University of Hawai'i eCAFE

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations

Instructor: Karen Umemoto

Available Survey Results

PLAN 619, Fall 2012
PLAN 616, Spring 2012
PLAN 600, Fall 2011
PLAN 600, Spring 2011
PLAN 618, Spring 2011

Karen Umemoto: PLAN 619, Fall 2012

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Urban & Regional Planning
Course:	PLAN 619 - Multicultursm in Plan & Policy	Crn (Section):	78608 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Freshman	Sophomore	Junior	Senior	Grad	Other
5.0	7	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (100%)	0 (0%)

2. Course

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
1.0	7	0.0	Freq(%)	7 (100%)	0 (0%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.86	7	0.38	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (14%)	6 (86%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	7	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (100%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

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%)

6. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.86	7	0.38	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (14%)	6 (86%)

7. I learned to apply principles from this course to new situations.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.86	7	0.38	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (14%)	6 (86%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.71	7	0.49	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (29%)	5 (71%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	7	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (100%)

10. I learned to value new viewpoints.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	7	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (100%)

11. I developed more confidence in myself.

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%)

12. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.71	7	0.49	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (29%)	5 (71%)

13. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	7	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (100%)

14. My opinions about some topics changed because of this course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.71	7	0.49	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (29%)	5 (71%)

15. The course made me think hard and carefully.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.86	7	0.38	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (14%)	6 (86%)

16. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Karen's down toearthedness made this course more enjoyable. Not sure where she leaves her ego but she definitely doesn't not bring it to class. More professors should learn her teaching style or her sincere respect for students.

1) This class was taught by a minority faculty. Given culture-related courses are predominantly taught by Caucasian faculty who claim themselves a culture expert yet such fact is doubtful from their superficial (or even wrong) approach to this very serious issue, this was a priceless opportunity given to us students. 2) This class was taught by a faculty with world-class intelligence and caliber. 3) Instructor provided us students a truly safe place for "guts on the table"-type discussions in every session, which greatly enriched our learning experience (both cognitively and emotionally).

Well balanced course which is full of student discussion

The Socratic method of communication.

Working to summarize the readings is helping me to read more carefully and to understand the argument more clearly which is very beneficial to my future work in know how to take information from scholarly articles in ways that are useful for application.

17. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

I cannot think of any.

At least a third of the course should be led by teacher to point out what is important and what is missing.

I felt the amount of reading was a bit much for a 600-level elective.

18. The instructor puts material across in an interesting way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.71	7	0.76	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (14%)	0 (0%)	6 (86%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.86	7	0.38	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (14%)	6 (86%)

20. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.86	7	0.38	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (14%)	6 (86%)

21. The instructor frequently discussed recent developments related to the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	7	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (100%)

22. The instructor treated students fairly.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.86	7	0.38	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (14%)	6 (86%)

23. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.86	7	0.38	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (14%)	6 (86%)

24. Students in this course are free to disagree and ask questions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	7	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (100%)

25. The instructor suggests specific ways students can improve.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.71	7	0.49	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (29%)	5 (71%)

26. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.71	7	0.49	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (29%)	5 (71%)

27. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	7	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (100%)

28. Please list your suggestions for improving the course and/or the instructor's teaching style and methods.

I don't want her to change in any way!

None

Less readings, or a section of each (because each was valuable, just lengthy).

The class was purely group discussion. Might be good to break it up some times into smaller groups so that we can go deeper on something and then share ideas back as a way of reinforcing our learning in the small group and give those that may not feel comfortable in large group space to speak.

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.83	6	0.41	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (17%)	5 (83%)

30. Assignments are relevant to what is presented in class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	7	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (100%)

31. The reading materials were relevant to the course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	7	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (100%)

32. The projects were valuable in understanding the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
5.0	6	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (100%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
5.0	6	0.0	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (100%)

34. Other comments:

Thank you for your wonderfully leading this class. Hope to see you next semester!

I am glad to have been in a class that allowed me to present information (the paper) in a form that is best-fitting to the subject matter.

Karen Umemoto: PLAN 616, Spring 2012 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Urban & Regional Planning
Course:	PLAN 616 - Community Based Planning	Crn (Section):	89325 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.91	11	0.3	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	10 (91%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.55	11	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (45%)	6 (55%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.45	11	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (55%)	5 (45%)

4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	10	0.71	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (10%)	3 (30%)	6 (60%)

5. I learned to apply principles from this course to new situations.

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%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.45	11	0.69	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	4 (36%)	6 (55%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.45	11	0.69	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	4 (36%)	6 (55%)

8. I learned to value new viewpoints.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.64	11	0.5	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (36%)	7 (64%)

9. I developed more confidence in myself.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.4	10	0.84	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (20%)	2 (20%)	6 (60%)

10. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.

