STUDENTS' RATINGS ON TEACHER
Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN
Department: COMPUTER SCIENCE
Academic Year: 2014/2015
Faculty: SCHOOL OF COMPUTING
Semester: 2
Module:
DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS I ­ CS1020
Activity Type:
LABORATORY
Class Size/Response Size/Response Rate : 21 / 14 / 66.67% Contact Session/Teaching Hour : 11 / 22 Qn
Items Evaluated
Fac. Member
Avg Score
Fac. Member
Avg Score
Std. Dev
Dept Avg
Score
Fac. Avg
Score
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
1
The teacher has enhanced my thinking ability.
4.714
0.125
3.890 ( 3.894) 3.890 ( 3.894)
2
The teacher has increased my interest in the subject.
4.571
0.137
3.818 ( 3.761) 3.818 ( 3.761)
3
The teacher provided timely and useful feedback.
4.786
0.114
4.047 ( 4.043) 4.047 ( 4.043)
4
The teacher has enhanced my ability to communicate
the subject material.
4.500
0.139
3.870 ( 3.864)
NA (NA)
5
The teacher's attitude and approach encouraged me to
think and work in a creative and independent way.
4.643
0.133
3.871 ( 3.870)
NA (NA)
6
The teacher cares about student development and
learning.
4.786
0.114
3.955 ( 3.988)
NA (NA)
Average Q1 to Q6
4.667
0.109
3.909 ( 3.903)
NA (NA)
Computed Overall Effectiveness of the Teacher.
4.739
0.102
3.964 ( 3.947) 3.964 ( 3.947)
Notes:
1. A 5­point scale is used for the scores. The higher the score, the better the rating.
2. Fac. Member Avg Score: The mean of all the scores for each question for the faculty member.
3. Fac. Member Avg Score Std. Dev: A measure of the range of variability. It measures the extent to which a faculty
member's Average Score differs from all the scores in the faculty member's evaluation. The smaller the standard deviation,
the greater the robustness of the number given as average. 4. Dept Avg Score :
(a) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory) within the department.
(b) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory), at the same module level ( level 1000 ) within the department.
5. Fac. Avg Score :
(c) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory) within the faculty.
(d) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory), at the same module level ( level 1000 ) within the faculty.
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ON TEACHER
Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN
Department: COMPUTER SCIENCE
Academic Year: 2014/2015
Faculty: SCHOOL OF COMPUTING
Semester: 2
Module:
DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS I ­ CS1020
Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 1: The teacher has enhanced my thinking ability.)
100
80
71.43
60
46.83 46.83
40
24.47 24.47
28.57
24.17 24.17
20
0
0.00 1.21 1.21
1
0.00
3.32 3.32
0.00
2
3
4
5
Self
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within
Department
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within
Faculty
Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents)
|
ITEM\SCORE
|
5
4
3
2
1
4 (28.57%)
0 (.00%)
0 (.00%)
0 (.00%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same
Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same
| 80 (24.17%) 155 (46.83%) 81 (24.47%)
level within Department
11 (3.32%)
4 (1.21%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same
Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same
| 80 (24.17%) 155 (46.83%) 81 (24.47%)
level within Faculty
11 (3.32%)
4 (1.21%)
|
Self
| 10 (71.43%)
Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 2: The teacher has increased my interest in the
subject.)
100
80
57.14
60
42.86 41.39 41.39
40
30.82 30.82
21.45 21.45
20
0
0.00 1.81 1.81
1
0.00
4.53 4.53
0.00
2
3
4
5
Self
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within
Department
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within
Faculty
Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents)
|
ITEM\SCORE
|
5
4
3
2
1
8 (57.14%)
6 (42.86%)
0 (.00%)
0 (.00%)
0 (.00%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same
|
Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same
71 (21.45%) 137 (41.39%) 102 (30.82%)
level within Department
15 (4.53%)
6 (1.81%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same
Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same
| 71 (21.45%) 137 (41.39%) 102 (30.82%)
level within Faculty
15 (4.53%)
6 (1.81%)
|
Self
|
Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 3: The teacher provided timely and useful feedback.)
