University of Hawai'i eCAFE

eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations

Instructor: Ekaterina Sherstyuk

Available Survey Results

ECON 356, Fall 2012
ECON 686, Fall 2012
ECON 301, Spring 2012
ECON 608, Spring 2012
ECON 356, Fall 2010
ECON 686, Fall 2010
ECON 301, Spring 2010
ECON 356, Spring 2010
ECON 301, Fall 2009
ECON 356, Fall 2009

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON 356, Fall 2012

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Economics
Course:	ECON 356 - Games and Economic Behavior	Crn (Section):	74228 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

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

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?

certain things seemed a bit irrelevant but for the most part, the course seemed relevant in general

None, all aspects were valuable in their own respect.

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.

Rolling the die. We should just turn all homework in.

Too much irrelevant work in the text reading that was not used for class.

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.

Application of game models to classical real-world examples.

Very intriguing class. Not much to complain about

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).

I don't think any aspect of the course was not valuable because most everything we did in class related to the tests.

Made me feel stupid when I asked questions. I was very frustrated but perhaps it's a cultural difference

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.

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 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:

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.

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.

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!

Very helpful in class and office hours, wants everyone to learn. Great professor, very helpful.

Good class, for the most part.

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.

-- snipped --

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.

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.

Thank you for the great semester!

* Showing 10 out of 11 survey responses.

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON 686, 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)

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

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Elective	Required
1.0	5	0.0	Freq(%)	5 (100%)	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 rate this INSTRUCTOR?

Mean	N-Size	Std Dev		Very Poor	Poor	Average	Good	Excellent
4.2	5	1.79	Freq(%)	1 (20%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (80%)

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: ECON 301, 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)

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

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?

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.

Problem sets

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!

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 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: ECON 608, 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)

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

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 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: ECON 356, 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?

understanding the intracacies of game theory. I didn't realize how detailed game theory was.

Problem sets were tough but these were good time to practice what I learned in the class.

Doing the problem set in class in groups is very good. It gave a good insight on how to do the problem sets.

Relatating to real world examples and doing problem sets together.

Problem sets solving session. Up to date lecture notes. Overhead projector slides online.

How to apply what we learned to real life.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON 686, 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?

The most important aspect is everyones effort of reading papers and preparing questions (But it was hard to prepare in everytime...).

How to scientificlly decide the experiment in order to test theories.

Course design

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.

7. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

NO.

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
4.83	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 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: ECON 301, 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 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: ECON 356, 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?

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.

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.

understandings of everything could be tuned into numbers.

The TA and the book.

Class experiments

Individualized help and pre-printed complimentary lecture notes.

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

going over the problems in class to reaffirm the concepts

Class discussions and problem sets

Going over the problem sets,the review before the test,the outlined notes were very helpful.

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.

Solving the homework in class as small groups which allows us to really understand what we are doing.

7. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

none

-- snipped --

none

-- snipped --

Problem sets corrected in class before submission

None.

n/a

N/A

I don't think there really was any that was least valuable.

n/a

* 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 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:

thanks for answering all of my questions

none

-- snipped --

Great course!

-- snipped --

* Showing 3 out of 5 survey responses.

Ekaterina Sherstyuk: ECON 301, 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?

Historical content

Small class size and lots of individual attention from the instructor.

The weekly problem sets and the in-class experiments i found to be the most helpful in retaining the information.

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.

Well organized, well prepared. Professor taught us carefully and in detail. It was understandable.

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?

N/A

Experiment's purpose was a bit not clear for us.

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 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: ECON 356, 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?

The problem sets really helped me learn the material.

It deepened my understanding of Game Theory, and it became easier to see the real world implications of GT.

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.

Being a self-directed learner.

Game theory is an interesting topic

Problem solving sessions.

The real life examples of the study material

The extra credit lessons

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.

The way the professor involved students in the learning process.

Mixed-strategy simultaneous game theory and 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.

everything

It was very valuable to understand the economic relations between firms, players, or whomever. The information presented was extremely valuable.

Homework, Homework discussions, Experimental games in class

Homework review problem solving sessions

In class assignments.

The subject was interesting enough.

the problem set solving days were most helpful in gaining the knowledge needed.

Problem set overview. Going over the problem sets helped a lot.

learning real life application of these theories and practices

Doing problem sets and participating in class experiments

strategy at the beginning of the semester

Problem Sets

Different types of games we learned that can be applied to real life examples.

Problem sets were very helpful in deepening my understanding of the topics and showing that I could apply it to real life scenarios.

7. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

Going over the problem sets in class felt like a waste of time, especially because Prof. Sherstyuk would basically commandeer the presenter's presentation.

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.

n/a

-- snipped --

nothing

midterm reviews after we took the test

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.

The TA.

Sometimes too many problem-solving classes made students pretty time-consuming. However, I believe that it did help us towards exam problems.

nothing

-- snipped --

Lecture, but only because the professor provided students with a hard copy of the entire lecture for the semester.

all aspects were applicable

-- snipped --

the lectures werent very helpful in explaining the material, very general.

I think the lectures needs to be a little bit more aligned to the textbook.

not enough explanation of the material. more need for review

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.

most other content

Lectures. I didn't learn much through her lecture. I mostly learned through asking the TA questions after class.

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.

* 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 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%)