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%)

11. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.18	11	0.75	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (18%)	5 (45%)	4 (36%)

12. My opinions about some topics changed because of this course.

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%)

13. The course made me think hard and carefully.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.45	11	0.82	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (18%)	2 (18%)	7 (64%)

14. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Learning skills applicable to community planning and hands on experience

The project based nature of the course was very valuable to the students so that we have a chance to apply the principles we learn in the classroom out in the field, with the community. Working as a group gave us good experience in project/task management. Also, the facilitation training and activities we learned will be very helpful tools to draw upon.

working with other classmates on class agendas, time management, stepping up to take control of the project- Karen really helped steer the class from the backseat.

1. Real life experience doing actual community based planning that has helped me with my professional development. 2. Getting to see and experience Karen in action, there are many small things that you can pick up from her and her instincts that are very useful. 3. Working in a team. 4. Actual experience writing a conceptual plan. 5. Experience in facilitation. 6. Writing development. 7. Exposure to many different styles of facilitation. 8. Learning all different activities for facilitation. 9. Experience in public speaking and presentation. 10. Time management.

The trips to Kailapa seeing the work displayed in a useful manner for community.

Learning to facilitate community retreats and develop appropriate planning activities were a huge plus in this class. Also learning all the components that need to be fleshed out for community plan will be tremendously helpful moving forward.

The practical application. Working directly with the community was by far the most valuable experience I took from this course. In addition, learning the structure of how to write a planning document was invaluable.

This course was very practical.

15. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

writing skills- we didn't really get much individual feedback to improve our own writing

NOTHING!

Some detailes were lamented over for too long.

None.

16. The instructor puts material across in an interesting way.

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%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.55	11	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (45%)	6 (55%)

18. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.64	11	0.5	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (36%)	7 (64%)

19. The instructor frequently discussed recent developments related to the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.45	11	0.69	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	4 (36%)	6 (55%)

20. The instructor treated students fairly.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.64	11	0.5	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (36%)	7 (64%)

21. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.

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%)

22. Students in this course are free to disagree and ask questions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.64	11	0.5	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (36%)	7 (64%)

23. The instructor suggests specific ways students can improve.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.27	11	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	6 (55%)	4 (36%)

24. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.

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%)

25. The course objectives were clear.

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%)

26. Please list your suggestions for improving the course and/or the instructor's teaching style and methods.

Occasionally there were times in class that I thought the discussion became a bit tedious, and there were lengthy discussions over seemingly miniscule points of contention. Part of it is just working in a group. However, seeing that classes went over time regularly, it would have been nice to keep the class a bit more focused and on track.

organization of time/tasks, if we could have split up the work earlier, that would have helped to get draft done earlier

Students, because we were working in a team, should be held accountable for their work as a team member. Perhaps having peer evaluations? Also, more time should be devoted to the editing process so that a few students are not having to tackle such a huge workload.

By nature of the planning process the course was pretty flexible, at some points throughout the semester it made it a bit challenging to know exactly what the expectations were and how to move forward. In the end though I think everything came together as planned.

Break up the course into 2 days. Also, I have heard some students say that their ideas were shot down quickly. These students usually go unnoticed, and more encouragement for them is great.

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.73	11	0.47	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (27%)	8 (73%)

28. Assignments are relevant to what is presented in class.

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%)

29. The reading materials were relevant to the course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.45	11	0.69	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (9%)	4 (36%)	6 (55%)

30. The projects were valuable in understanding the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.7	10	0.48	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (30%)	7 (70%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.5	10	0.53	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (50%)	5 (50%)

32. Other comments:

Great class. Wish there was more time available to put together the plan and to spend with the community members/clients

I really enjoyed this course, and the opportunity to work with Kailapa. Thanks

Thank you so much Karen for another amazing class and for the most fun intensive professional development I have ever experienced!

I am very fortuante to have taken this course from Karen. Her skills were with both people, and her theoretical knowledge, was sound. She is an inspiration.