100
78.57
80
60
49.24 49.24
40
30.09 30.09
16.41 16.41
20
0
0.00 0.91 0.91
1
0.00
3.34 3.34
21.43
0.00
2
3
4
5
Self
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within
Department
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within
Faculty
Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents)
|
ITEM\SCORE
|
5
4
3
2
1
3 (21.43%)
0 (.00%)
0 (.00%)
0 (.00%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same
Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same
| 99 (30.09%) 162 (49.24%) 54 (16.41%)
level within Department
11 (3.34%)
3 (.91%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same
Activity Type (Laboratory), at the same
| 99 (30.09%) 162 (49.24%) 54 (16.41%)
level within Faculty
11 (3.34%)
3 (.91%)
|
Self
| 11 (78.57%)
STUDENTS' COMMENTS ON TEACHER
Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN
Department: COMPUTER SCIENCE
Academic Year: 2014/2015
Faculty: SCHOOL OF COMPUTING
Semester: 2
Module:
DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS I ­ CS1020
Activity Type:
LABORATORY
What are the teacher's strengths? (11 comments)
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.5 for the computed overall
effectiveness of the teacher
1. Commitment and pure passion in programming. Ability to command attention in class is very helpful as too many
side conversations are really disturbing. Ivan helped me a lot outside of the school hours during his many help sessions
and personal interactions. 2. Extremely knowledgable and brain works extremely fast. Able to answer every question posted to him within a
second of thought. Very good in drawing links between lecture topics and summarising. Extremely helpful and
approachable.
3. He does not only teach the students how to do the questions, but also explains the fundamental so the students know
what is exactly going on and why. While Ivan spends at least 1 hour and 40 minutes each lab, I have heard from people
of other lab groups whose TA only spent 40 minutes for the lab (while my friend in the group were in total loss). I do not
know the policies regarding TAs, maybe they are free to do it as they see fit; and I totally respect their opinions, but my
main point is that the 2 hours (or 1 and 40 minutes) can be used to clarify a lot of concepts so why not utilise it? And as
a student who is not strong and unfamiliar with programming, I believe sometimes the students are not even aware of
what they don't know/ their misconceptions so the TAs play an important role in this; considering the lab is for 2 hours
while the tutorials are only 1 hour long, placing the TA in a better positions than the tutors to address this. I also noticed
when other TAs marked my sit in labs, the expectations are not as high and the comments not as detailed. I actually feel
lucky to be in my lab group. Thanks for everything.
4. He is very passionate about teaching the students and would always organise help sessions, extending even to those
not in his lab. These help sessions are always very helpful in clearing up any conceptual errors I might have.
5. Ivan is very passionate in teaching and always tries his best to ensure that we understand what has been taught. I am
really thankful for his help sessions which truly helped me alot. He is very approachable and never fails to turn us down
whenever we needed help.
6. Ivan provides help sessions , allowing us to ask question as well as learn new concepts. This helps weaker students
"connect the dots" and bridge the gap from the 1010 to 1020 jump. His help sessions helps in building confidence. He is
very willing to hepl student whenever they have questions. He is also very active on forums.
7. Shows different ways to solve a programming problem
8. friendly he can be found everywhere
9. very helpful tutor, also provides a lot of constructive feedback. approachable
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal 4.0 and less than 4.5 for the computed
overall effectiveness of the teacher
1. Goes beyond the boundaries to teach us more stuffs.
2. Passionate and always like to hold addition help sessions for students What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? (7 comments)
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal 4.0 and less than 4.5 for the computed
overall effectiveness of the teacher
1. ­
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.5 for the computed overall
effectiveness of the teacher
1. ­
2. More examples would be good
3. NIL
4. Perhaps you could speak a little slower, sometimes it is difficult to catch each word.
5. Sometimes while going through the review for take home/sit in lab, is would be better the draw diagram and show
step by step problem, especially for tricky parts of the codes. Perhaps also emphasis on things to take note of for
students.
