eCAFE - Course and Faculty Evaluation, University of Hawaii

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations


Instructor: Christine Daleiden

Available Survey Results

LAW505, Spring 2014
LAW505, Spring 2014
LAW505, Spring 2014
LAW505, Spring 2014
LAW505, Spring 2014
LAW505, Spring 2014
LAW505, Spring 2014

Christine Daleiden: LAW505, Spring 2014

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Law
Course: LAW 505 - Legal Practice II Crn (Section): 81420 (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  
5.5 3 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
2.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 3 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 0 (0%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 3 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.33 3 1.15 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 0 (0%)
6. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 3 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%)
7. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 3 1.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%)
8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.0 3 1.73 Freq(%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 0 (0%)
9. The instructor treated students with respect.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 3 1.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%)
10. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 3 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%)
11. I was able to get individual help when I needed it.
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%)
12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 3 1.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%)
13. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.67 3 1.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%)
14. I am generally pleased with the materials (texts, handouts) required for this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.0 3 1.73 Freq(%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 0 (0%)
15. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.0 3 1.73 Freq(%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 0 (0%)
16. I feel that this course challenged me intellectually.
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%)
17. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.33 3 1.15 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 0 (0%) 2 (67%) 0 (0%)
18. My overall evaluation of this course is...
Good course overall, but made better by the interaction with our small section teacher, Professor Miyashiro. Great effort to communicate and help me to learn legal writing.
I was extremely disappointed with the caliber of the Legal Practice II Plenary sessions. Over half of the material we covered in class was covered in our plenaries in LPI, and the rest of the time was Q&A with the professor, which felt like an extremely inefficient way to instruct our class about appellate procedure and writing. I was also extremely disappointed in the apparent lack of communication between the instructors, despite the fact they met weekly following our small section meetings. I often heard conflicting reports on the structure and mechanics of our writing assignments between my small section professor and Professor Daleiden. It left me wondering exactly what they did discuss during their meetings, if the most basic fundamental instructions of the writing assignments were disputed. Although each student has their own subjective experience in LPII small sections, mine was extremely positive. Professor Miyashiro was extremely helpful throughout the semester and never "shut the door" on her students. She met with me on multiple occasions outside of class to discuss my writing and never showed up to class unprepared. Class time with her was productive, well-spent and educational.
19. Other comments:
No survey responses were found.

Christine Daleiden: LAW505, Spring 2014     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Law
Course: LAW 505 - Legal Practice II Crn (Section): 81421 (002)    
1. Class Level (pick one) - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Freshman   Sophomore   Junior   Senior   Grad   Other  
5.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 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 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%)
6. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%)
7. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%)
8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%)
9. The instructor treated students with respect.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
10. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%)
11. I was able to get individual help when I needed it.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%)
13. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
14. I am generally pleased with the materials (texts, handouts) required for this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%)
15. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%)
16. I feel that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
17. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
18. My overall evaluation of this course is...
My individual instructor, Professor Holden, for the section provided great support and insight.
19. Other comments:
No survey responses were found.

Christine Daleiden: LAW505, Spring 2014     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Law
Course: LAW 505 - Legal Practice II Crn (Section): 81422 (003)    
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  
5.25 5 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
2.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.8 5 0.84 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.8 5 0.84 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.4 5 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%)
6. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 5 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 2 (40%)
7. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.6 5 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%)
8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.4 5 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%)
9. The instructor treated students with respect.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.8 5 0.84 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%)
10. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.4 5 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%)
11. I was able to get individual help when I needed it.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.6 5 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%)
12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.4 5 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%)
13. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.6 5 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%)
14. I am generally pleased with the materials (texts, handouts) required for this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.2 5 1.1 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 3 (60%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%)
15. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.2 5 0.45 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%)
16. I feel that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.4 5 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%) 3 (60%)
17. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.6 5 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%)
18. My overall evaluation of this course is...
No survey responses were found.
19. Other comments:
No survey responses were found.

Christine Daleiden: LAW505, Spring 2014     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Law
Course: LAW 505 - Legal Practice II Crn (Section): 81423 (004)    
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 4 2.0 Freq(%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 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 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.75 4 0.96 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.25 4 1.26 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 2 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.25 4 1.26 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 2 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%)
6. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 4 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%)
7. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.75 4 0.96 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%)
8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 4 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%)
9. The instructor treated students with respect.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 4 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%)
10. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.75 4 0.96 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%)
11. I was able to get individual help when I needed it.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.0 4 1.63 Freq(%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%)
12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.75 4 0.96 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%)
13. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.75 4 0.96 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%)
14. I am generally pleased with the materials (texts, handouts) required for this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.0 4 1.83 Freq(%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%)
15. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
2.75 4 2.06 Freq(%) 2 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%)
16. I feel that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.75 4 1.26 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 1 (25%)
17. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.33 4 2.08 Freq(%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%)
18. My overall evaluation of this course is...
It was a good course, I do think the inconsistency with the separate sections is a big issue. Directions regarding foot notes, which issues to address, parenthetic citations and the like should be published as made. The separate instructions do not place the students on a fair playing field. More importantly, I have a hard time believing Daleiden actually reads all the separate briefs in normalizing the grades. Grades should not be normalized across all sections when each section receives different instructions. Having each class curved independently is more than adequate.
Christine Daleiden was not the professor for my individual LPII section. Most of my LPII experience was in my section with another professor. For that reason, I choose to remain neutral in my evaluation of professor Daleiden. In my opinion, the program was structured terribly. Much like LPI, the course had had little to no relevance to the material we were learning in our other courses. As a result LPII had an invasive aspect with regard to all our other courses. Instead of being able to review Civ Pro II, Contract II, Torts, or Real Property, we were forced to learn (self-teaching) a constitutional law issue. In LPI, we were forced to teach ourselves a Torts issue, without having the opportunity to take Torts. LPII would be structured so much better if the problem focused on an issue that would help us supplement our other courses, rather than impede our focus by requiring us to teach ourselves an entirely new subject. In addition, there is a great disparity among students and their capacity to learn the material. LPII section professors are told that they cannot teach the material/content, leaving students to either teach themselves or have family/acquaintances with legal backgrounds teach them. The system effectively gives an advantage to those students who have outside resources to support them. The imbalance would be negated if the course content fell inline with what we are currently learning -- we would be learning the material necessary to effectively build a case for our client (in the LPII problem). Everyone would have at least a more leveled access to the course material. For these reasons and so much more, LPII was structured terribly and really undermined my progress in other courses. Too much of my time was spent zealously advocating for an imaginary client on an issue that I was not familiar with nor did I become familiar with outside of my own self- teaching. LPII needs to be restructured.
poor.
19. Other comments:
No survey responses were found.