Karen Umemoto: PLAN 600, Fall 2011 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Urban & Regional Planning
Course:	PLAN 600 - Public Policy & Planning Thry	Crn (Section):	73021 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.63	24	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (8%)	5 (21%)	17 (71%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.42	24	0.72	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (13%)	8 (33%)	13 (54%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.7	23	0.47	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (30%)	16 (70%)

4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	24	0.66	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (8%)	8 (33%)	14 (58%)

5. I learned to apply principles from this course to new situations.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.38	24	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (8%)	11 (46%)	11 (46%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	24	0.64	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (8%)	12 (50%)	10 (42%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	24	1.05	Freq(%)	1 (4%)	1 (4%)	1 (4%)	7 (29%)	14 (58%)

8. I learned to value new viewpoints.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.67	24	0.64	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (8%)	4 (17%)	18 (75%)

9. I developed more confidence in myself.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.08	24	0.78	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	3 (13%)	13 (54%)	7 (29%)

10. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.09	23	1.04	Freq(%)	1 (4%)	0 (0%)	5 (22%)	7 (30%)	10 (43%)

11. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.63	24	0.65	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (8%)	5 (21%)	17 (71%)

12. My opinions about some topics changed because of this course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	24	0.82	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (21%)	6 (25%)	13 (54%)

13. The course made me think hard and carefully.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.67	24	0.56	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	6 (25%)	17 (71%)

14. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

My improvement of writing skills and synthesizing information. This is based on their weekly essay and many reading materials in each week, which are very good to give depth understanding and mindframe of the field.

Though the amount of readings were at some times overwhelming, I really do appreciate being forced to read and comprehend them. I think that if I did not have to write a credible sythesis of the readings each week, I probably would not have been able to get through them. I found some authors that I really enjoyed amongst the mix, which was unexpected. I also enjoyed the speakers that we had, as well as the class activities that mimicked planning situations.

Class discussions. A great array of reading materials. The opportunity to present. The weekly paper assignments that encouraged engagement with the material.

I would say every aspect was valuable. The weekly readings enhanced our knowledge step by step.

It talks about all of the planning theories,their strength, practices, challenges which is valuable for planning profession. Professor Karen Umemoto assist us to understand the fact through demonstration of class activities.

The most valuable aspect of the course was the weekly assignments that forced me to understand a lot of material in a relatively short amount of time.

Although the weekly reading assignments were quite challenging I found them to be tremendously helpful in my development as a critical and concise writer. Additionally, I think the weekly discussions surrounding the topics really enhanced my understanding of the information and helped gain a greater perspective of knowledge based on everyone's individual perspectives. I though the exercises were extremely relevant and really enjoyed having the variety in teaching styles and perspectives to help further expand the discussions.

discussion and interaction , presentations and the course pattern.

part 2: rationales for planning and the role of the planner

The readings were pretty good; I felt like the weekly essays challenged me to be a better reader and get through the essays better.

I felt the in-class activities and exercises were extremely valuable, for they challenged us to apply what we learned from the readings to more concrete situations. Also, the process of working with other students was helpful. Giving the presentation was very valuable, for we had to become "experts" on our topics. Writing weekly papers was also valuable, for it really made me process and digest the information from the readings in a meaningful way.

understand the basic background knowledge of Planning

The weekly short essays were a good tool in making you synthesize weekly reading materials. I enjoyed class discussions and class exercises done in class, including ones that fellow classmates used as part of their presentations. I enjoyed the film selections that were used periodicaly throughout the semester to enhance weekly theme discussions. I liked that the end-of-the semester review paper's topic was local-related. It was nice to hear from the alumni that is currently working with TEC at the beginning of the semester. I was at every class, except Week 14's class session where we had a guest speaker so I was bummed about missing that week but had been sick the previous weekend. I'm sure interesting discussions came up. Thanks for food at the last class session! And thanks for providing a good framework in which thought-provoking and interesting instruction, dialogue and discussion could come about in each class.

I really appreciated the class discussions and group work.

The aspects of the course I found most valuable were the group presentations and group discussions. I like the idea of students creating a learning environment and being responsible for their learning with the instructor facilitating with guiding questions and getting past group disagreements.

This class gave me a broad theoretical base that I can use to view the field of planning

The weekly readings force people to actually read the articles. Many other graduate classes have such readings but don't strictly enforce it. Most people don't really read it thoroughly as a result.

Dr. Umemoto's being a sagacious scholar, not just a mere technician.

Dr.Umemoto's lecture sharing her insights. She could clearly explain about the key points of what we should learn from each subject.

theory

15. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

All of the aspects in class are necessary, but sometimes same topics of case study is being repeated few times in other topics.

