eCAFE - Course and Faculty Evaluation, University of Hawaii

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations


Instructor: Susan Miyasaka

Available Survey Results

NREM475, TPSS475, Spring 2015
NREM475, TPSS475, Spring 2014

Susan Miyasaka: NREM475, TPSS475, Spring 2015

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Natural Res & Environmtl Mgt
Course: NREM 475 - Plant Nutrient Diagnosis Crn (Section): 88040 (001)    
Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Tropical Plant & Soil Science
Course: TPSS 475 - Plant Nutrient Diagnosis Crn (Section): 89841 (001)    
1. Class Level (pick one) - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Freshman   Sophomore   Junior   Senior   Grad   Other  
5.0 3 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 3 (60%) 1 (33%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 3 (100%) 3 (50%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
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%) 2 (67%)
5. The instructor communicated 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%) 1 (33%)
6. Assignments were returned in a timely manner.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 6 (100%)
7. I developed the ability to solve real problems in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 3 1.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 3 (60%) 1 (33%)
8. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 6 0.55 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 1 (33%)
9. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 1 (33%)
10. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%)
11. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 1 (33%)
12. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.
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 instructor treated students fairly.
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. The instructor encourages constructive criticism.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)
15. Assistance from the instructor outside the class was readily available.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
16. The amount of work required is appropriate for the credit received.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 6 1.03 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 3 (50%) 1 (17%)
17. The TA is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%) 0 (0%)
18. The TA appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%)
19. The TA was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%) 0 (0%)
20. Assignments are graded fairly.
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%)
21. Reading assignments are relevant to what is presented in class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 6 0.84 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 1 (33%)
22. Laboratory assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 2 (67%)
23. The course materials (texts, handouts) make a valuable contribution to the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)
24. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 5 (83%)
25. The field trips were useful learning experiences.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 2 (67%) 3 (50%)
26. The guest lecturers were interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 1.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%) 0 (0%)
27. Examinations cover the important aspects of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 6 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 3 (50%)
28. The exams were a fair test of your knowledge of the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 6 1.21 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%)
29. This was my first online course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   True   False   N/A  
1.67 3 0.58 Freq(%) 1 (33%) 5 (83%) 0 (0%)
30. I had the necessary equipment and technological skills required for the online course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
4.33 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%)
31. I believe I would have gained more knowledge and a better understanding of the course materials had the online course been conducted in-person.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.17 6 1.17 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 2 (33%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%)
32. What did you like most about your online course experience?
Great use of tools and learning to work with them
I enjoyed the assortment of research topics and seeing my peers presentations.
The flexibility
This course was chock full of information. Almost too much. I really enjoyed doing the lab report. While very challenging, the class gave me a chance to really get my hands dirty-almost literally- and experience testing a plant for a nutrient deficiency.
Structure of course Class size opportunity for improvement great instructor material/instructor/ta availability
Being able to work on the material according to my schedule. More flexibility in terms of completing reading assignments, tests, and projects. Learning how to use programs such as pow tunes and camtasia.
The flexibility of when to do assignments and reading materials and not having to block out specific days and times for class. Having everything available online is very convenient and being able to complete everything from anywhere is a great feature.
I've had online courses in the past but in terms of organization and communication, Dr. Miyasaka did an excellent job. Laulima was extremely organized and was a trove of information throughout the semester.
I like that the instructor notified the students via email when assignment deadlines were getting close and when the class would be meeting online for the synchronous session. Everything was available on the caldendar but it was even better when we got a 'gentle' reminder.
