eCAFE - Course and Faculty Evaluation, University of Hawaii

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations


Instructor: Gregory Bruland

Available Survey Results

NREM665, Fall 2010
NREM301, Spring 2010
NREM301L, Spring 2010
NREM612, Spring 2010
NREM461, Fall 2009

Gregory Bruland: NREM665, Fall 2010

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Natural Res & Environmtl Mgt
Course: NREM 665 - Coastal & Wetland Ecol & Mgmt Crn (Section): 79017 (001)    
1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.79 14 0.43 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (21%) 11 (79%)
2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.71 14 0.47 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (29%) 10 (71%)
3. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.86 14 0.36 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 12 (86%)
4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.64 14 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (36%) 9 (64%)
5. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.71 14 0.61 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 2 (14%) 11 (79%)
6. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.71 14 0.47 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (29%) 10 (71%)
7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
the lecture & the problem set assignment.
learning the ecological proceses driving ecosystem functions
The problem sets and discussion.
The background knowledge on different wetland systems, including hydrology, soils, biogeochemistry etc. were the most valuable parts of the course for me because I feel that I could apply that to any wetland I might end up working in.
- In-depth overview of redox and chemistry - starting with the basics! - Problem sets - Guest lecture with Dr. Drigot - Class exercises - Pre-midterm review
I really enjoyed the beginning part of the course material
Everything was great, and it was a very challenging course.
I felt like we were introduced to a broad range of coastal topics that are relevant to the current society concerns. I also thought that the problem sets were valuable in forcing students to learn materials that were important but harder to understand.
- Classification of Wetlands - Policy to manage in wetlands - Restoration methods of mangrove, sea grass, coral.
wetland and coastal policy
There was a lot of material that could have been covered in this course and I believe Greg did a great job touching on most of those concepts.
8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
paper discussion
the lack of practical application of learned material
Would be nice if we were able to get more of a study session for the midterm and also if we could get a copy of the midterm to have been able to study for the final. It was difficult to fully pay attention to instructor when slides were incomplete on ppoint notes since we had to write while Greg was speaking. Sometimes there was not enough time to fully write down the missing information until the next slide.
Personally, I doubt that I will ever work in a coral reef or seagrass bed so that was probably the least valuable for me but that is subjective to individuals personal career objectives.
n/a - can't think of anything!
Unfortunately I felt the quality of the material petered out towards the end when we got to management. Dr. Bruland also kind of let a student monopolize the class with too many interjections too frequently. I did not feel that this student was not as well informed at they believed they were and found it to be distracting
Nothing was not valuable
I thought that only providing students who did poorly on the midterm the opportunity to improve their grade was unfair to those who did well on the test. Everyone should have been given the chance to improve their scores.
Biochemistry in wetlands
none
9. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.71 14 0.61 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 2 (14%) 11 (79%)
10. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.79 14 0.43 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (21%) 11 (79%)
11. The instructor broadened my understanding and grasp of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.86 14 0.36 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (14%) 12 (86%)
12. The instructor treated students fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.64 14 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (36%) 9 (64%)
13. One real strength of this course is the classroom discussion.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.21 14 0.97 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 2 (14%) 4 (29%) 7 (50%)
14. The instructor uses class time well.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.64 14 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (36%) 9 (64%)
15. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.92 13 0.28 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (8%) 12 (92%)
16. The amount of material covered in the course is reasonable.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.64 14 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (36%) 9 (64%)
17. My overall evaluation of this instructor is....
Dr. Bruland knows the stuff very well. i enjoy listening to every of his lecture
Good teacher, good attitude. I enjoyed taking his course. One of the better instructors in NREM.
An extremely excellent, motivated and organized prof. Especially as compared to others profs I've taken classes with, Dr. Bruland impressed me with his organization, attention to details, and interest in both the course materials and student's background and input. I learned more in this course than any other this semester. Dr. Bruland talks the talk and walks the walk, and his depth of knowledge is obvious. He was very prompt with returning assignments and going over the answers for questions that many people got wrong. The midterm exam was challenging but I learned a lot by preparing for it. He gave very fair questions and dedicated an entire lecture to reviewing for the test, which was appreciated. Overall - top marks for the prof and the class.
Excellent teacher. Best course I've had in NREM so far
Awesome professor who has a great grasp of the subject which shows by his enthusiasm to teach!
He is enthusiastic instructor and enjoys teaching very much.He always answers all questions of students. Sharing difficulties with students is another good characteristic of him Overall, Bruland is a good instructor.
The best of the best professor I have ever seen before.
a great professor that taught a great course. Overall this course broadened not just my knowledge but my overall interest in the material. He knew material well, handle and structured each class well, and overall I'd rate this course and professor as excellent.
18. Assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.43 14 0.51 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (57%) 6 (43%)
19. Assignments require a reasonable amount of time and effort.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.64 14 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (36%) 9 (64%)
20. The course was a valuable contribution to my education.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.93 14 0.27 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 13 (93%)
21. 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  
4.21 14 0.97 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 2 (14%) 4 (29%) 7 (50%)
22. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.64 14 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (36%) 9 (64%)
23. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.79 14 0.43 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (21%) 11 (79%)
24. Other comments:
Recommend this course to all my fellow students
I would take this class all over again if I could. Might want to put chemistry as a pre-requisite though because there is a heavy focus on that.
Great class. Really sparked an interest in coastal zone management and provided a great overview of issues that a manager might encounter.
The course should give more information about coastal management in Asian countries where wetlands management has been a big problem. Besides, practical hours are very important for the course.
This class and Professor Bruland are really exellent in terms of the efficient enlightenment. Furthermore, it is very open class to provide an opportunity for whom has no any back ground in this sublect to participate. Thank you very much.