6. Towards the later phase, he seems to make more minor mistakes during teaching. Though they are not severe, it will
be worrying if this implies that his mind is constantly troubled (just my guess). Perhaps it helps if he slows down a bit/
gets more rest. All the best! STUDENTS' RATINGS ON TEACHER
Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN
Department: COMPUTER SCIENCE
Academic Year: 2014/2015
Faculty: SCHOOL OF COMPUTING
Semester: 2
Module:
COMPUTER ORGANISATION ­ CS2100
Activity Type:
TUTORIAL
Class Size/Response Size/Response Rate : 31 / 14 / 45.16% Contact Session/Teaching Hour : 22 / 22 Qn
Items Evaluated
Fac. Member
Avg Score
Fac. Member
Avg Score
Std. Dev
Dept Avg
Score
Fac. Avg
Score
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
1
The teacher has enhanced my thinking ability.
4.429
0.137
4.021 ( 3.946) 3.993 ( 3.877)
2
The teacher has increased my interest in the subject.
4.214
0.155
3.905 ( 3.848) 3.874 ( 3.780)
3
The teacher provided timely and useful feedback.
4.500
0.174
4.075 ( 3.988) 4.028 ( 3.897)
4
The teacher has enhanced my ability to communicate
the subject material.
4.357
0.169
3.975 ( 3.938)
NA (NA)
5
The teacher's attitude and approach encouraged me to
think and work in a creative and independent way.
4.429
0.202
3.967 ( 3.872)
NA (NA)
6
The teacher cares about student development and
learning.
4.500
0.203
4.048 ( 3.968)
NA (NA)
Average Q1 to Q6
4.405
0.135
3.998 ( 3.927)
NA (NA)
Computed Overall Effectiveness of the Teacher.
4.433
0.127
4.055 ( 3.983) 4.021 ( 3.909)
Notes:
1. A 5­point scale is used for the scores. The higher the score, the better the rating.
2. Fac. Member Avg Score: The mean of all the scores for each question for the faculty member.
3. Fac. Member Avg Score Std. Dev: A measure of the range of variability. It measures the extent to which a faculty
member's Average Score differs from all the scores in the faculty member's evaluation. The smaller the standard deviation,
the greater the robustness of the number given as average. 4. Dept Avg Score :
(a) the mean score of same activity type (Tutorial) within the department.
(b) the mean score of same activity type (Tutorial), at the same module level ( level 2000 ) within the department.
5. Fac. Avg Score :
(c) the mean score of same activity type (Tutorial) within the faculty.
(d) the mean score of same activity type (Tutorial), at the same module level ( level 2000 ) within the faculty.
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ON TEACHER
Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN
Department: COMPUTER SCIENCE
Academic Year: 2014/2015
Faculty: SCHOOL OF COMPUTING
Semester: 2
Module:
COMPUTER ORGANISATION ­ CS2100
Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 1: The teacher has enhanced my thinking ability.)
100
80
57.14
60
46.54 44.28
42.86
40
19.39
20
0
0.00 1.85 2.17
1
0.00
4.22 4.92
27.99 26.34
22.29
0.00
2
3
4
5
Self
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within
Department
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within
Faculty
Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents)
|
ITEM\SCORE
|
5
4
3
2
1
6 (42.86%)
8 (57.14%)
0 (.00%)
0 (.00%)
0 (.00%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same
Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level | 166 (27.99%) 276 (46.54%) 115 (19.39%)
within Department
25 (4.22%)
11 (1.85%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same
Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level | 182 (26.34%) 306 (44.28%) 154 (22.29%)
within Faculty
34 (4.92%)
15 (2.17%)
|
Self
|
Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 2: The teacher has increased my interest in the
subject.)
100
80
64.29
60
42.16 39.65
40
24.62
28.57 26.14
24.60
27.64
20
0
2.75
0.00 2.53
1
0.00
7.14
4.55 5.35
2
3
4
5
Self
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within
Department
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within
Faculty
Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents)
|
ITEM\SCORE
|
5
4
3
2
1
4 (28.57%)
9 (64.29%)
1 (7.14%)
0 (.00%)
0 (.00%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same
|
Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level
155 (26.14%) 250 (42.16%) 146 (24.62%)
within Department
27 (4.55%)
15 (2.53%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same
Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level | 170 (24.60%) 274 (39.65%) 191 (27.64%)
within Faculty
37 (5.35%)
19 (2.75%)
|
Self
|
Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 3: The teacher provided timely and useful feedback.)
