eCAFE - Course and Faculty Evaluation, University of Hawaii

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations


Instructor: Ekaterina Sherstyuk

Available Survey Results

ECON301, Spring 2013
ECON356, Fall 2012
ECON686, Fall 2012
ECON301, Spring 2012
ECON608, Spring 2012
ECON356, Fall 2010
ECON686, Fall 2010
ECON301, Spring 2010
ECON356, Spring 2010
ECON301, Fall 2009
ECON356, Fall 2009

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON301, Spring 2013

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Economics
Course: ECON 301 - Intermediate Microeconomics Crn (Section): 80755 (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  
3.3 10 1.42 Freq(%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 2 (20%) 4 (40%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.7 10 0.48 Freq(%) 3 (30%) 7 (70%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.7 10 0.67 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 8 (80%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.6 10 0.7 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 7 (70%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
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%)
6. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.4 10 0.7 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 4 (40%) 5 (50%)
7. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
very good at giving real worldexamples and showing its relations
The homework problem sets were extremely helpful, especially when we went over them in class together. Presenting the problems in front of your peers forces you to fully understand the material. If any questions arose, Katya was there to help and make sure we felt comfortable with the topic before moving on.
The excercises were really helpful for me. And the way she expain is really clear too.
The new terminology
Learning about microeconomics.
I liked how we interacted with one another in group work and presentations. It helped me to retain more of the material.
Working out problems sets in class were really good.
I really love the way she made us do problems right on the board. It made us really see if we understood the material.
It is an Econ Class, everything I learned was eye opening and valuable to my marketing major.
8. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
n/a
Me personally, I didn't get much out of the in class experiments. I understand the reasoning for doing them and yes, they did engage all students, they did make class more lively and they did help with understading how the material we learn in lecture applies to the real world. I just didn't learn as much from them as I did from lectures, homework and real world examples. This being said, I dont think the experiments should be dropped from the course, as I'm sure they did help others.
The communication part in my opinion. I had to take this class though because her other one was canceled
Nothing.
Some of the lectures were hard to follow with the power points
I'm not sure if there was anything that was not valuable?
Nothing was non-valuable.
9. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.
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 was well organized and prepared for each session.
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%)
11. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.5 10 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (50%) 5 (50%)
12. Other comments:
Very patient and always gave a great explanation.
Not only is Katya an extremely intelligent person (most professors are), but she possesses an amazing ability to teach others (which unfortunately some professors don't have). I would highly recommend taking this course if you'd like to learn more about microeconomics and how microeconomic theory is applied in the real world. She teaches the material in a clear, understandable manner and is always there to answer any questions you still have. Yes, the professor makes you talk and participate more than other classes, but you'll soon find out that's how the real world is; the more comfortable you get with presenting and talking in front of your peers, the easier it will be in the future. The homework and real world examples are very helpful in learning the material. Just participate and come prepared for class everyday and you'll get a lot out of this course!
Thank you professor!
I enjoyed my instructor. She was very clear on what was expected of me and showed that she was concerned about the students understanding the material. She gave reasonable time to turn in work and announced due dates well ahead of time. I would definitely take another course from her.
I just want to say Thank You so much professor. Even though I may not be doing the greatest, I think i've learned a lot from you.