-- snipped --

some of the class presentations were too long and lost their value. the weekly papers were a little too structured, so didnt require critical thinking. sometimes the breakout sessions would not be as valuable if fellow students hadnt read the material.

I havenothing to point out at.

Sometimes I wish there had been a little extra time to flesh out ideas in discussion and a little less time on activities. But overall there was a great balance between activities, discussion, and related topics.

none

I felt frustrated with the student facilitations taking over half the class. This was especially unfair to those students earlier in the semester who had kept to their time quota. I felt like class time could have better used with a more formal lecture and would loved to have heard Karen speak more.

Watching the presentations given by classmates, for I often felt like it was a bit like the blind leading the blind, and I felt like (although everybody tried their best) there was some misinformation and some of the students didn't fully understand what they were presenting. Also, although the weekly papers were valuable, perhaps the requirement could be reduced to 8 papers instead of 10? It was a little overwhelming to have to write a paper every week for 10 weeks AND write a final paper.

Sometimes it was difficult to sit through some of the student presentations, but thats because students need to work on how they present materials, stick to the time limit, etc. I don't know how we could work on this since learning presentation skills is not really the focus of this course, though as Karen mentioned its a big part of becoming a good planner.

The readings and weekly writing responses were very valuable, though overly time-consuming. This course caused me a great deal of stress as I tried to find a way to accomplish my work thoroughly and promptly.

The aspects of the course I found least valuable was not establishing enough time to build community as a group to help facilitate deeper conversations.

Student presentations were often redundant and took up large portions of class time! The time limit set on these presentations wasn't enforced, this may be unfair to students who presented at the beginning of class as they followed the time limits.

there are two group activities, its a bit redundant.

1. "Power, Participation, and Social Learning" lecture by Dr.Wendy Sarkissian. I was a bit disappointed that Dr. Sarkissan was mainly shared about her personal problem with the class instead of sharing her insight about planning theory or practice that could apply to that particular problem. 2. Student's presentation. Although, it is a great learning experience as a presenter, I would rather learn the subjects from Dr. Umemoto instead of spending time observing about students' interpretation of each subject. The presentation took up too much class time from Dr. Umemoto's lecture or class activities. (still, Dr. Umemoto's short summary after each presentation helped me to understand the subject in the deeper level )

assignment

* Showing 15 out of 16 survey responses.

16. The instructor puts material across in an interesting way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.38	24	0.82	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	2 (8%)	8 (33%)	13 (54%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.42	24	0.83	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	2 (8%)	7 (29%)	14 (58%)

18. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.71	24	0.46	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (29%)	17 (71%)

19. The instructor frequently discussed recent developments related to the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.38	24	0.77	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	1 (4%)	10 (42%)	12 (50%)

20. The instructor treated students fairly.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.61	23	0.66	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (9%)	5 (22%)	16 (70%)

21. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.5	24	0.88	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	3 (13%)	3 (13%)	17 (71%)

22. Students in this course are free to disagree and ask questions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.79	24	0.41	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (21%)	19 (79%)

23. The instructor suggests specific ways students can improve.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.21	24	1.06	Freq(%)	1 (4%)	1 (4%)	2 (8%)	8 (33%)	12 (50%)

24. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.38	24	0.88	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	3 (13%)	6 (25%)	14 (58%)

25. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.42	24	0.88	Freq(%)	1 (4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	10 (42%)	13 (54%)

26. Please list your suggestions for improving the course and/or the instructor's teaching style and methods.

Please give the primary understanding in each topics, so students will understand at least the points of understanding. It is undeiable that students will have different interpretation and understanding to the material s given.

Student presentations could be kept to a more strict time limit so as to leave enough time to discuss the readings as a whole class.

1. I commend your obvious effort to keep all the instructors and TAs on the same page and keep everything consistant, but sometimes there are just too many cooks in the kitchen. It is also very distracting when instructors and TA's have other things going (ie laptops, phones, conversations) during the class. 2. I do enjoy an environment that promotes or even forces all students participation, however, I don't pay (an exorbitant amount of money) to hear what my classmates think the readings are about, or how it affects them. I first want to hear what my instuctors have to say, and when there is time, then I am more than happy to hear the input of my fellow classmates. The opinions of the knowledgable, practiced, and experienced are my priority. 3. If you specify that presentations should be 10-15 mins long, they need to be 10-15 mins long. If students do not adhere to this stipulation, there should be points taken off for not following the guidelines of the assignment, not points added for "thoroughness". And if time is not an issue, then it should not be included in the guidelines. I feel that those that made great effort to adhere to this specific guideline got poor marks when they should have gotten better marks. 4. Again, please, more instructor input in class discussions!