100
80
57.14
60
44.75
35.71
40
19.66
20
0
0.00 1.36 2.03
1
0.00
41.39
30.34 28.51
23.44
7.14
3.90 4.63
2
3
4
5
Self
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within
Department
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same Activity Type (Lecture), at the same level within
Faculty
Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents)
|
ITEM\SCORE
|
5
4
3
2
1
8 (57.14%)
5 (35.71%)
1 (7.14%)
0 (.00%)
0 (.00%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same
Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level | 179 (30.34%) 264 (44.75%) 116 (19.66%)
within Department
23 (3.90%)
8 (1.36%)
Teachers teaching all Modules of the Same
Activity Type (Tutorial), at the same level | 197 (28.51%) 286 (41.39%) 162 (23.44%)
within Faculty
32 (4.63%)
14 (2.03%)
|
Self
|
STUDENTS' COMMENTS ON TEACHER
Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN
Department: COMPUTER SCIENCE
Academic Year: 2014/2015
Faculty: SCHOOL OF COMPUTING
Semester: 2
Module:
COMPUTER ORGANISATION ­ CS2100
Activity Type:
TUTORIAL
What are the teacher's strengths? (11 comments)
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.5 for the computed overall
effectiveness of the teacher
1. Engaging!
2. He has strong foundation of his concepts and goes the extra mile to ensure that we learn and understand. 3. Ivan is really engaging and friendly and cares a lot about his students! Best tutor so far!! :D
4. Knows his concepts well
5. Takes great effort to explain concepts with help of additional prepared materials by himself
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal 4.0 and less than 4.5 for the computed
overall effectiveness of the teacher
1. He is good at explanation and he is passionate about teaching.
2. He knows his work very well. He is able to provide instant reply in terms of the questions students have asked.
3. Passionate and knowledgeable about the topics, followed up on queries in class
4. patient; well­prepared; able to provide a rather clear and big picture of how things learned in the course are
interrelated
5. will give a brief summary at first which is good as able to clear some misconceptions or help us remember some points
if we forget in the lecture. teaches clearly as well and helpful in terms of answering the class when we have questions . Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal 3.5 and less than 4.0 for the computed
overall effectiveness of the teacher
1. The TA is very clear in his explanations, and provides alternative ways for us to understand the material
What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? (4 comments)
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal 4.0 and less than 4.5 for the computed
overall effectiveness of the teacher
1. ­
2. NA
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.5 for the computed overall
effectiveness of the teacher
1. Better inclusivity and perception of all students
2. NIL
STUDENTS' NOMINATIONS FOR BEST TEACHING
Faculty Member: CHEW TECK MENG IVAN
Department: COMPUTER SCIENCE
Academic Year: 2014/2015
Faculty: SCHOOL OF COMPUTING
Semester: 2
Module Code:
CS2100
No of Nominations:
2
1. very passionate about teaching! best tutor ever!
2. He goes the extra mile beyond what is required of him as a teaching assistant, ensuring that we understand the
fundamentals even during his own time when he is rushing for his final year project. His dedication for teaching is
obvious every effort he puts in.
Module Code:
CS1020
No of Nominations:
5
1. smart, friendly, helpful and always available. very cool also
2. He has held numerous help sessions to help the weaker students. The sessions are held at the expense of his own free
time. When he is in COM1, the students would approach him and ask for help in regards to take­home labs or
upcoming sit­in labs and he is always willing to help and offer advises. All these are despite the fact that he has his
own commitments which include FYP. I, myself, has learned a lot from him. During the recess week, he even made
met me at Pasir Ris as I have doubts to clarify in regards to past year mid­term papers.
3. Ivan is a very passionate tutor whom never fails to help his students whenever we approach him. Furthermore, despite
of his busy schedule, he still made time and effort to hold help sessions for us to clarify our doubts and to ensure that
we really understand the topic. He also never fails to motivate us for our lab tests.
4. He is always ready to help and he adds extra sessions to help weaker students. He is very approachable. He has
profound knowledge regarding data structure
5. He really is a good teacher, that is able to explain concepts easily to the students. He makes coding concepts easy to
digest. Also, he would always spare the time to organize help sessions for the students.