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON356, Fall 2012     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Economics
Course: ECON 356 - Games and Economic Behavior Crn (Section): 74228 (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  
3.8 25 0.65 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7 (28%) 17 (68%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.52 25 0.51 Freq(%) 12 (48%) 13 (52%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.72 25 0.46 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7 (28%) 18 (72%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.32 25 0.75 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 12 (48%) 11 (44%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.12 25 0.97 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 7 (28%) 5 (20%) 12 (48%)
6. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.2 25 1.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (8%) 4 (16%) 6 (24%) 13 (52%)
7. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
Made me feel stupid when I asked questions. I was very frustrated but perhaps it's a cultural difference
Very intriguing class. Not much to complain about
None, all aspects were valuable in their own respect.
There's too much time going over the homework. I feel it can be streamlined or become less redundant with some adjustments. Some lectures, such as the auction lectures, felt more engaged and while they lacked the stepping stones to master the more mechanical problems with calculations, it engaged the class and got us thinking in the right direction. With proper stream lining, I feel that the course can be strengthened to a point where both thought and mechanical processes for subjects can be engaged and honed in class, as opposed to having to figure most of it outside of class. And some students running off on redundant/should-already-know tangents stalls class too much. Don't be afraid to shut the student down. The chalk board needs to be cleaned mid-day or something as sometimes it's hard to read the board, no matter how big you write.
Application of game models to classical real-world examples.
Rolling the die. We should just turn all homework in.
Too much irrelevant work in the text reading that was not used for class.
I felt like the problem sets were the least valuable, because they were worth so little (10% of your final grade over 9-10 problem sets is only ~1% per problem set - which is very little motivation to actually do them).
certain things seemed a bit irrelevant but for the most part, the course seemed relevant in general
Too much theory, not enough applications. I feel like the real world examples should have been the focus, rather than 10 minutes every 2 weeks.
I don't think any aspect of the course was not valuable because most everything we did in class related to the tests.
All the material was relevant and interseting. However, some of the discussions we had was not strongly applicable to game theory. Some students were thinking too hard when a theory was being presented. Therefore, the class as a whole wasted valuable time for others who wanted to understand the material.
8. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.4 25 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (12%) 9 (36%) 13 (52%)
9. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.
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%)
10. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.08 25 1.04 Freq(%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 6 (24%) 7 (28%) 11 (44%)
11. Other comments:
I think a lot of the times we spent multiple days going over the homework was time wasted. I thought it was inefficient and unproductive. I think it would have been a lot more helpful if we spent more time on more examples.
Very helpful in class and office hours, wants everyone to learn. Great professor, very helpful.
Thank you for the great semester!
-- snipped --
Good class, for the most part.
I feel like the final is weighted much too heavily - if a little more focus was shifted towards homework instead of the final (say, if it was 20% homework, 20% per midterm, and 40% final), it would have worked better. The final is still a significant chunk, but not completely unforgiving like 50% is, and because 20% is also a decent chunk, there's a stronger incentive to do homework. I think overall attendance was lacking as well, so there could be some sort of incentive to actually attend class. Perhaps a small amount of extra credit.
instructor could improve by being more clear and concise regarding topics and homework, etc. also she could ask students if they are having trouble on any particular chapter being covered and help explain anything which is not understood by students. otherwise, she is neat and organized and in general very fair regarding hw policy and test/quiz grading.
She seemed very knowledgeable and into her topics.
Much of the course content relies on student presentations. At least 1/3 and some weeks 2/3rds of the course content was provided by students. I feel that this aspect of the course was a large barrier to my absorbing the course material; the presentations were often of poor quality and, sometimes, simply incorrect. I strongly feel that this course and this instructor should be more lecture-focused. Please, do not rely on students to teach this course!
Personally I liked how the professor was very particular in how students answered questions because I feel like sometimes students try to mask that they don't understand something by giving long convoluted answers. The professor was quickly able to grasp which students knew what the hell they were talking about and which did not, and I appreciated that. I also liked having the opportunity to present at the board every so often, I feel that at such a large University classes like these are few and far between. This was really my first experience in a smaller class where the students didn't just have to listen to lectures.
Although the group presentations for homework problems were efficient in checking for comprehension, sometimes the presentations dragged over too many class periods. So towards the end of the semester, it felt like we were rushing through the material. A suggestion will be to do the group presentations on every other homework assignent (Or on difficult topics) and the others can be turned in. Other than that, I think you're a very passionate game theorist and caring instuctor.
* Showing 10 out of 11 survey responses.