There was not clear direction about how long the presentations should be and the timing was not facilitated, so some groups were allowed to go much longer. I would have liked more examples of specific policy interventions used in planning and how they relate to theory. These classes should NOT be so big. If everyone can't fit around the table, it is too big. Graduate core courses should have smaller sizes to not only encourage student engagement, but so relationships with professors can be established early on.

My only complaint would be being fair on time duration for the presentations students have to make. Some took too long while others restrained themselves to the time limit. It is obvious that one can explain more with long time, but the ones who restricted to time limit had to explain in shortened way.

Though the instruction way is quite interesting but sometimes I feel I could not understand the actual point. For example: In each class student(s)presents their perception about the reading through power point. But after that I think we need feedback from the instructor that she could summaries the whole topic with the assigned questions respectively. Because sometimes in our writing or presentation we may miss some important points. It will be better if preliminary idea about the topic can be given before starting.

I would like to have had the weekly essays give a little more room for what we individually took from the readings, instead of only having us address a certain set of questions every week. The questions should be there as guidance for what we might consider --but as far as what we thought were the most interesting/important points, it should be under our discretion. It felt too much like regurgitation of information. I would also suggest tying in more current relevance in the topics for the first few weeks. Those planning theories were so dense and new for many of us; it would be nice to have it be a little more relevant to current issues for the sake of more engaging and interesting.

none

I'd like to hear her lecture more- it was great having the TAs and another professor but I would have liked some more formal lecture time from Karen.

I thought maybe a little more of a traditional, structured lecture from the professor -- especially after each student presentation -- would have helped to confirm or clarify what we learned from the readings. Also, maybe having a little more true team teaching in each class -- rather than having just one professor or TA lead each class -- would have been helpful.

A suggestion I have for improving the course is to be consistent with presentation expectations. For example presentations were suppose to be 20-30 minutes but as the course progressed presentation that were longer in length were praised for their thoroughness and given higher scores.

Student discussion took up the vast majority of time. Though I value social learning I would have appreciated much more input from the professor and TAs.

Much of the questions in the homework are sometimes not clear. Some of the weekly questions asked were not good either.

I do not want Dr. Umemoto to change a bit because she is a beyond excellent teacher.

Only suggestion (or more like a wish) I have for this class or Dr. Umemoto's teaching style is for Dr. Umemoto to provide more time for her own lecture and class activities by limiting students' presentation time.(sorry, our group presentation probably took the longest time...) I wanted to learn more about her thoughts and explanation.

no comments

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.65	23	0.57	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	6 (26%)	16 (70%)

28. Assignments are relevant to what is presented in class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.71	24	0.46	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (29%)	17 (71%)

29. The reading materials were relevant to the course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.79	24	0.41	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (21%)	19 (79%)

30. The projects were valuable in understanding the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	24	0.82	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (21%)	6 (25%)	13 (54%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.5	24	0.59	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (4%)	10 (42%)	13 (54%)

32. Other comments:

Karen did a great job, and she is very wise,friendly, and respectful lecturer. I like in how she conclude each weeks topic. But, I can see disparities in student understanding because of several reasons, as example fresh international students, or students who are still not used to speak and write in English. Somehow, I think she has to give balance on it.

I really enjoyed this course. I may be a bit harsh in my critique, but I do want you folks to know that I am so happy to have taken this course, and definitely feel enriched by it! Ashok - I wish that I would have had more opportunity to hear your thoughts and opinions on various topics throughout the semester because the few times that I did hear them expressed, it was really intiguing and so very interesting. I also appreciate that you did not always hold to the PC thing to say, and you said what you really felt or believed in. I have always been a realist, and it is sometimes overwhelming to be trapped in a box where everyone is only ever politically correct. Khlou - You can be quite intimidating at times. I am not sure if this is your intent, but it is certainly how I felt. That being said, I am so thankful for all of your help throughout the semester. I came to see that you are very kind and so very helpful. I do not envy your job as TA for this course, and I am truly grateful for the time and effort that you put in to being the TA. You and Hao are the best TA's I have ever had, and I wish you much luck and a successful teaching career should you choose it. Hao - You are so warm and so kind and the most helpful person I have ever met! I am beyond grateful to you for your efforts in this class. I appreciated the times when you spoke up in class about topics of interest to you, and only wish there had been more opportunity to hear from you. I also think you will be a wonderful teacher! And wish you all the best. Karen - You are the epitome of humble and understated. I am so grateful for your instruction. I feel that this class, more than any other, has really influenced (in a good way) my future career as a planner. I am still reeling from all the papers for this class, but I have never learned so much, nor grown so much from a single course. I have also never been so challenged ever in my academic life, as far as the workload, and demand for personal growth and constant reflection. Thank you indeed for all of the above.

