013     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: East Asian Languages & Lit
Course: CHN 451 - Structure of Chinese Crn (Section): 79952 (002)    
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  
3.2 11 1.23 Freq(%) 2 (18%) 0 (0%) 2 (18%) 6 (55%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.7 11 0.48 Freq(%) 3 (27%) 7 (64%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.7 11 1.16 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (18%) 2 (18%) 3 (27%) 3 (27%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.91 11 0.94 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (9%) 2 (18%) 5 (45%) 3 (27%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.18 11 1.17 Freq(%) 1 (9%) 2 (18%) 3 (27%) 4 (36%) 1 (9%)
6. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.27 11 0.9 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (18%) 5 (45%) 3 (27%) 1 (9%)
7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
Dr. Hsieh's passion for the subject was contagious and inspired me to learn more on my own.
Structure of Chinese
Phonology
Learning the Chinese language form a different view and how to explain it differently was very fulfilling.
Examining Chinese from a linguistic point of view was interesting, and the professor was clearly knowledgeable about his subject.
8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
I felt all aspects were useful.
Lecture
N/A
Probably the least valuable part of the coarse was when the handouts passed out were incorrect. They were later corrected of coarse but for the time in between it was a bit confusing.
-Spending too much time on single topics. -Instructor was often unable to properly explain topics to students; or -Instructor was often unable to properly recognize if students understood a topic.
9. The instructor was available for consultation with students.
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%)
10. The course objectives were clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.64 11 1.03 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (18%) 2 (18%) 5 (45%) 2 (18%)
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  
3.18 11 0.98 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 3 (27%) 4 (36%) 3 (27%) 1 (9%)
12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.45 11 1.04 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (18%) 4 (36%) 3 (27%) 2 (18%)
13. The amount of work required is appropriate for the credit received.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 11 1.18 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (18%) 1 (9%) 3 (27%) 5 (45%)
14. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.55 11 1.04 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (18%) 3 (27%) 4 (36%) 2 (18%)
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  
3.91 11 0.94 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (9%) 2 (18%) 5 (45%) 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  
3.8 11 1.03 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (9%) 3 (27%) 3 (27%) 3 (27%)
17. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.67 11 1.12 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (9%) 4 (36%) 1 (9%) 3 (27%)
18. Other comments:
Sometimes the use of metaphor did not help as much as expected. It might have been useful for the professor to assign specific pages to read for the night before, and then discuss the material using linguistic jargon, before moving on to giving examples. In this way, the materials could be covered in three different manners, and overall understanding would improve.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN455, Fall 2013     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: East Asian Languages & Lit
Course: CHN 455 - Chinese Pragmatics & Discourse Crn (Section): 73485 (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  
3.6 15 0.51 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (40%) 9 (60%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.5 15 0.52 Freq(%) 7 (47%) 7 (47%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.2 15 0.86 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 7 (47%) 6 (40%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.29 15 0.61 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 8 (53%) 5 (33%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.87 15 1.06 Freq(%) 1 (7%) 0 (0%) 3 (20%) 7 (47%) 4 (27%)
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 1.13 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 4 (27%) 3 (20%) 6 (40%)
7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
Being able to talk and discuss things as a whole class. Being able to talk in chinese in class as well and learning about pragmatcs and what it is and how it is used.
Having the class participate and interpret examples.
I got to practice using Chinese in the class.
I thought that Dr. Hsieh's own lectures were very insightful when he stayed on track. He had lots of knowledge to pass on, and he seemed genuinely interested in the practical aspects of pragmatics.
The people and learning environment. I love my classmates.
The speaking part was hard, but I do learn many speaking skill that I never encounter before.
it was interesting hearing the professors views on pragmatics. I like that he focused on certain topics and had us practice usage in class. In this class i also learned the difference between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. I liked that he emphasized this right from the beginning because I did not have experience with these terms before taking this class.
We learn a lot of pragmatic skill in communication, how to use indirect way to communicate with others.
Weekly homework assignments and in class activities
8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
NA
N/A
He rambles about different things, sometimes for the whole class time.
I found there to be a great disconnect between the linguistic material in the required textbook and the information that Dr. Hsieh communicated orally. The linguistic aspects were dry and difficult to relate back to his lectures about pragmatics in practice. Also, the arbitrary structure required for submitting homework assignments was my biggest downfall. It shouldn't have been so hard to remember the specific format for creating these assignments, but with a full course load and two jobs this semester, it wasn't the first priority when I finally got to sit down and complete my assignments at night. Consequently I received lowered grades, not because I completed the assignment incorrectly, but because I failed to include my email address.
None
The homework format
the textbook was a little hard to understand
Required textbook and general lectures
9. The instructor was available for consultation with students.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.93 15 0.8 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (33%) 6 (40%) 4 (27%)
10. The course objectives were clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.8 15 1.01 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 3 (20%) 6 (40%) 4 (27%)
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  
3.93 15 1.03 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 2 (13%) 6 (40%) 5 (33%)
12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.07 15 0.96 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 3 (20%) 5 (33%) 6 (40%)
13. The amount of work required is appropriate for the credit received.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.29 15 0.73 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 6 (40%) 6 (40%)
14. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.27 15 0.59 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 9 (60%) 5 (33%)
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  
4.07 15 1.03 Freq(%) 1 (7%) 0 (0%) 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  
4.07 15 0.96 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 3 (20%) 5 (33%) 6 (40%)
17. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.0 15 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (27%) 7 (47%) 4 (27%)
18. Other comments:
I LOVED THIS CLASS TEACHER WAS AWESOME!
Professor Hsieh is a devoted teacher. He is very interactive with his students, and very creative in interpreting Wang's scholastic textbook.
Dr. Hsieh exudes high energy in the classroom environment and that helps students maintain interest during class time.
I really enjoyed the concepts in this class, particularly the practical use of pragmatics. The inclusion of the linguistic elements could have been handled better, or in a more organized way, but in general I feel like I learned a lot in this class.
I wish I knew what he was talking about.
none
Structure of course seems unorganized and syllabus schedule is vague