 

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON686, Fall 2012     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Economics
Course: ECON 686 - Strategic Bhvr & Expmntl Econ Crn (Section): 78723 (001)    
1. Class Level (pick one) - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Freshman   Sophomore   Junior   Senior   Grad   Other  
5.0 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  
1.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 5 (83%) 0 (0%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 6 1.21 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 4 (67%)
6. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 6 1.63 Freq(%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%)
7. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
No. Everything is very good. I learn lots of things from this course.
8. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 6 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%)
9. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
10. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.2 6 1.79 Freq(%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (67%)
11. Other comments:
Professor Katya is expert person in her field. I grow up a lot through her reading assignment. Not only did I study all stuff of materials, but also I learn how to present which is one of very important skill in academia carrer. Hopefully, she will keep this standard in next time this course open.
Prof. Sherstyuk is a professor who is clearly passionate about experimental economics and it shows. I would have liked to have a little more time to focus on my own project, not just because the reading requirements were intense, I would have liked some class sessions dedicated to discussing ideas with fellow classmates. Overall this was a great class, given the sustained importance of experimental economics as a research tool, it really deserves to be offered every year.

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON301, Spring 2012     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Economics
Course: ECON 301 - Intermediate Microeconomics Crn (Section): 80827 (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  
3.57 7 0.79 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (57%) 2 (29%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%)
2. Course - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required  
1.71 7 0.49 Freq(%) 2 (29%) 5 (71%)
3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
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%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
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%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.38 8 0.92 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 1 (13%) 5 (63%)
6. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.38 8 0.74 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 3 (38%) 4 (50%)
7. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.25 8 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 2 (25%) 4 (50%)
8. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
Professor Sherstyuk is a wonderful Professor! Although I haven't been the best student (due to balancing a challenging job with school) in her class, she has tried to support me and help me through it all. I appreciate Professor Sherstyuk very much. She cares about her students--I could see that and that makes me want to try my very best to do as well as I can on the final. Not only do I owe it to myself but I owe it to a great teacher!
Problem sets
Presenting the homework problems in front of the class helps a lot. Also office hours were extremely helpful. Teacher was very easy to reach via email and very prompt and helpful with response.
9. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
N/a
some of the irrelevant power point slides.
N/A
10. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.38 8 0.74 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 3 (38%) 4 (50%)
11. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.5 8 0.93 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 0 (0%) 6 (75%)
12. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.
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. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.25 8 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 2 (25%) 4 (50%)
14. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.
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%)
15. Other comments:
Really nice and helpful professor. Class setup forces you to learn, I liked this class a lot and learned a lot.

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON608, Spring 2012     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Economics
Course: ECON 608 - Microeconomic Theory II Crn (Section): 83452 (001)    
1. Class Level (pick one) - please note that by answering this question you could potentially jeopardize your anonymity
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Freshman   Sophomore   Junior   Senior   Grad   Other  
5.0 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  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
5. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
6. 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 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
7. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
8. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
Introduction of game theory
Application of theories.
9. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
None thus far.
10. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
11. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
12. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
13. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
14. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)
15. Other comments:
The projector is not working very well. I prefer the computer.

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON356, Fall 2010     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Economics
Course: ECON 356 - Games and Economic Behavior Crn (Section): 74985 (001)    
1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.8 15 0.56 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 13 (87%)
2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 15 0.62 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 3 (20%) 11 (73%)
3. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.47 15 0.64 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 6 (40%) 8 (53%)
4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 15 0.72 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 6 (40%) 7 (47%)
5. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.27 15 0.8 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (20%) 5 (33%) 7 (47%)
6. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
Doing the problem set in class in groups is very good. It gave a good insight on how to do the problem sets.
Problem sets were tough but these were good time to practice what I learned in the class.
Relatating to real world examples and doing problem sets together.
How to apply what we learned to real life.
Problem sets solving session. Up to date lecture notes. Overhead projector slides online.
understanding the intracacies of game theory. I didn't realize how detailed game theory was.
The calculaion-sessions in class
7. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
No comment.
Would be better if students that attend class regularly got credit.
NA
Too early in the morning.
8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 15 0.72 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 6 (40%) 7 (47%)
9. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 15 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (20%) 4 (27%) 8 (53%)
10. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.47 15 0.74 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 4 (27%) 9 (60%)
11. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.67 15 0.49 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (33%) 10 (67%)
12. The TA gives clear and understandable explanations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
4.29 14 0.83 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (21%) 4 (29%) 7 (50%) 0 (0%)
13. The TA appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
4.4 15 0.74 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (13%) 5 (33%) 8 (53%) 0 (0%)
14. The TA was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
4.53 15 0.83 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (20%) 1 (7%) 11 (73%) 0 (0%)
15. The TA's oral speaking was clear and effective.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
4.53 15 0.64 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 5 (33%) 9 (60%) 0 (0%)
16. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 15 0.62 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 3 (20%) 11 (73%)
17. Other comments:
I would recommend other people to take this course. I found rolling the dice to determine whether we turn in the problem set or not, very interesting in a good way.
I didn't realize how much math was involved in this course. Maybe make that more obvious at the beginning of the course so students are better prepared for the math. Otherwise it was a good course. Some pretty complex parts to this class.