Mahalo to Karen and the other instructors. Having so many instructors provided a breadth of experience, but also seemed to limit engagement with professor. also, different grading styles were apparent in weekly essays, which was an added challenge to adapt.

I find the course very good. But I still have to have some practical ground to test it, though live projects ahve been illustrated during the course.

Same as Q 26

none

-Have ONE PERSON explain the criteria for the papers in as descriptive a way as possible at the beginning of the semester. -Explicitly state the manner in which quotes or general reference to authors should be made (this was done casually while both the importance of citation and the specific citation style that was required were "down- played" or, made to appear less important than they in fact were) -Additionally, do not down-play the expectation of rigor and craft in class papers; this is especially important when these things are expected and casual language in initial paper description liken expectations in them to glorified book reports In summation, make both the written and verbal description of weekly papers substantially more descriptive to avoid misleading students; some students will bring their "A" game regardless of this, while others, may take a casual air around instructions and an underdeveloped list of requirements as a sign of low expectations while continuing to struggle with true expectations as they were presented verbally from multiple sources and written poorly.

very useful course and very good instructors!

The TAs were wonderful- so accessible, friendly, helpful and really a great addition to the class. It would have been great to hear them lecture a bit more and the students less.

I think this is probably one of the best classes I have ever taken in my long academic career! It was definitely challenging, and I feel like I have a solid theoretical foundation in the field. It was especially wonderful to have TWO excellent professors and two outstanding TA's.

I really appreciated having two TA's and two professors to lead a wider range of discussion.

Overall, I enjoyed the course and would highly recommend it to incoming students.

* I wish Dr. Umemoto had much more "air-time" giving us a talk & lecture, especially given that this was the last time she taught this class. 2TAs and a guest lecturer didn't spoil the broth but I felt that there were too many individuals in the teaching role. Given the small class size, one TA must be more reasonable. * American students should be the priority in paring up with international students for the presentation since they are the one who should take the full advantage of the DURP having the diverse student body. So-called best presentations came out from the American student teams, which is nothing surprising since they don't have to waste their time and energy for dealing with numerous obstacles derived from cultural differences and cultural shock... * The ESL students whose speech cannot be comprehended by many should be properly advised so that they can actually make an improvement in their speech as the semester goes by. It is a shame if they won't make any improvement after 5 months of studying so hard... * I had an impression that as the semester went by, presentations that simply gave detailed summary of each article received a favorable assessment, which was disappointing. I started to see that the degree of creativity amongst student went downhill since that point on.

PLAN600 was a very challenging class for me, but helped me a lot to go though the transition from Engineering (with an absolute governing theory) to Planning (with co-existing multiple theories). Now I can think about many different aspects of one thing instead of stick to the one dimensional thinking, thanks to Dr. Umomoto's great guidance.

no comments

Karen Umemoto: PLAN 600, Spring 2011 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Urban & Regional Planning
Course:	PLAN 600 - Public Policy & Planning Thry	Crn (Section):	89082 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.73	15	0.46	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (27%)	11 (73%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.53	15	1.06	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (20%)	11 (73%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.47	15	0.92	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	1 (7%)	3 (20%)	10 (67%)

4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	15	0.9	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	1 (7%)	5 (33%)	8 (53%)

5. I learned to apply principles from this course to new situations.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.53	15	0.64	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	5 (33%)	9 (60%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	15	0.49	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	10 (67%)	5 (33%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.27	15	1.1	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	5 (33%)	8 (53%)

8. I learned to value new viewpoints.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.33	15	1.05	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (40%)	8 (53%)

9. I developed more confidence in myself.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.27	15	0.7	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (13%)	7 (47%)	6 (40%)

10. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.07	15	0.88	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	2 (13%)	7 (47%)	5 (33%)

11. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.93	15	1.03	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	2 (13%)	8 (53%)	4 (27%)

12. My opinions about some topics changed because of this course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.93	14	1.0	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	9 (64%)	3 (21%)

13. The course made me think hard and carefully.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.93	15	1.1	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	3 (20%)	6 (40%)	5 (33%)

14. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Case Study and submitting Weekly abstracts of reading assignments.