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN452, Spring 2013     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: East Asian Languages & Lit
Course: CHN 452 - Structure of Chinese Crn (Section): 80565 (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  
3.58 12 0.51 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (42%) 7 (58%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.42 12 0.51 Freq(%) 7 (58%) 5 (42%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.42 12 0.67 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 5 (42%) 6 (50%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.83 12 1.47 Freq(%) 2 (17%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 4 (33%) 5 (42%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.58 12 1.38 Freq(%) 2 (17%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 5 (42%) 3 (25%)
6. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 12 1.56 Freq(%) 2 (17%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 3 (25%) 5 (42%)
7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
I thought this class was really engaging and helped me learn more.
Homework practices were helpful in understanding the concept of the course.
Although at times Professor Hsieh has some issues conveying his thoughts in class, his lecture notes that he has passed out to his students at the beginning of class was very useful. If students took the time to preview and read the lecture notes and had any additional questions, Professor Hsieh would be able to answer the questions without fail for a better understanding for the students.
The homework and discussion in class about midterm and finals.
gave us lots of example to explain the note.
Hsieh Laoshi's insight was very valuable when he was on-task. Other wise, this was a pretty much wasted time slot and what he talked about in class was not related to Chinese or Linguistics at all.
speaking chinese in class
professor provided a lot examples to explain in any subject
8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
All aspects were equally valuable
The CCG concept that he taught was very confusing, as it had not yet been perfected and can pose some issues when being learned.
spend too much time to practice one by one
As above, pretty much 95% of the class was least valuable. Hsieh Laoshi was hardly ever on-task and ranted about papayas, his failed marriage, how much he hated UH, and how he does know how to use Laulima.
everything we learned
none
9. The instructor was available for consultation with students.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.92 12 1.31 Freq(%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 4 (33%) 5 (42%)
10. The course objectives were clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 12 1.44 Freq(%) 2 (17%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 4 (33%) 4 (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  
3.5 12 1.45 Freq(%) 2 (17%) 0 (0%) 4 (33%) 2 (17%) 4 (33%)
12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 12 1.45 Freq(%) 2 (17%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 5 (42%) 3 (25%)
13. The amount of work required is appropriate for the credit received.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.08 12 1.16 Freq(%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 5 (42%) 5 (42%)
14. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.5 12 1.51 Freq(%) 2 (17%) 1 (8%) 2 (17%) 3 (25%) 4 (33%)
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  
4.17 12 1.27 Freq(%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 2 (17%) 7 (58%)
16. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 12 1.37 Freq(%) 1 (8%) 2 (17%) 1 (8%) 4 (33%) 4 (33%)
17. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.27 12 1.62 Freq(%) 3 (25%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 3 (25%) 3 (25%)
18. Other comments:
Very good class.
Professor Hsieh has peaked my interest in learning more about the study of linguistics.
Hsieh Laoshi is very knowledgable in his subject area--an absolute genius. However, as an instructor he fails to get his message across. He threw tantrums in class, went on total rants about how much he hates UH Manoa and how we have no money, and about his failed marriages. The textbook was hard to read and understand, as well as his course objectives and assignments were also hard to understand. At the beginning of the course and throughout the course, he let us know that he didn't care if we cheated and that if we sat there and agreed with him, we would get A's. Hsieh Laoshi should not be teaching and is clearly not a good representative of the university.
There is absolutely no fact in this course. Nothing is real. He invented everything we learn, and he doesn't even remember it. He is very lively and friendly, but I learned absolutely nothing in this course.
great