33. What did you like least about your online course experience?
The text book was too technical and wordy
The online class lectures were boring. Also the time spent trying to build presentations using Camtasia ultimately seemed to be a waste of time. That platform had some software glitches and a lot of time was wasted.
The time of the lectures
This course was full of information. I think my grade would have been much better had this been a non-online class.
Less hands on experience that you could get in other courses like lab experience/field experience
Despite being an online course and whatever stigma you associate with that, I felt that the assignments were somewhat plentiful. I've taken many on-site courses over the years and hadn't worked this hard in a while. That being said, I did not once feel disengaged from this course and made it a point to log on every day.
Sometimes laulima or the synchronous session would be slow either because of the Internet connection or because more ppl are using laulima at the end of the semester.
34. State in two or three sentences how this course could be improved.
A better a more user friendly text book.
Not exactly sure. I would have liked to have had more personal help to build presentation in a classroom setting. Computer language is still a challenge for me and despite the efforts from Dr Miyasaka to teach us how to use them and online tutorials the differences between computers and operating systems meant that the tutorials weren't applicable to my situation.
If we did more exercises on how to actually diagnose a plant nutrient deficiency. I feel like we learned too much f m the textbook and not enough from practical experience. I'm still not confident in diagnosing a deficiency visually.
I think this class could have been better in an in-class setting rather than online. Though, I liked the online format in that it allowed me to pick up an extra 2 days at work and do on my on time. However, i think my learning experience would have been better in the classroom.
I feel that some of the quiz assessment questions were a little bit too nitpicky. Not sure if that is the correct word to describe it. But sometimes I felt like the answers were trying to trick me and I spent a lot of time just checking or retaking quizzes instead of just learning the content.
It is an interesting course, however, I don't feel exactly confident going into the real world with the information learned over the semester. I'm not singling out this course because there are many other TPSS courses that failed to meet this personal expectation. I think the biggest impact Dr. Miyasaka could do is to change the format of the online quizzes. This 'take as many times' format hurts the students learning potential. If you only had one shot, you better believe I'd put a ton of time into learning the material. Then again, if she did this the course would be exceptionally difficult. Two quizzes a week plus the assignments would burn anyone out. Secondly, I feel that Dr. Miyasaka should streamline Laulima and her syllabus. Laulima was great, as stated before, but perhaps too much so. I found myself a few times over the semester clicking on 'assignments' and 'forums' just trying to figure out where to submit my work. Or trying to remember a certain grading rubric and having to flip through the course module and syllabus for some time. For instance, earlier in the semester I found an example of a Term Lecture done by Kauahi Perez. A few months later, I tried finding her submission but had no such luck. I still haven't found it! Also, Kauahi told me that Dr. Miyasaka had a great tutorial on Camtasia and I was never able to find it.
I know there was an optional field trip at the begining of the semester, which I truly enjoyed. I think getting the students out into the field would Help the students retain the information learned throughout the course. Maybe towards the end of the semester. So after learning the skill of identifying nutrient stressed plants. That way students can identify it on their own.
35. Other comments:
Despite my complaints the work requirement is well suited to my interests as it will help me build a business.
I would give an overall rating of 9.5 out of 10 stars.
This was a good course for gaining experience on nutrient deficiencies. It was conducted really well considering the limitations of doing courses online. If the class was done in person, perhaps more could be learned in the laboratory.
Overall I think the course has a lot of excellent content and is well set up and very organized. I like that everything is laid out clearly as to what is expected. My only comments were the ones about the quiz questions and also perhaps about the homework assignments. They were not overly difficult and I learned a lot from doing them. I think the issue I had was the amount of time spent on finishing everything for this class. Perhaps that is just the nature of online classes because you don't spend time in lectures. But I felt I spent so much time doing assignments and doing quizzes for this class that instead of absorbing the material I was just trying to get things done as quickly as possible because I have so many other responsibilities from school to attend to. I'm not sure if anything can be done to alleviate this issue but I felt that it was an important part of my experience in this class.
With all that said, I felt that Dr. Miyasaka did a great job teaching this online course. It was evident from the start that she was well organized and communicated effectively. She responded quickly to emails and had a quick turnaround on assignments. If she taught another online course, I wouldn't hesitate to take it.
I really like your grading system. I think it's really fair. And you give the students multiple opportunities to gain bonus points.