Group discussions and exercises were useful and discussing the reading in depth to ensure that all students understand the readings.

Karen was very deliberate, in class, to promote discussion on subject material. She was provided a safe atmosphere for ESL students and encouraged them to share their perspectives on subject matter that was culturally reflective. The Subject was presented in a way that was digestible, yet required critical thinking about the applicative values of subject matter. I am more confident in my abilities as a student in the DURP program after having this class assist in the formation of my academic foundation of planning.

Planning theories, planning principles

Weekly papers and discussing them.

from this course, I understand what a planner does and what problems a planner has to concern when doing a plan

Late in the semester the use of exercises and applied examples of theories was great for providing traction to more of socratic-style discussion â?? but unfortunately it was too little too late. Great idea of having each student take turns presenting the weekly topic â?? but it could have been beneficial to have student then lead class discussion. 5 minute presentation didnâ??t sustain 3 hour class discussion. Laissez faire ambiance of course should have invited good discussion, but instead left students unresponsive and indifferent. Ive never taken a class where everyone was so disengaged from participating. Awkward!

learning various perspective on planning

theory about the planning, and it development process.

The many of the readings were very good.

Group discussions.

15. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

None.

An overall total lack of guided discussion proved absolutely ineffective way to analyze theories. No â??heavingâ?? thinking encouraged â?? no challenge! A split class of ESL students doesnâ??t mean a professor should â??dumb downâ?? curriculum. Guest speakers often were a waste of time â??diatribes that lost sight of course topics and left students even less engaged and interested.

nothing

none

The lectures and discussions.

The presentations by other students were largely unhelpful for understanding the readings. Only a few students took the time to fully develop a position or their thoughts on the subject. It was probably a good exercise to put people in front of a group and present to others since that will most likely be a common occurrence for planning students.

16. The instructor puts material across in an interesting way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.07	15	0.96	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (13%)	0 (0%)	8 (53%)	5 (33%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.47	15	0.92	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	1 (7%)	3 (20%)	10 (67%)

18. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.07	15	1.22	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	1 (7%)	1 (7%)	5 (33%)	7 (47%)

19. The instructor frequently discussed recent developments related to the subject matter.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.27	15	0.7	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (13%)	7 (47%)	6 (40%)

20. The instructor treated students fairly.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.73	15	0.46	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (27%)	11 (73%)

21. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.67	15	0.49	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (33%)	10 (67%)

22. Students in this course are free to disagree and ask questions.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.67	15	0.49	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (33%)	10 (67%)

23. The instructor suggests specific ways students can improve.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	14	1.24	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	4 (29%)	2 (14%)	7 (50%)

24. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.27	15	1.16	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	2 (13%)	3 (20%)	9 (60%)

25. The course objectives were clear.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.47	15	0.83	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	5 (33%)	9 (60%)

26. Please list your suggestions for improving the course and/or the instructor's teaching style and methods.

Karen is very understanding and open to new ideas. She is very easy to understand, especially if english is your second language. She speaks clearly and makes sure that everyone understands in the class.

Providing readings that are, physically, easier to read would be better. Some of the quality of the readings was slightly aged. Providing searchable PDF material would be beneficial.

More small-group work makes students feel more comfortable. Check on videos before class to ensure they work.

Iâ??d have liked to see a more forward-thinking course direction â?? with progressive ideas and materials that stretched students assumptions of planning. When I think of â??theoryâ?? I expect new and innovative ideas. I donâ??t know that I learned anything outside the obvious from class material or discussions. There was no reason to get excited to attend this course. Snoozefest. Karen is a WONDERFUL human being â?? a caring and inviting person with wealth of knowledge and experiences to share. Sheâ??s a great friend, but for this course-a terrible professor. I wonder if her tenure in teaching this course hasnâ??t come to term? Her reactive teaching style didnâ??t demonstrate any sense of â??planningâ??. No real efforts to improve participation throughout semester.

i would like more guest speaker and in-class exercise.

More preparation put into lectures may help. The classes meandered a lot but with so many international students, the class discussions also bogged down a lot.

The class could have had a better variety of student participation. Only a third of the class participated on a regular basis so a lot of differing opinions were probably left out of the discussions. The professor could possibly call on different students to instigate more vigorous discussions. Theory is a very open ended topic most times but I felt that it was left up to the students to explore the subjects especially in the beginning of the semester. No one knew where the conversations would be going and sometimes I felt that I didn't get much out of the class. When there wasn't much difference of opinion among the students we were often left wondering if we were on the right track.