Gregory Bruland: NREM301, Spring 2010     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Natural Res & Environmtl Mgt
Course: NREM 301 - Natural Resources Management Crn (Section): 85768 (002)    
1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 8 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (100%)
2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 8 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (100%)
3. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 8 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (100%)
4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 8 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (100%)
5. I developed the ability to solve real problems in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 8 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 0 (0%) 7 (88%)
6. I learned a lot in this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.63 8 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (38%) 5 (63%)
7. I generally understood the material presented in this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.88 8 0.35 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 7 (88%)
8. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
I thought the whole course made me look at the world slightly different in a more conservative way.
formatted, organized Lectures
Greg is very organized with great lecture outlines that help you keep track of key points.
global change bio
everything
The knowledge of the instructors and their ability to teach the course information.
9. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
n/a
repeating biological concepts that we are already familair with
none
10. The instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 8 0.46 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 6 (75%)
11. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.88 8 0.35 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 7 (88%)
12. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.88 8 0.35 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 7 (88%)
13. The instructor treated students fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.88 8 0.35 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 7 (88%)
14. The instructor seems well prepared for each class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.88 8 0.35 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 7 (88%)
15. The course objectives were clear.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.88 8 0.35 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 7 (88%)
16. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.88 8 0.35 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 7 (88%)
17. How can the instructor improve the teaching of this course?
great job. happy to be in this class with teachers that are enthusiastic about their work. thanks guys!!!
Excellent teacher, his notes are very helpful for studying for exams
none
18. Reading assignments require a reasonable amount of time and effort.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.13 8 0.64 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 5 (63%) 2 (25%)
19. The guest lecturers were interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.25 8 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 2 (25%) 4 (50%)
20. 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  
4.71 7 0.49 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 5 (71%)
21. Instruction is well-coordinated among the team teachers.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 8 0.46 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 6 (75%)
22. The teachers were compatible in this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.88 8 0.35 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 7 (88%)
23. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.75 8 0.46 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 6 (75%)
24. Other comments:
shootz bruddahs

Gregory Bruland: NREM301L, Spring 2010     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Natural Res & Environmtl Mgt
Course: NREM 301L - Natural Resources Mgmt Lab Crn (Section): 85770 (002)    
1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 8 0.46 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 6 (75%)
2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 8 0.46 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 6 (75%)
3. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 8 0.46 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 6 (75%)
4. I improved my abilities to do the kinds of writing used by professionals in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 8 0.46 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 6 (75%)
5. I improved my abilities to revise my rough drafts and to make my writing more effective.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 8 0.46 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 6 (75%)
6. This course was helpful in developing new skills.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 8 0.46 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 6 (75%)
7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
everything. very good topics in general. good background stuff
field trips
Excel practice and field techniques
Group work with both instructors, TA, and guest lecturers. Very helpful with writing proper lab reports.
Learning to write labs..
Experiencing the different aspects of the natural resource management field.
8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
Nothing...
none
Writing discussions. Nah jus playing
9. The instructor helped me understand how writing is used in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.57 7 0.79 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 1 (14%) 5 (71%)
10. How can the instructor improve the teaching of this course?
none
nothing
11. Assignments require a reasonable amount of time and effort.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 8 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (50%) 4 (50%)
12. The writing assignments helped me develop abilities to solve problems.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.63 8 0.74 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 1 (13%) 6 (75%)
13. The laboratory was a valuable part of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 8 0.46 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 6 (75%)
14. Laboratory assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 8 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 2 (25%) 5 (63%)
15. Laboratory assignments make students think.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.63 8 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (38%) 5 (63%)
16. Directions for laboratory assignments are clear and specific.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 8 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 2 (25%) 5 (63%)
17. Lab assignments are relevant to what is presented in class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.63 8 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (38%) 5 (63%)
18. Lab reports are graded fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.25 8 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 2 (25%) 4 (50%)
19. Lab reports are returned promptly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.25 8 1.16 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 1 (13%) 1 (13%) 5 (63%)
20. The field trips were useful learning experiences.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 8 0.46 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 6 (75%)
21. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.5 8 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (50%) 4 (50%)
22. Other comments:
Some comments on lab reports seemed to conflict with handout and opinions of TA
This course was very helpful in finding a specialization.

