eCAFE - Course and Faculty Evaluation, University of Hawaii

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations


Instructor: Joseph Jarrett

Available Survey Results

CHEM361, Fall 2013
CHEM372, Fall 2013

Joseph Jarrett: CHEM361, Fall 2013

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Chemistry
Course: CHEM 361 - Physical Biochemistry Crn (Section): 78062 (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  
3.56 9 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (44%) 5 (56%) 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  
2.0 9 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 9 (100%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 9 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 5 (56%) 2 (22%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 9 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 5 (56%) 2 (22%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.78 9 0.44 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 7 (78%) 0 (0%)
6. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
3.44 9 0.73 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 3 (33%) 5 (56%) 0 (0%)
7. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
3.78 9 0.44 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 7 (78%) 0 (0%)
8. Textbook andor other reading materials
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
2.89 9 0.78 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 3 (33%) 4 (44%) 2 (22%) 0 (0%)
9. Sensitivity to student problems and general rapport
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.11 9 0.6 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 6 (67%) 2 (22%)
10. Effective use of demonstrations, models, or visual aids
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.67 9 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (33%) 6 (67%) 0 (0%)
11. Absence of distracting mannerisms, pauses, etc.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.33 9 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 4 (44%) 4 (44%)
12. The instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.89 9 0.78 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (33%) 4 (44%) 2 (22%)
13. The instructor's voice was clear and understandable.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.56 9 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (44%) 5 (56%)
14. The instructor has an interesting style of presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.89 9 0.93 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 1 (11%) 5 (56%) 2 (22%)
15. The instructor's presentation of abstract ideas and theories was clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.56 9 0.73 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 2 (22%) 6 (67%) 0 (0%)
16. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.89 9 0.6 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 6 (67%) 1 (11%)
17. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 9 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 5 (56%) 2 (22%)
18. 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 0.87 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 2 (22%) 5 (56%) 1 (11%)
19. Assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.22 9 0.67 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 5 (56%) 3 (33%) 0 (0%)
20. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 9 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (33%) 6 (67%) 0 (0%)
21. The course is highly recommended if it were taught by this instructor.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.44 9 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (56%) 4 (44%) 0 (0%)
22. Audiovisual materials (or computers) were adequate and used appropriately.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.78 9 0.44 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 7 (78%) 0 (0%)
23. The exams gave students an opportunity to demonstrate what they had learned.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.56 9 0.73 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 2 (22%) 6 (67%) 0 (0%)
24. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 9 0.87 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 0 (0%) 6 (67%) 2 (22%)
25. Other comments:
Thank you for dropping a few problems on the exams that we did not do well. Also, thank you for your generous curve. That helps a lot. However, Dr. Jarrett always behind on grading and returned the exams. The book is not good. The way the book explains the concept is very long and complicated. Thank you Dr. Jarret
This was a difficult course both for the students (because most of us did not like physics at all to begin with) and because it was the first time for you to teach it. Homeworks did not necessarily pertain to test material, so I wished that you gave us a practice exam so we knew what to expect. Take home exam was a great idea - I'm sure everybody liked it because people like me who are slow can take their time. I wished that there were extra credit opportunities. Thank you though for being very considerate when grading our first exam. I would've otherwise given up this course if I got the F without you regrading it. I did not enjoy, however, that the exam came back so late, when we only have 9 or so students. Please return it to us quickly as you did for 372. Thank you though for teaching this course. If the course got cancelled, I would not be graduating on time. I am sure this would have been as difficult even if Dr. Talisman taught it. There is too much to cover in so short a time.
I would not recommend this textbook for future classes as it contains errors in some equations and constants, unacceptable for any textbook. The book is laborious to read regardless of the "hard science" content and it's often difficult to follow the author's train of thought. Additionally, I found that there are not enough difficult example problems provided in the text which made doing the homework time-consuming as well as frustrating for the student. The homework problems from the book were not worded clearly and sometimes needed further clarification by the instructor. As far as the class, I think that it was well organized in content. If this book will be used for future classes, Chapters 7 and 8 are particularly confusing in their organization of content. Using a handout or chapter from another book may be beneficial to students understanding of these concepts. If possible, I think there should be more time dedicated to Chapters 9 and 10 as these contain concepts which are particularly difficult and abstract. I also feel that study guides should be provided to students at least 1 week in advance of exams for preparation. The exams were fair but would have been more comprehensive if they were either completely take-home or included a take-home portion as the in-class exam was limited in its' difficulty due to the time constraint and the amount of equations that fit on a sheet of paper. The assignments/exams were not returned promptly, which is another aspect that needs improvement. Although they are quite detailed, as the class only consisted of ten persons I expected to get the exams/assignments back sooner.
TA did not seem too enthusiastic to provide feedback, sees grading as a task rather than an opportunity to help students. Doesn't particularly bother me, but perhaps should be considered in future.
I think more problems worked out in class would be very helpful, not only in the homework assignments
No complaints about the textbook.
More practical information like spectroscopy and take out quantum theory. You would need to find a better textbook. The lectures are hard to follow for me and so I usually learn from reading the book.