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.33	15	1.05	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	2 (13%)	0 (0%)	4 (27%)	9 (60%)

28. Assignments are relevant to what is presented in class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.67	15	0.49	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (33%)	10 (67%)

29. The reading materials were relevant to the course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.53	15	0.52	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	7 (47%)	8 (53%)

30. The projects were valuable in understanding the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.43	14	0.94	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	1 (7%)	3 (21%)	9 (64%)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.0	15	1.07	Freq(%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)	2 (13%)	7 (47%)	5 (33%)

32. Other comments:

Thanks Karen for teaching this course! I appreciate your teaching style. You are a great facilitator and I always felt comfortable expressing my ideas in your class.

I look forward to taking other courses with Karen.

Karen Umemoto is a nice and excellent professor.

What a shame. Could have been great.

Thank you so much

i would like more case study to connect the theory to what is exactly under going.

I think there should be better copies of the readings. Many times it was a strain to read them. Having a 50% ratio of international students made for quiet and slow discussions. It would be better if there they represented at most, a third of the class.

Karen Umemoto: PLAN 618, Spring 2011 Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Urban & Regional Planning
Course:	PLAN 618 - Community Economic Development	Crn (Section):	87285 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

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

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	6	0.63	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (17%)	4 (67%)	1 (17%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

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%)

4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.

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%)

5. I learned to apply principles from this course to new situations.

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

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

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%)

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

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

8. I learned to value new viewpoints.

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%)

9. I developed more confidence in myself.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	6	0.63	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (17%)	4 (67%)	1 (17%)

10. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	6	0.63	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (17%)	4 (67%)	1 (17%)

11. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

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. My opinions about some topics changed because of this 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%)

13. The course made me think hard and carefully.

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%)

14. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

Reading assignments, weekly reflection and class discussion help me a lot in understanding how to develop community economics. This course also gives me many alternative strategy in doing so, what factors should i consider, and the likes.

The practical lessons

Just working with a Hawaiian community and understanding the principles of community econ development live in the field was a great experience. HANP was a spectacular group to deal with and Karen directed our group work very well.

The service-learning component was a great chance to apply the concepts of community development in a local context. The professor's presentations of examples and concepts was helpful and clear. I valued the chance to work on a project that required interacting with the community and that can have a tangible impact.

in this class I understand the role of planners in developing community and its purpose turns to low-income people to participate the community

The group projec because I learned from the activity. Relevant Readings are well provided. Weekly reflections, forced us to read and think.

15. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

Working with HANP is very valuable experiences, but it is quite different with my expectation, that is working with the community to develop their economic. So, I have not gotten a practical experiences yet on developing community economic using the theories I have from this class.

the reflections

Some of the readings for each week were a bit repetitive adn I thought could have been condensed.

I think some of the readings on business plans and community wealth could have been more relevant and concise. The class discussions of readings often didn't seem very fruitful.

I think we have limited practical environment.

16. The instructor puts material across in an interesting way.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.17	6	0.98	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (33%)	1 (17%)	3 (50%)

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

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%)

18. The instructor stimulated me to think about the subject matter.

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%)

19. The instructor frequently discussed recent developments related to the subject matter.

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%)

20. The instructor treated students fairly.

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%)

21. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.

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%)

22. Students in this course are free to disagree and ask questions.

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%)

23. The instructor suggests specific ways students can improve.

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%)

24. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.

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%)

25. The course objectives were clear.

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%)

26. Please list your suggestions for improving the course and/or the instructor's teaching style and methods.

It will be perfect to have theories and practical skills. If it is possible, Karen can facilitates students to collaborate with any organization that is working with developing their economic,so students would have opportunity to implement what they have learned from this class.

Maybe setting deadlines for report drafts and deliverables even sooner would help students get moving and end up with a more polished report/project for the organization. Also, it's helpful for readings to be organized in folders by week on Laulima, and titled with the author's last name and year.

Encourage more students sharing of ideas in the classroom.

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

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

28. Assignments are relevant to what is presented in class.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.83	6	0.41	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (17%)	5 (83%)	0 (0%)

29. The reading materials were relevant to the course objectives.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
4.0	6	0.63	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (17%)	4 (67%)	1 (17%)

30. The projects were valuable in understanding the course.

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
3.83	6	1.17	Freq(%)	0 (0%)	1 (17%)	1 (17%)	2 (33%)	2 (33%)

31. 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%)

32. Other comments:

Ho'oulu Aina was a great organization to work with. Thanks for a great semester!