Gregory Bruland: NREM612, Spring 2010     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Natural Res & Environmtl Mgt
Course: NREM 612 - Degradation in Ecosystems Crn (Section): 88924 (001)    
1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
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%)
2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
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%)
3. The instructor communicated effectively.
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%)
4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.7 10 0.48 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (30%) 7 (70%)
5. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.4 10 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (60%) 4 (40%)
6. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
Critiques
Literature familiarization. Lectures covering many individual cases involving course topics.
The paper critiques. Both the writing and discussion aspects. It is a skill I will be able to use throughout my academic and professional career.
All parts were valuable to me as I had no good knowledge about the course (Human-dominated ecosystem).However, If the question was what skills gained from this course were most valuable? I would say = Writing paper critiques. This is the skill I wouldn't have without this course.
The discussion leader and critique paper.
discussion and questions
-Discussion leader
The critiques and discussions of journal articles every other the week. Definitely improved my writing abilities and exposed me to multiple journal articles and research as well as better understanding of how to read scientific journal articles and communicate the important information.
I definitely liked the paper critique- they were very valuable in learning how to assess legitimacy/accuracy of journal articles and jounals, etc. I like having only one exam, and a larger final project at the end instead of a final. I liked the Best degradation paper contest also. Content of the course was really interesting and relative. Having the lecture notes online and the small group exercises in class was helpful.
Dr. Bruland's lectures covered a wide variety of degradation topics and were very informative. Reading materials prepared for the course were also excellent, and gave us a good, firm overview of the degradation issues. I particularly enjoyed bi-weekly paper critique sessions, where we read and dicussed theoretical and methodological aspects of leading degradation papers. It taugh us how to read and analyse research critically, and such knowledge would be very beneficial as we work on our research in the future.
7. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
Problem set 4 - it would have warranted more discussion in class beforehand similar to the other problem sets. It was discussed too quickly in lecture with little time for discussion ( covered in 5 min where other problem set info was discussed for 15 min or more)
Quick, out of lecture, small(2-3 person) group work/discussion. (Maybe more time should be given for these?)
The lectures were somewhat cursory and not very interactive. The takeaway knowledge was minimal since we were getting general overviews versus learning usable concepts. He tried to make them applicable to a certain extent by tying in the problem sets and paper critiques. He also definitely tried to engage the class as well during lecture, so I'm not quite exactly where they are lacking.
NIL
none.
nothing
-Best degradation paper contest
Some of the problem sets i found irrelevant to my own specialization
I was satisfied with the overall content and requirements of this course and the professor.
8. The instructor gives clear explanations.
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%) 6 (60%)
9. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
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%) 8 (80%)
10. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.
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%)
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 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (40%) 6 (60%)
12. The instructor treated students fairly.
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%)
13. One real strength of this course is the classroom discussion.
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 was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
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%)
15. The amount of material covered in the course is reasonable.
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%) 8 (80%)
16. How can the instructor improve the teaching of this course?