Christine Daleiden: LAW505, Spring 2014     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Law
Course: LAW 505 - Legal Practice II Crn (Section): 81424 (005)    
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 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%) 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 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
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%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.0 6 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 2 (33%) 2 (33%) 0 (0%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.67 6 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%) 0 (0%)
6. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
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%)
7. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%) 0 (0%)
8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 6 0.84 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 4 (67%) 0 (0%)
9. The instructor treated students with respect.
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%)
10. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.17 6 1.17 Freq(%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%)
11. I was able to get individual help when I needed it.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 6 0.84 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (67%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%)
12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.17 6 0.98 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 1 (17%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%)
13. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.33 6 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%)
14. I am generally pleased with the materials (texts, handouts) required for this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.17 6 1.47 Freq(%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%) 1 (17%)
15. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
2.67 6 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 2 (33%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%)
16. I feel that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.0 6 1.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%)
17. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.0 6 1.1 Freq(%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 2 (33%) 0 (0%)
18. My overall evaluation of this course is...
This survey is for LP PLENARY, not LP small group. Over half of the students in LP plenary did not show up to class each time because there is nothing to be gained from this course. Class consists of how we are "feeling" about our memos/papers/research/etc. One class consisted of students explaining their grievances about the class and process. It would be better to have 2 small section meetings/week instead of one plenary, one small section.
The small sections were very helpful, but the lecture class was largely useless.
19. Other comments:
No survey responses were found.

Christine Daleiden: LAW505, Spring 2014     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Law
Course: LAW 505 - Legal Practice II Crn (Section): 84496 (011)    
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  
4.25 4 2.22 Freq(%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 1 (25%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
2.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
6. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
7. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
9. The instructor treated students with respect.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)
10. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)
11. I was able to get individual help when I needed it.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
13. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.33 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 1 (25%)
14. I am generally pleased with the materials (texts, handouts) required for this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 4 1.29 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%)
15. 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 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
16. I feel that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
17. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.5 4 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%)
18. My overall evaluation of this course is...
I believe that Professor Delaiden is a very effective instructor and though her teaching may have been unconventional, she distilled the right ideas into us that helped us improve in our oral arguments and writing. Thank you Professor for your mentorship!
Should be more than 2 credits for the work involved.
It really challenged me in a good way and the level of understanding I left with was amazing.
19. Other comments:
The texts gave conflicting information on how to write the brief...which was different from the local rules, and which was again different from what the Professors sometimes wanted. Would prefer not spending the money to buy the books.

Christine Daleiden: LAW505, Spring 2014     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Law
Course: LAW 505 - Legal Practice II Crn (Section): 87420 (012)    
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 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 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 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 1.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 1.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%)
6. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 1.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%)
7. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 1.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%)
8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.0 2 1.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%)
9. The instructor treated students with respect.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 1.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%)
10. The instructor was thoughtful and precise in response to questions.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 1.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%)
11. I was able to get individual help when I needed it.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%)
12. The instructor was consistently well-prepared and organized for class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%)
13. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.5 2 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%)
14. I am generally pleased with the materials (texts, handouts) required for this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
15. The course was well-organized in terms of continuity and presentation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
16. I feel that this course challenged me intellectually.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%)
17. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this COURSE?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
3.0 2 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
18. My overall evaluation of this course is...
I was never "wowed" by Professor Meyer. Even though it seems like he has a lot of experience, he never really seemed like he enjoyed teaching the class. On one of my drafts, he had returned a response that said I was completely missing a section of my paper when in fact it was not missing, and this made me feel as if he wasn't really reading what I wrote or putting very little effort in his returned comments.
19. Other comments:
I believe the expectations for this course are far too high for a two credit course. I worked harder to meet the requirements of this course than any of my other courses, this semester, including 4 credit courses, and I still feel like I fell short. I could have spent another week working on my final brief. I certainly did not get to perfect my work. It is confusing to feel so much pressure for a class that matters so much in its content and yet so little in terms of our grades and credits. I'm sure there have to be other, more instructive ways to teach this material. The instructors for the course were very nice, helpful when they could be, and encouraging. Additionally, we were asked to purchase a $90+ book that I think we used for 1 assignment. I am borrowing every penny to be here. Please do not allow professors to require that we purchase materials that we don't use.
My instructor for Legal Practice 2 was Anderson Meyer for small section, and we actually had very little class time with Professor Daleiden so I'm unclear as to why this eCafe evaluation is asking me to evaluate her. I am basing this evaluation purely on Professor Meyer and his instruction in small section meetings of LP2.