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN456, Spring 2013     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: East Asian Languages & Lit
Course: CHN 456 - CHN Semantics & Communication Crn (Section): 87750 (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  
3.83 12 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (25%) 8 (67%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.58 12 0.51 Freq(%) 5 (42%) 7 (58%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
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%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 12 1.15 Freq(%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 7 (58%) 2 (17%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.17 12 1.34 Freq(%) 2 (17%) 2 (17%) 1 (8%) 6 (50%) 1 (8%)
6. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 12 1.24 Freq(%) 2 (17%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 8 (67%) 1 (8%)
7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
In class Chinese sentence examples and discussion were fun and helpful in understanding the course.
his life lessons
Cognition influences language, language influences cognition
Understanding the global aspect of semantics in language rather than just focusing on the Chinese.
The Chinese words and grammar used in certain situation
The homework assignments really reinforced the ideas covered during the lectures.
Dr Hsieh's discussion of language as an incomplete extension of cognition was interesting and valuable.
When Hsieh Laoshi decided to stay on-task, his input was very interesting. Other than that, this was a waste of my time and I would not recommend his classes.
The aspect of the course was most valuable is the examples for each lesson topic. Professor Hsieh always provided nice examples to students understand the course context, and those examples were really relative to students' own life.
8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
n/a
Papayas and mango examples
Professor Hsieh can be a bit boring when he lectures on important theories and aspects.
none
the occasional side story about topics that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Dr Hsieh often got off topic, particularly at the beginning of the course. I think at the beginning of the course, he was so worried that students would not cooperate with him, that he would end up going on very long rants about why we need to cooperate with him. After he got over this, he was able to focus much more on the content of the course, and he had some very important points to make. I think some of the students who missed a lot of class did so because they were sick of hearing Dr Hsieh going on rants about the need for students to cooperate, and thus when he was able to focus on the course material with minimal distractions, some students already had a negative image of him and didn't listen to Dr Hsieh. If Dr Hsieh had worried less about students cooperating and focused more on the course content from day one, I feel like students might have been more willing to cooperate (by showing up to class).
I did not appreciate how Hsieh Laoshi would throw tantrums in class, bad mouth the UH system, and go completely off-topic.
no
9. The instructor was available for consultation with students.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 12 1.13 Freq(%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 6 (50%) 4 (33%)
10. The course objectives were clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.25 12 0.97 Freq(%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 4 (33%) 6 (50%) 0 (0%)
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  
3.25 12 1.06 Freq(%) 1 (8%) 2 (17%) 2 (17%) 7 (58%) 0 (0%)
12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 12 1.09 Freq(%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 2 (17%) 7 (58%) 1 (8%)
13. The amount of work required is appropriate for the credit received.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.83 12 1.03 Freq(%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 8 (67%) 2 (17%)
14. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.67 12 1.3 Freq(%) 2 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (67%) 2 (17%)
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  
3.83 12 1.03 Freq(%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 8 (67%) 2 (17%)
16. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.83 12 1.03 Freq(%) 1 (8%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 8 (67%) 2 (17%)
17. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.58 12 1.38 Freq(%) 2 (17%) 0 (0%) 2 (17%) 5 (42%) 3 (25%)
18. Other comments:
I think more in class group activity or disucssion would be very helpful.
n/a
none
Great course and great professor.
This class was very abstract, and I believe it was by design. I'm sure that Dr Hsieh often receives criticism for coming off as a very unusual and non-traditional instructor every year. Yet despite what I may have thought when I first began the class about its irrelevance to Chinese, and it's abstract and unclear goals, I am glad I took this class. This is because Dr Hsieh really does have a lot of interesting ideas on linguistics in the Chinese context which may lead to an increased understanding of Chinese language, culture, and philosophy. For instance, Dr Hsieh's discussion of consciousness and language, and the limits of language as a reflection of consciousness were something that is very applicable to language in any setting. I feel like the underlying takeaway from this class was the idea that sometimes things just don't translate properly, and I think that's also a very important takeaway as a Chinese major. I will miss Dr Hsieh after this semester, though sometimes he went off on some pretty odd tangents, he was always helpful and amiable.
Hsieh Laoshi is brilliant, however he should not be teaching. It's time for him to retire or get a TA. His lectures lack focus and direction, and the "suggested reading material" had nothing to do with Chinese language or linguistics. He was very unclear about everything, and I did not appreciate how he would send 5-10 emails/day that had one to two lines of text.
No
This course was an absolute waste of time. Dr. Hsieh never discusses "Chinese semantics and communication." Throughout the course Dr. Hsieh talks about "communication" but doesn't focus on "CHINESE" communication. If the administration care about the Chinese program UH Dr. Hsieh should be forced to retire and another professor brought in who will actually TEACH the students.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN451, Fall 2012     Back to top