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON686, Fall 2010     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Economics
Course: ECON 686 - Strategic Bhvr & Expmntl Econ Crn (Section): 78526 (001)    
1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
3. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)
4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)
5. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
6. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
Prof.Ekaterina is a very very very responsible instructor. I learn a lot from this course. She is very organized and knowledgeable. She is always thinking about our students. I like her very much and like this course very much too. I will give this course 5 stars.
The most important aspect is everyones effort of reading papers and preparing questions (But it was hard to prepare in everytime...).
Course design
How to scientificlly decide the experiment in order to test theories.
7. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
N/A
NO.
8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
9. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
10. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
11. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
12. The TA gives clear and understandable explanations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%)
13. The TA appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%)
14. The TA was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%)
15. The TA's oral speaking was clear and effective.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%)
16. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 6 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%)
17. Other comments:
Meeting with the professer before paper presentation was very useful for organizing own prosentation within the time limit. The presentations by senior students was helpful to motivate myself.

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON301, Spring 2010     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Economics
Course: ECON 301 - Intermediate Microeconomics Crn (Section): 89065 (003)    
1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
5.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (100%)
2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)
3. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.67 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)
4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (67%) 2 (33%)
5. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.17 6 0.75 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 3 (50%) 2 (33%)
6. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
The covering of class exercises
It was a small course, which allowed her to give us more time to sort out things we did not understand.
I gained a lot from the in class exercises and having a hands on approach on the problems allowed me to perform better in the midterms and better grasp of the concepts.
7. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
Class experiments were too simple.
n/a
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 6 0.55 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 3 (50%)
9. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.83 6 0.98 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%)
10. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.33 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (67%) 2 (33%)
11. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.5 6 0.55 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 3 (50%)
12. The TA gives clear and understandable explanations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
1.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%)
13. The TA appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
1.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%)
14. The TA was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%)
15. The TA's oral speaking was clear and effective.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.0 5 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%)
16. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.
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. Other comments:
-- snipped --
The instructor was an extremely fair grader and really helped me in polishing the concepts I learned in the class through the class exercises. She also was always willing to help in and out of class.
* Showing 1 out of 2 survey responses.

 

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON356, Spring 2010     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Economics
Course: ECON 356 - Games and Economic Behavior Crn (Section): 89066 (001)    
1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.47 17 0.87 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 4 (24%) 11 (65%)
2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.24 17 1.03 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 7 (41%) 8 (47%)
3. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.0 17 1.0 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 2 (12%) 9 (53%) 5 (29%)
4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.18 17 0.73 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (18%) 8 (47%) 6 (35%)
5. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.71 17 1.26 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 2 (12%) 4 (24%) 4 (24%) 6 (35%)
6. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
The TA and the book.
In class problem-solving of different scenarios and strategies helped a lot. Doing the work together was beneficial as well as doing the problem sets together.
Class experiments
Individualized help and pre-printed complimentary lecture notes.
going over the problems in class to reaffirm the concepts
Going over the problem sets,the review before the test,the outlined notes were very helpful.
Solving the homework in class as small groups which allows us to really understand what we are doing.
Class discussions and problem sets
understandings of everything could be tuned into numbers.
Problem sets in class and working with the professor and TA one-on-one or small groups during these times to better understand the material
The classroom games were valuable because they gave me firsthand experience to the topic at home, making it easier to recall the procedure or terms connected to it.
going over problem sets in class as a class. some material was difficult and it helped to be able to discuss problems with fellow class members.
7. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
-- snipped --
-- snipped --
Problem sets corrected in class before submission
None.
n/a
I don't think there really was any that was least valuable.
n/a
N/A
none
none
* Showing 8 out of 10 survey responses.