Joseph Jarrett: CHEM372, Fall 2013     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Chemistry
Course: CHEM 372 - Bioorganic Chemistry Crn (Section): 75673 (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 25 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 13 (52%) 10 (40%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.88 25 0.34 Freq(%) 3 (12%) 21 (84%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.8 25 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 21 (84%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.48 25 0.65 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 9 (36%) 14 (56%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.28 25 0.98 Freq(%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 3 (12%) 8 (32%) 13 (52%)
6. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
4.32 25 0.85 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 8 (32%) 13 (52%)
7. Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Very Good  
4.44 25 0.87 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 5 (20%) 16 (64%)
8. Textbook andor other reading materials
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.8 25 0.91 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 7 (28%) 10 (40%) 6 (24%)
9. Sensitivity to student problems and general rapport
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.2 25 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 11 (44%) 10 (40%)
10. Effective use of demonstrations, models, or visual aids
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.16 25 0.85 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 4 (16%) 10 (40%) 10 (40%)
11. Absence of distracting mannerisms, pauses, etc.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.48 25 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (12%) 7 (28%) 15 (60%)
12. The instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.36 25 0.95 Freq(%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 8 (32%) 14 (56%)
13. The instructor's voice was clear and understandable.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.64 25 0.64 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 5 (20%) 18 (72%)
14. The instructor has an interesting style of presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.12 25 0.78 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 13 (52%) 8 (32%)
15. The instructor's presentation of abstract ideas and theories was clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.2 25 0.87 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 4 (16%) 9 (36%) 11 (44%)
16. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.72 25 0.61 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 3 (12%) 20 (80%)
17. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.24 25 0.88 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 4 (16%) 8 (32%) 12 (48%)
18. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.2 25 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 2 (8%) 13 (52%) 9 (36%)
19. Assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.04 25 0.93 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 4 (16%) 10 (40%) 9 (36%)
20. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.24 25 0.93 Freq(%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 11 (44%) 11 (44%)
21. The course is highly recommended if it were taught by this instructor.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.4 25 0.96 Freq(%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 7 (28%) 15 (60%)
22. Audiovisual materials (or computers) were adequate and used appropriately.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.46 25 0.66 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 9 (36%) 13 (52%)
23. The exams gave students an opportunity to demonstrate what they had learned.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 25 0.7 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (12%) 10 (40%) 11 (44%)
24. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.48 25 0.59 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 11 (44%) 13 (52%)
25. Other comments:
Liked the class, material in general is hard to grasp, but the study guides were a big help
Dr. Jarrett procvided resonable means for the whole class to learn and pass.
I liked the book for this class, it was relatively cheap, portable, and easy-to-read. It had nice figures including those that had mechanisms. My only criticism would be that it isn't as detailed in the mechanisms as I would like, but Dr. Jarrett usually points out any differences between what's in the book and what he expects us to know. The only improvement I would suggest is that Dr. Jarrett increased his office hours.
This material is fundamentally difficult, yet there are no tutors in the learning emporium that can reliably help with this level of material. Dr. Jarrett is quite helpful, when he is available. However he should not be the only source of help outside of class. The room can sometimes be pretty cold. This can make it hard to stay focused, and keep from either freezing in the classroom or sweating like crazy outside. the usual temperature inside shouldn't be so vastly different from the usual temperature outside.