I would enjoy more classroom discussion with the lectures. I enjoyed the group exercises in some of the lectures. I did not like the inconsistency with the presentations on the web and those in the lecture. To ensure that students attend lecture - I would have preferred a more general outline of the slides (consistent between web and lecture) with more explanation in the lecture. I found myself trying to catch the additions in the slides and missing some of the explanations. Also some of the additions were flashed too quickly to write them down.
Had to think about whether I strongly agreed or just agreed the the amount of material covered is reasonable. One "field day" may be a good thing to include, even if it is on campus. The primary exam for the course was slightly leaning toward rewarding those with route memorization skills over those who understand concepts, but not to the point of unfairness. On occasion, I got the feeling that students are being graded relative to their abilities & personal improvement, rather than against a standard bar. This is likely my imagination, and even if it is the case, not necessarily altogether unfair; such a case would foster learning effectively.
See 7.
On the course material, it would be interesting to include more percentage on the solution part of the problems on degraded land in human dominated landscape.
more discussion!
Perhaps get into more detail about certain topics, it was a great introductory course regarding human degradation; however, it reminded me of an undergrad course that we learned a little about a lot of things. I was hoping to get into depth on more topics.
NO MULTIPLE CHOICE ON EXAMS!
17. My overall evaluation of this instructor is....
I really enjoyed this class, felt challenged and can see using a lot of this information through the rest of my studies in NREM. I would recommend this to non NREM students as well.
I've had dozens of professors over the years; Dr. Bruland is among the 2 most professional of these, at least. The course was especially well organized and thought out. The student workload was somewhat heavy, but not quite enough to complain about.
He is an excellent teacher with the students needs in mind. He is very conscientious and well-prepared. His classroom routine is reliable and effective with some slight improvement to the content of the lecture material.
Very well planned and well organized!..
Great! these course is very informative and helps u to share your thoughts
-Dr. Bruland is an such a great professor because he applies different teaching methods. The variety of assignments in and out of class catered to all different kinds of learning styles. He is also so enthusiastic and inter-active, which makes it easier to participate or be engaged in discussion.
great professor (one of the best in NREM), well-organized and helpful!
excellent teacher, learned a lot over the semester, and thoroughly enjoyed the class overall.
Dr. Bruland is an excellent instructor; he is not only knowledgeable about the topics covered, but puts much effort into teaching his students. His course is very well structured. He prepares various assignments and tools to engage students. He is very open to students' comments and questions, and encourages active participation.
18. Assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.4 10 0.97 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 0 (0%) 3 (30%) 6 (60%)
19. Student presentations significantly contribute to this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 10 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (50%) 5 (50%)
20. I feel that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.4 10 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (60%) 4 (40%)
21. 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  
4.5 10 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 6 (60%)
22. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
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%)
23. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.9 10 0.32 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 9 (90%)
24. Other comments:
Dr. Bruland is CTAHRs most valuable faculty asset of which I am, so far, aware.
Bruland has teaching skills, very organised and wished he would give a seminar on how to "teach graduate students". I understand everyone has his/her way of teaching to reach their goals. But the ultimate goal is that students need to feel that they have learned/gained from the course and not done with the course! Therefore I would suggest that the University prepare seminars give a refresher seminar to instructors on how make the student learn and not to just "be done with the course" Overall, Dr. Bruland class was the best class I ever enjoyed at UH. Bruland made students like the class and that why I suggest he be given a chance to share his talents with other lectures during seminars. "Teach how to teach in the classroom".
-I studied so much material form the notes for the first test and was very caught off guard when the test was comprised of specifics from readings and other mentions in the notes that did not stick out.
Definitely my favorite class of the semester!