 

8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.06 16 1.0 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 9 (56%) 5 (31%)
9. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.71 17 1.31 Freq(%) 2 (12%) 0 (0%) 5 (29%) 4 (24%) 6 (35%)
10. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.44 16 1.03 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (31%) 10 (63%)
11. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.12 17 1.11 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 3 (18%) 5 (29%) 8 (47%)
12. The TA gives clear and understandable explanations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
4.12 17 1.05 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 2 (12%) 7 (41%) 7 (41%) 0 (0%)
13. The TA appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
4.24 17 1.03 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 7 (41%) 8 (47%) 0 (0%)
14. The TA was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
4.41 17 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (12%) 6 (35%) 9 (53%) 0 (0%)
15. The TA's oral speaking was clear and effective.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.71 17 1.16 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 5 (29%) 5 (29%) 5 (29%) 0 (0%)
16. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.88 17 1.11 Freq(%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 2 (12%) 8 (47%) 5 (29%)
17. Other comments:
-- snipped --
Great course!
none
-- snipped --
thanks for answering all of my questions
* Showing 3 out of 5 survey responses.

 

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON301, Fall 2009     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Economics
Course: ECON 301 - Intermediate Microeconomics Crn (Section): 77556 (003)    
1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.86 7 0.38 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 6 (86%)
2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.71 7 0.49 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 5 (71%)
3. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.29 7 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 3 (43%) 3 (43%)
4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.29 7 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 3 (43%) 3 (43%)
5. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.14 7 0.69 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 4 (57%) 2 (29%)
6. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
Well organized, well prepared. Professor taught us carefully and in detail. It was understandable.
The weekly problem sets and the in-class experiments i found to be the most helpful in retaining the information.
Small class size and lots of individual attention from the instructor.
Historical content
The most useful tool for studying was the PPT packet. Particularly, the instructor's handwritten examples in the packet were the most useful aspect. I feel that the inclusion of even more such outlined examples would be of great use in studying and test preparation.
Problem solving sessions. They are good preparation for the midterms.
Learning about the supply and demand functions, as well as how markets work proved to be most valuable.
7. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
Experiment's purpose was a bit not clear for us.
N/A
I can't really think of a portion of the class that wasn't valuable in some way.
8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
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%)
9. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.29 7 0.49 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (71%) 2 (29%)
10. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.71 7 0.49 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 5 (71%)
11. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.57 7 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (43%) 4 (57%)
12. The TA gives clear and understandable explanations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.0 7 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (86%)
13. The TA appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.0 7 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (86%)
14. The TA was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.0 7 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (86%)
15. The TA's oral speaking was clear and effective.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.0 6 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%)
16. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.14 7 0.69 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 4 (57%) 2 (29%)

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON356, Fall 2009     Back to top

