Rutgers University Student Instructional Rating
(Online Survey)
Clark Gradeigh
Fall 2013, 14:332:363:02 — Electron Devices Lab (index #25119)
Enrollment= 39, Responses= 18

Part A: University-wide Questions:
Student Responses Weighted Means
Strong
Disagree
1
Strong
Agree
5
No response
 
Section Course Level Dept
1. The instructor was prepared for class and presented the material in an organized manner. 0 2 5 5 5 1 3.76 3.82 4.24 3.99
2. The instructor responded effectively to student comments and questions. 0 2 5 4 6 1 3.82 3.82 4.10 3.95
3. The instructor generated interest in the course material. 0 2 7 5 2 2 3.44 3.68 3.89 3.76
4. The instructor had a positive attitude toward assisting all students in understanding course material. 0 1 7 6 3 1 3.65 3.71 4.18 4.02
5. The instructor assigned grades fairly. 0 3 4 6 4 1 3.65 3.72 4.14 3.97
6. The instructional methods encouraged student learning. 0 3 5 5 3 2 3.50 3.57 3.84 3.66
7. I learned a great deal in this course. 0 1 5 7 3 2 3.75 3.79 3.91 3.80
8. I had a strong prior interest in the subject matter and wanted to take this course. 1 2 1 6 6 2 3.88 3.71 3.64 3.73
 PoorExcellent 
9. I rate the teaching effectiveness of the instructor as: 0 1 7 7 2 1 3.59 3.53 3.82 3.66
10. I rate the overall quality of the course as: 2 1 7 5 2 1 3.24 3.37 3.70 3.58
Part B: Questions Added by Department or Instructor
11. I was satisfied with the degree of utilization and the quality of the Sakai or course web page in this course. 2 0 4 3 7 2 3.81 3.57 3.92 3.77
12. The computer resources were adequate and sufficiently available for the needs of this course. 2 0 2 4 7 3 3.93 4.03 4.10 3.91
13. If a lab course: the necessary equipment to do the work assigned were adequate and sufficiently available. 0 2 3 4 8 1 4.06 4.05 4.22 4.03
14. If a lab course: the experiments were relevant and the laboratory manual was helpful. 1 1 3 6 6 1 3.88 3.54 3.89 3.86
15. If software was used: I was well prepared to complete the assignments using the required software. (e.g., spice, vhdl, matlab, xlinx logi works, etc.) Comment in question #23, below. 2 0 3 3 7 3 3.87 3.75 3.88 3.78
16. Rate the relative difficulty of this course compared with other engineering courses of similar level. 0 2 3 5 6 2 3.94 3.60 3.62 3.62
17. Indicate the degree of your satisfaction with the MODE of presentation of the material (e.g., traditional chalk-and-blackboard, Powerpoint, etc.) Commment in question #23, below. 1 0 8 1 4 4 3.50 3.35 3.67 3.51
18. If a design course: rate the percentage of the content of this course occupied by the design component. Comment in question #23, below. 0 0 3 3 1 11 3.71 3.50 3.51 3.59
19. If the course had prerequisites: rate the degree of preparation these prerequisites gave you for this course. Comment in question #23, below. 0 2 4 4 3 5 3.62 3.58 3.48 3.41

What do you like best about this course?:

so much work

The teacher's passion

I like the material.

The way it perfectly ties in with what we are doing in class.

Good TA

The curve tracer.

Massive amount of report. Spending more time on lab report than the real course.

hands on learning


In what ways, if any, has this course or the instructor encouraged your intellectual growth and progress?:

hours put in -> insight gained

Important information for the future.

He was VERY helpful in providing us with detailed COMMENTED code examples for the PSPICE.

Gradeigh actually wanted us to hand in legitimate lab reports. While this was commendable the labs were so uninteresting it was more of a chore then anything.

He is so smart, I can't understand him.

TA posted an overview of the scheduling for the remaining half of the semester, which i found to very helpful


If you were teaching this course, what would you do differently?:

update the lab manuals.

Align more with course material. Be more involved with the students work

Nothing

I would overhaul the whole lab manual. It is unclear. There's parts that the TAs skip because they either don't work effectively in the lab or are just time-wasters. Also they could reformat it and create a new editable file instead of just reusing an outdated, un-editable lab manual.

Allow for the submission of hand-done calculations. Typing a page of calculation in a formula editor takes about 45 minutes, so this adds an unnecessary amount of work to the course

Completely revamp the labs, they were a lot of busy work and grueling calculations.

Simple lab report, like 5 pages is good.

TAs need more to equality amongst there requirements for labs/projects


Other comments or suggestions::

Teacher was Gradeigh D Clark, not Abbaslou

need to stay on track with course, always ahead. Did not understand lab until the lesson was taught in class. This made the prelabs AWEFULLY difficult, simply because we didn't know the material.

Have a pre-determined format for the lab reports and projects before the course starts.

Had to switch computers when using PSPICE for some reason even if the design is the same, some would work some won't due to library issues.

the lab reports were really long and took alot of time for a 1 credit class, the thing that mostly bothered me about them were that the other TA's sections had reports that were much easier and took half as long

The whole way the course and the labs were taught was completely unorganized. There we too many announcements, the labs were all pretty similar and amounted to changing voltages/frequencies to make a graph that looks like it's is from the book. Also, the lab manual was completely unprofessional. You could see the reverse side of the page bleeding though the scan, "verba docent exempla trahunt".

Imma die from your happiness.

Remove the Pspice projects and have us just simulate the labs then analyse and compare data

multiple changes to scheduling and lab/project requirements updated to sakai create confusion. more effort to lay out requiments from start and hold to them as best as possible.