Susan Miyasaka: NREM475, TPSS475, Spring 2014     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Natural Res & Environmtl Mgt
Course: NREM 475 - Plant Nutrient Diagnosis Crn (Section): 89387 (001)    
Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Tropical Plant & Soil Science
Course: TPSS 475 - Plant Nutrient Diagnosis Crn (Section): 88359 (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  
4.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 5 (50%) 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 2 0.71 Freq(%) 1 (50%) 4 (40%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (100%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.8 10 0.42 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 1 (50%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.8 10 0.42 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 2 (100%)
6. Assignments were returned in a timely manner.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (90%)
7. I developed the ability to solve real problems in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.8 10 0.42 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 8 (80%)
8. 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 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 9 (90%)
9. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 10 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (100%)
10. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 10 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (90%)
11. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.6 10 0.7 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 1 (50%)
12. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.8 10 0.42 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 8 (80%)
13. The instructor treated students fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.9 10 0.32 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 9 (90%)
14. The instructor encourages constructive criticism.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.9 10 0.32 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (90%)
15. The design of this course lets me learn at my own pace.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 0 (0%) 7 (70%)
16. Assistance from the instructor outside the class was readily available.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.56 10 0.88 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 0 (0%) 7 (70%)
17. The amount of work required is appropriate for the credit received.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.7 10 0.67 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 8 (80%)
18. Assignments are graded fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.7 10 0.67 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 1 (50%)
19. Reading assignments are relevant to what is presented in class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.7 10 0.67 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 0 (0%) 8 (80%)
20. Laboratory assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.0 2 1.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 9 (90%)
21. The course materials (texts, handouts) make a valuable contribution to the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.0 2 1.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 6 (60%)
22. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (100%)
23. The guest lecturers were interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.9 10 0.32 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 9 (90%)
24. Examinations cover the important aspects of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.6 10 0.97 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 2 (100%) 1 (10%) 0 (0%)
25. The exams were a fair test of your knowledge of the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.6 10 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (40%) 0 (0%)
26. This was my first online course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   True   False   N/A  
1.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 1 (50%) 4 (40%) 0 (0%)
27. I had the necessary equipment and technological skills required for the online course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 3 (30%) 6 (60%) 0 (0%)
28. I believe I would have gained more knowledge and a better understanding of the course materials had the online course been conducted in-person.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
5.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 0 (0%) 5 (50%) 2 (20%)
29. What did you like most about your online course experience?
To be honest, I did not enjoy this course as much as I thought I would. Don't get me wrong Dr. Miyasaka seems like an awesome professor but I feel like I would have gained more if she conducted this class in person.
Being able to do homework and quizzes on my own time within the week they were all due.
I could go at the pace I chose
Time flexibility, you could do work well ahead of deadlines when time was abundant or up to the last minute when time was limiting.
It was great experience as first time enrolling in an online course! But it was effective and had learnt a lot!
I liked the ability to learn at my own pace and to repeat online assessments as much as possible in order to solidify my understanding of content in this course. I also liked that fact that we were able to download pdfs of the presentations to refer back to when we needed.
Can review materials over if need
It was very well organized and I knew when all the due dates were because of Dr. Miyasaka's "friendly reminders"
30. What did you like least about your online course experience?
I feel like the pace of the assignments were to intense for not actually having a class. I also didn't like the idea of critiquing each others homework, because it puts added pressure that everyone will be reading your work and might make a student not want to submit assignment and lose points if he/she feels it is not up to their standards.
I don't like how theres very little interaction with the teacher. There's a lot to be learned from teachers when they tell stories about their experiences and work, this is something I missed in this class as Susan seems like a great person to talk to and learn from. I like the idea of weekly quizzes, but I found most of them to not be very useful, just straight memorization that didn't translate into real learning.
The quizzes offered some insight into the material, but often the technicality of the question was reflective of minute understanding of what was said or presented during the lecture, not necessarily what was most important to the topic.
Never could get a perfect score in the first try of the online quizzes.
I didnt feel any problem with this online course as I was supported very quickly and with great advise from Dr.Susan Miyasaka. I felt as no difference between the two.
Some of the assessment questions could have been a little more clear. OR, some of the multiple choice answers could have been a little more clear.
I don't think it had very much to do with diagnosis. We spent so much time learning about the uptake processes and chemistry of each nutrient and very little time dealing with real world problems. The textbook was not helpful at all. No one wants to read hundreds of pages of text. It was just too dense and boring; I barely took it off the shelf.
31. State in two or three sentences how this course could be improved.
Make it a traditionally taught course,or conduct actual lectures during the web online meetings.
More focus on identifying and solving everyday real world plant nutrient deficiencies, instead of the technical biological controls on nutrients within the plant. This is important, but didn't seem very applicable to being able to diagnose a plant and what steps to take to fix it.
Include more online sessions where the professor can make short talks about the topics. Maybe include a field trip.
May be having 2 lectures or video sessions in a week.
1) Perhaps we could use another textbook, which isn't so jam-packed with a lot of dense/abstract material--Some sections in the readings were just so jam-packed with material that it was easy to lose focus of the main point of the section. 2) More frequent online synchronous sessions. 3) More online videos, outside from Dr. Miyasaka's own videos, which provide background information about subjects being discussed--for visual learners in the course.
It would be much more helpful if students were presented with various situations and learned how to diagnose the problem. For example, if the videos included case studies of nutrient deficient crops and we learned how the final diagnosis was made. Unfortunately I do not think that I could diagnose a nutrient deficient plant. I could look up the characteristic symptoms but I learned from my own nutrient deficient plant that one problem is not always clear, even with a soil test. I suggest that the focus is taken off of the chemistry and is put on real world application.
I felt that since this class is titled plant nutrient diagnosis, we should have spent more time doing so, or excercises that were directly related to it. The textbook was difficult to read and I didn't find it to be very useful.
32. Other comments:
This class felt like a lot of homework with no actual class. It put a lot of stress on me during the semester. Because of the structure of the online course, i feel I did't get a whole lot out of it.
I think it would have been more fun to do several labs where we have to diagnose a plant's nutrient deficiency, not necessarily write an entire lab report on all of them, but just to get practice in amending soils and learning how to use fertilizer and/or composts correctly.
Very good course. The laboratory assignment was a great way to apply what we learned in the course.
Great teacher and great information learnt about plant nutrients management.
I think that Dr. Miyasaka did an excellent job for her first time teaching this course online. I really appreciated the short 10-15 minute lectures from her because it helped set the focus for the required readings. I also appreciated the ability to download her's and guest lecturer's PDFs of their powerpoint slides. This course really catered to students who need to learn at their own pace, and I think Dr. Miyasaka did an excellent job at assessing our learning. In addition, I really appreciated the opportunity to provide constructive criticism toward our peers' work, and also receiving constructive criticism from my peers. We had a really good mix of undergraduates and graduate (MS & PhD) students, and on different islands. As this was my first time formally taking an online course, I thoroughly enjoyed everything from start to finish!
I am really enthusiastic about all things plant related but I was really disappointed with this class. I have taken many online classes and this one was formatted the best, but I don't think I will retain very much of the material. It was really helpful that the videos were short and to the point, but every week I kept hoping that we would get to application and we never did.