Bioorganic chemistry is a very hard class but Doc Jarrett help makes the class a less stressful ones. What I like is that he gave lots of bonus points to ALL the exams (including finals) that really help boost up the students grades. I also like the teacher's grading scale; 80% for an A, that's really helping make the student's dreams come true, especially since most of them plan to fulfill Medical School & PhD. Homework & quiz opportunities are also very excellent in helping the student grades improve. Overall, it's a great honor to be your student in your class. Please teach biochemistry & Medical Biochemistry class as well if offered.
A different text should be used for the course. Being a student who did not do the greatest in the second semester of Ochem, I think a book with more explanation of mechanisms (not one that asks you to refer back and skips step) would be a better fit for students coming directly out of Ochem 2.
Very good class, covering a lot of (at times difficult but) interesting concepts and mechanisms. The textbook is still a good one despite some ambiguity in showing reactions (where magically a proton would show up or disappear without any explanation) because it does cover generally what should be taken from these pathways. Supplemental reading from biochem books were and continue to be useful as handouts rather than trying to incorporate another textbook into the course (especially with the cost).
Unorganized, often unprepared, and not clear as to the student learning outcomes or the significance of things learned. Rarely drew mechanisms on the board and when he did, he would often erase steps and consolidate them because he "didn't want to keep drawing the same structure over and over again." Also, he was very difficult to follow a lot of the time, as he spoke very fast and seemed unconcerned with whether or not students were keeping up. Overall, a brilliant man, but probably too brilliant to understandably convey the subject to undergrads.
TA needs practice grading. I am not so good at this kind of thing but I found the course material very interesting.
Exams came back fairly quickly as opposed to 361, so I really liked it. Exams were also "fun" maybe because I just like ochem, but I enjoyed taking them. They were fair and straight to the point for the most part, rarely any tricky questions besides the multiple choice. Again it was fair b/c as long as we studied well, we can get the A. The quizzes also allowed us to keep up with the course material. I recommend continuing this. I liked this course esp because the course material was well organized, and the textbook was very easy to read. The only part I did not like was that I started to not use the textbook after the second exam because you started to mention that they have errors. I also didn't enjoy the third midterm because the material was overwhelming and I ended up memorizing only half of the material. Yet this course was a great extension of ochem and a good application to medicine. Thank you for offering this course.
Thank you Dr. Jarrett. I enjoyed your class very much. The grader is generous sometimes, but sometimes is NOT.
I really enjoyed Dr. Jarrett's class. He was able to make the material fun and interesting to learn. The only problem that I had was the textbook was incomplete (some mechanisms were missing). But, other than that, I would highly recommend this class if taught by Dr. Jarrett.
This has been a great class to take from a biological pathways perspective. I enjoy Dr. Jarrett's teaching style, and I thought that his power point slides were in depth enough to provide real value when studying for an exam. Aside from a few minor minor minor mistakes, the text for the class was helpful as well and gave good context. I did have a copy of Voet and Voet, which may have given me an unfair advantage---but so what. When I wanted a concept broken down in simple, bare essential terms, I turned to the class text and slides...when I wanted a little more detail, I turned to Voet and Voet. There is a lot of material to cover and I think that Dr. Jarrett's study guides were the most helpful thing in the entire course. Even though the study guides were maybe only a page of bullet points in length, the pre-exam study guide that I constructed out of it prior to exams might have been 18 pages in length. I hope this dismisses the idea that this course is an "easy A" . With all that being said, the exams were extremely fair---if it was on the study guide, it's fair game, if it wasn't...don't worry about it. Done. Simple. What is rewarding about this course is that the amount of time I spent preparing for quizzes/exams/HW translated directly into the grade I got. I can't say the same for other courses I've had. The one dark spot in the course I could see is that some of the homework questions might have been ambiguously worded.
I feel like he kind of goes over a lot of material thought the course in general. It's easy going along but as we got to the end I realized how much stuff we had gone over. Maybe take his time and focus a little more in some areas so that the volume of information is less. Overall he is a great teacher and the material is easy to follow most times
The only issue I have is that every mechanism isn't clearly written out.