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Department: Economics
Course: ECON 356 - Games and Economic Behavior Crn (Section): 75340 (001)    
1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.39 36 0.9 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 13 (36%) 20 (56%)
2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.28 36 0.91 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 15 (42%) 17 (47%)
3. The instructor communicated effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.83 36 1.16 Freq(%) 2 (6%) 4 (11%) 3 (8%) 16 (44%) 11 (31%)
4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.23 35 0.91 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 16 (46%) 15 (43%)
5. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.78 36 1.2 Freq(%) 2 (6%) 5 (14%) 3 (8%) 15 (42%) 11 (31%)
6. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?
I liked the problem sets and the real world case studies that we covered in class. In addition, I thought that the in-class experiments were a lot of fun and very educational, because we could see how well game theory translated into practice. It was always interesting to see the results, and I feel that by participating in the experiment we were able to evaluate why or why not, and when, game theory can be applied to real world situations.
Problem solving sessions.
I am an exchange student and my university does not have this course, so I was very happy to be able to obtain an opportunity to gain the priviledge on this knowledge. I think Games Theory heavily affect real life fields of Economics, therefore I consider them very important.
Mixed-strategy simultaneous game theory and problem solving sessions.
Problem sets were very helpful in deepening my understanding of the topics and showing that I could apply it to real life scenarios.
The way the professor involved students in the learning process.
The subject was interesting enough.
Game theory is an interesting topic
Homework, Homework discussions, Experimental games in class
Doing problem sets and participating in class experiments
In class assignments.
It was very valuable to understand the economic relations between firms, players, or whomever. The information presented was extremely valuable.
learning real life application of these theories and practices
Homework review problem solving sessions
It deepened my understanding of Game Theory, and it became easier to see the real world implications of GT.
everything
The real life examples of the study material
Problem set overview. Going over the problem sets helped a lot.
The problem sets really helped me learn the material.
the problem set solving days were most helpful in gaining the knowledge needed.
Going over problem set solutions with classmates. I am not sure if the presentations facilitated understanding of the materials for classmates, but I definitely learned more working in smaller groups than from someone presenting solutions in front of the class. Solutions provided by the TA Going over midterm solutions in class. Always helps to know what we did wrong.
The extra credit lessons
Different types of games we learned that can be applied to real life examples.
Being a self-directed learner.
Problem Sets
strategy at the beginning of the semester
7. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?
Although the problem solving sessions were useful, it was unfortunate that there was limited board space available. Because all of the problems had to be concentrated on a single blackboard, it was difficult for students who were not presenting to follow. I also think that it might be better to assign a certain problem set to a certain group, or choose who will present the problems at random, to encourage people to actually complete the problem sets before class so that time is not wasted.
Sometimes too many problem-solving classes made students pretty time-consuming. However, I believe that it did help us towards exam problems.
The TA.
-- snipped --
-- snipped --
Lecture, but only because the professor provided students with a hard copy of the entire lecture for the semester.
The text reading. I was able to learn everything by looking at the notes and doing the problem sets. I guess I used the book to study a little, but it was far more time efficient to practice the problem sets to gain a better understanding of the material.
-- snipped --
not enough explanation of the material. more need for review
all aspects were applicable
Going over the problem sets in class felt like a waste of time, especially because Prof. Sherstyuk would basically commandeer the presenter's presentation.
nothing
nothing
I think the lectures needs to be a little bit more aligned to the textbook.
the lectures werent very helpful in explaining the material, very general.
The dice probability gets confusing after a while especially when problem set numbering does not match dice numbers. The textbook approaches problems differently than the instructor does, which made it distracting and very hard to follow. I suggest a textbook that is more in line with the instructor's approach.
midterm reviews after we took the test
How we divided the problem solving session groups. I think we spent too much time on choosing who is doing which problems. From next time, the instructor should just assign questions to people automatically and I'm sure no one will be offended by that. By reducing the time we spend on that, we can get better explanation from the instructor.
n/a
Lectures. I didn't learn much through her lecture. I mostly learned through asking the TA questions after class.
most other content
* Showing 18 out of 21 survey responses.

 

8. The instructor was able to explain concepts clearly and effectively.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.97 36 1.0 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 3 (8%) 3 (8%) 18 (50%) 11 (31%)
9. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
3.64 36 1.17 Freq(%) 3 (8%) 1 (3%) 12 (33%) 10 (28%) 10 (28%)
10. The instructor was well organized and prepared for each session.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.25 36 0.77 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 21 (58%) 13 (36%)
11. Global appraisal: Considering everything how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor   Poor   Average   Good   Excellent  
4.06 36 0.92 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 5 (14%) 17 (47%) 12 (33%)
12. The TA gives clear and understandable explanations.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
3.86 36 1.03 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 9 (25%) 12 (33%) 11 (31%) 1 (3%)
13. The TA appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
4.0 36 1.03 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 3 (8%) 3 (8%) 16 (44%) 12 (33%) 1 (3%)
14. The TA was easy to talk with and available for consultation.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
4.15 36 1.08 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 5 (14%) 9 (25%) 17 (47%) 2 (6%)
15. The TA's oral speaking was clear and effective.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A  
4.18 35 1.06 Freq(%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 4 (11%) 10 (29%) 17 (49%) 1 (3%)
16. The instructor was fair in grading and criteria of grades.
Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree  
4.17 36 0.65 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 2 (6%) 23 (64%) 10 (28%)