Gregory Bruland: NREM461, Fall 2009     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Natural Res & Environmtl Mgt
Course: NREM 461 - Soil and Water Conservation Crn (Section): 78899 (001)    
1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.84 19 0.37 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (16%) 16 (84%)
2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.32 19 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 2 (11%) 6 (32%) 10 (53%)
3. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.37 19 1.01 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (11%) 1 (5%) 4 (21%) 12 (63%)
4. I learned a good deal of factual material in this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.21 19 0.92 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 3 (16%) 6 (32%) 9 (47%)
5. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.26 19 0.73 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (16%) 8 (42%) 8 (42%)
6. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 19 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (11%) 3 (16%) 7 (37%) 7 (37%)
7. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.56 18 1.15 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 2 (11%) 5 (28%) 6 (33%) 4 (22%)
8. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.84 19 0.37 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (16%) 16 (84%)
9. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.89 19 0.32 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (11%) 17 (89%)
10. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.56 18 0.62 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 6 (33%) 11 (61%)
11. The instructor treated students fairly.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.63 19 0.6 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 5 (26%) 13 (68%)
12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.47 19 0.61 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 8 (42%) 10 (53%)
13. The amount of material covered in the course is reasonable.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.89 19 1.1 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 3 (16%) 8 (42%) 6 (32%)
14. The instructor sets high standards for students.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.94 18 1.06 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 10 (56%) 5 (28%)
15. How can the instructor improve the teaching of this course?
Less outlines and power points, more discussion and questions to students. Needs to challenge students more and leave out more of the tedious stuff and go over big concepts. The class should be taught in an outside environment, not in a classroom.
more hands on experiences.
A laboratory section may be an option to improve the class. There is a lot of conservation models for soil and water taught and maybe some hands-on work could be helpful in retaining a lot of the information presented.
More field studies!
Having optional field trips
Perhaps more class field trip activities (i.e. short trip to a field on campus) or hands-on demonstrations of concepts, maybe even a film or documentary on certain water issues
Maybe have a little more practice problems or exercises where we can use the info learned in class, especially for the cropping systems and conservation structures part.
More example of nat. management than ag.
I think that remove quiz and out percentage into tests..
Spend more time working on models in class if they are worth so many points on the tests. A more structured review or study guide before the tests would be helpful.
More concise information in lectures pertaining to exams.
Instructor posts power point online with info missing so students come to class. He should highlight or change those missing sections to bold print so students who don't have time, money or don't like to waste paper printing the slides can easily write down what is in bold, then refer to the online power point to study. The power point slides have way too much info to get all the notes during class. My biggest gripe with the course is the exams. The instructor tests us on allot of tedious (insignificant) details more than an overall understanding of the concepts. This creates an intensive students memorize apposed to learn. I personally do not learn by memorization.
More hands on, or conversation. A lot of the class seems to be quick over views on things we won't ever use.
Great job on the class. The only thing I would change is to add more Hawaii-based information and possibly a field trip or two to visit sites that participate in soil & water conservation now.
there was too much information presented with out any indication as to what was the most important to study for tests. test questions were unreasonable and irrelevant
16. My overall evaluation of this instructor is....
Very good, very open to improvement. Progressive and intelligent.
great teacher!
This is my first time having him as an instructor and I was very appreciative of his knowledge and passion for the subject and teaching. He was enthusiastic and made learning fun, understandable and easily applicable to real life work/fieldwork situations. I would recommend him as an instructor and his class to others in my field of study.
Greg is very knowledgable and enthusiastic of course material.0
Instructor was very helpful, and open to student discussions
Great instructor! He was enthusiatic about the material and willing to help students both in class and outside of class.
Very fun teacher that helps me to pay attention
Awesome, always enthusiastic and thoughtful, good sense of humor, very articulate
Dr. Bruland is a very good teacher and knows a lot about the area of water/soil conservation. He is well organized for class and presents facts in an organized fashion.
Very good
Dr. Bruland is a great teacher. I think that the tests are a little intense considering the amount of material that is covered.
Dr. Bruland, is a very good teacher. He really likes his field and is interested in many aspects of resource management. He brings his interest to class and is a positive teacher.
He is a good guy. I don't think he challenges us enough and the course repeats allot of what students already know. I would like to spend less time (to no) time on the history of S&W conservation & this repeated info. Action items are a good idea. It gives use intensive to study up on things we are interested in & it adds some variety to the course.
He is a great guy, with a really great background. He addresses us all in a way that does not make me uncomfortable to speak up. I am not a fan of the tests. I feel as though I should be getting an A in this course, and I am struggling for a B.
Great enthusiasm, knowledgable about the subject, enjoyed the teaching style!
17. Assignments are interesting and stimulating.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.16 19 0.69 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (16%) 10 (53%) 6 (32%)
18. The course was a valuable contribution to my education.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.79 19 1.23 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 2 (11%) 4 (21%) 5 (26%) 7 (37%)
19. 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  
3.47 19 1.35 Freq(%) 2 (11%) 3 (16%) 3 (16%) 6 (32%) 5 (26%)
20. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.32 19 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 2 (11%) 6 (32%) 10 (53%)
21. Which aspects of the course did you like the best?
action items.
I enjoyed the problem sets because they really tested what we knew about the course subject and how to apply it to real life situation.
Group activity
I liked comparisons of natural impacts and changes vs. human induced changes
The second half of the semester seems to be the most interesting. The problem sets were helpful and I enjoyed working on them.
The slides are posted online ahead of time, also the action items are fun
Action items
The assignments were good, and I enjoyed learning more about soil and water uses around the world.
Action Items
Problem sets
The problem sets were a great way for students to apply concepts and learn more about topics covered in lecture.
in class excercises/action items
Action items
I enjoy the active work outside, and the write ups. The problem sets are helpful as well, but I don't see them on the test that often.
Assignments (problem sets) were fun and good for practical knowledge of field work done by professionals.
22. Which aspects of the course did you like least?
readings kind of boring.
Maybe too many action items are required for an a
nothing
Pop quizzes
I least enjoyed having not as much exercises in class.
surprise quiz
I felt the action items were not an efficient way to learn related material. Activities such as these may be better presented in required readings, field trips, or attending lectures.
troeh readings
Repeated info, exams not a good measure of understanding course content, not challenging enough.
The written tests seem tricky instead of testing my knowledge.
I wasn't too fond of the action items, they seemed a little vague and ambiguous on what one could or couldn't do for credit.
23. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.11 19 0.99 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (11%) 2 (11%) 7 (37%) 8 (42%)