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) - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
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 - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
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. :-)
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 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.
His controversial approach to phoenetics
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.
When we focused on Chinese grammar and structure, such as the glides.
discussion were useful
The order of the Chinese character
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.
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.
Nothing really...
when the instructor tried deviated from the textbook
I think that Hsieh moved through the material very quickly so it was difficult to follow his lectures sometimes.
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
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.
no
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 you 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.
Great Professor!
Thanks for a great semester!
Very controversial approaches to phoentics, great guy to get along with, radical theories.
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.
n/a
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.
thank you for teaching me lots of thing in this class.. this is mali

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN455, 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) - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
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 - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
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
Life lessons
Discussions about pragmatics
The opportunities to have class discussions.
group discussions
Understanding And improving cooperation With others
the topic of agenda
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
Some explanation of concepts unclear
Tree diagrams.
Sometimes we spent more time than was necessary on one topic,
student presentations
All valuable
none
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 you 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!!
Happy to have Dr Hsieh again :)
Discussion topics can be quite interesting
excellent lnstrucTor And invigorating Course Material
he made me understand all the knowledge and understand in a different way

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN750C, 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) - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Freshman   Sophomore   Junior   Senior   Grad   Other  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%) 0 (0%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 5 (83%) 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 you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.2 6 0.45 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (67%) 1 (17%)
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 6 0.84 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%) 2 (33%)
18. Other comments:
No survey responses were found.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN452, 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?
The course provided new insights into the linguistic characteristics of the Chinese language.
how the professor presented the material to us and gave us detailed lectures with good examples. Having weekly homework is good as well.
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.
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.
I value the atmosphere of the class. It is fun and interactive, and we learned and matered how to draw CCG trees.
very fun atmosphere
Practicing use of written and oral Chinese.
Class discussions were both fun and knowledgeable. We were learning from the the things we say!
6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
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.
everything is pretty good.
I found everything the professor presented to be of value.
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.
Amount of assignments are manageable, but sometimes require too much time.
not very good examples for sentence analysis
I really didn't get much out of the linguistic theories.
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.
Maybe the lectures because it was difficult to understand.
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 you 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:
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.
this course is pretty good.
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.
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.
Overall, I enjoyed this class.
I not lingustics person.
Dr. Hsieh is always available and makes time for student consultation.
Grading was highly subjective and very inconsistent.
It was a fun semester and I will really miss this class! Hope to see you again in the future classes Hsieh Laoshi!

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN456, 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 course provided new insights into the linguistic characteristics of the Chinese language.
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.
6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
None
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.
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 you 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.
The instructor did not explain context clearly. It wasn't informative at all.
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.
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.
He had very little patience with students, or for questions.
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.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN451, 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?
The textbook and some handouts were useful.
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.
Use of examples to explain concepts.
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.
6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
Going to class sometimes.
Sometimes those examples he gives are confusing
Some of the subject matter didn't seem important.
The homework
everything was pretty valuable
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 you 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:
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.
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.
Dr Hsieh is a very funny and engaging teacher.
i like this course, and professor is nice.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN455, 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?
His lecture was fun and educational, I didn't get bored in his class.
The weekly homework assignments helped me gain more understanding about the topic because I had to research it on my own.
the way how we thinking, and different way of responding.
Good course content
discussion of pragmatics pertaining to life and everyday situations
N/A
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.
6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
I don't think an entire week should be spent on one topic - this pace is too slow.
easy to get lost in his lecture
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.
N/A
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 you 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:
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.
Sometime, the instructor doesn't know what he is teaching.
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
N/A

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN634, 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 you 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: CHN452, 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?
analytical skill
Textbook and homework assignments were very helpful.
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.
The teacher was lenient enough but not too much.
analysis of chinese grammatical structures
6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
exams
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.
I had a very hard time understanding the concepts.
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 you 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 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!
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 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.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN470, 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?
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.
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.
course topics focusing on chinese culture as it relates to current events and recently published intriguing journal articles
Class discussion on ancient Chinese philosophies as they are applied to modern circumstances.
Mr. Hsieh was passionate about his teaching and was able to effectively communicate his expectations and lessons to the class.
6. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
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
The midterm was somewhat frustrating.
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 you 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:
Dr. Hsieh is a wealth of knowledge and opens up the students to new ways of looking at certain aspects of life.
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!
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.
Professor Hsieh is a fantastic professor. I wish I would have taken more of his courses.
A lot the course content was very applicable to our every day lives.
I like this class, I learn a lot of new things. new ways of thinking.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN451, 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 you 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:
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.
The instructor is a lot of fun!
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.
He's a good professor. Very caring about the students needs and goals.
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.
It was very interesting to learn about the IPA and the structure of words.

Hsin-I Hsieh: CHN455, 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 you 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: CHN650C, 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 you 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 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!
Professor Hsieh cares a lot about his students. He does whatever he can to help us.