Anti-Calendar



2 surveys for NROC64

NROC64H: Neuroscience III: Sensory and Motor Systems
Instructor: Placenza, F. Course Enrollment: 201
Session: Winter 2008 Section: L01 Percent Response: 32.3%
Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean
Communicates 00241644366.09
Evaluations 004162742135.45
Organization 00041439426.22
Explanations 00051736426.16
Enthusiasm 00242834315.92
Teaching 00051642396.14
Workload 007343016134.94
Difficulty 007283122115.03
Value 002131128165.64
Retake Yes: 71.0%   No: 29.0%
calendar, timetable Comments
Many students found Professor Placenza to be a nice and approachable person who communicates the material in an articulate and enthusiastic style. Though the material was taught properly and thoroughly, many students felt that the exams were much harder than they expected. This was mainly due to the number of short answer questions being too many and also because the final was cumulative. However, students felt that because of her excellent presentation skills she should teach more courses in Neuroscience.


NROC64H: Neuroscience III: Sensory and Motor Systems
Instructor: de Rivera, C. Course Enrollment: 137
Session: Winter 2006 Section: 1 Percent Response: 67.9%
Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean
Communicates 1013242322613.56
Evaluations 2721231811002.64
Organization 137202923533.71
Explanations 1413203216403.37
Enthusiasm 1510162924413.54
Teaching 1816232316213.15
Workload 000152134305.80
Difficulty 001132228365.83
Value 501241730245.33
Retake Yes: 18.6%   No: 81.4%
calendar, timetable Comments
Majority of the students of this course do not recommend Rivera to teach NROC64H3 again due to her lack of teaching/explaining skills of the challenging course material. The lectures were confusing and not very detailed; with the lecturer talking at such a fast pace, students had to spend most of their class time jotting down everything and, not much lecture information was posted on the slides. Rivera was also not equipped with the adequate amount of knowledge to teach this course and many students found that her lectures notes (that she reads off the slides) and the textbook did not coincide a number of times. Almost the whole class was frustrated with the format of the exams, which did not reflect and test the understanding of the course concepts; it rather focused on the minute details of a few, barely mentioned details of the lectures. Some of the test material was not covered in class and students found the exam material distribution as unfair (ex. 40% of the exam focused on one chart in the textbook). There was also not sufficient time to finish the exam. Overall, students found this course a very poor learning and difficult experience.


What do the numbers mean?