Department of Chemistry, Indiana University, 800 E. Kirkwood Ave. Bloomington, IN 47405. afeig@indiana.edu
[ Home | Course Goals | Assignments | Course Content | Teaching Methods | Assessments | Student Evaluations | Self-Evaluation | Discussions | Appendices ]
MOLECULAR VISUALIZATION EVALUATION (EVALUATION FORM). After completing the molecular visualization exercises on problem set three, the students were asked to fill out evaluation forms regarding the program Protein Explorer and their perception of the benefits and potential for future use.
BEST EVALUATIONS. The Bureau of Evaluative Studies and Testing (BEST) oversees student evaluation of all courses at IU. The chemistry department uses these standardized evaluations to obtain feedback on all courses. The survey includes 17 multiple choice questions and 3 open-ended questions. For the questions listed below, 4.0 indicates strong agreement with the statement and 0 represents strong disagreement. Results of those surveys are shown in the table below for both Fall 2000 and Fall 2001. The Fall 2000 numbers are provided as a point of comparison, to show how the changes made in the curriculum have altered student perception of C484.
| Question | Fall 2000 | Fall 2001 |
| 1. Overall, I would rate the quality of the course as outstanding. | 2.00 | 2.92 |
| 2. Overall, I would rate this instructor as outstanding. | 1.83 | 2.94 |
| 3. This course is well organized. | 2.52 | 3.23 |
| 4. My instructor is well prepared for class meetings. | 3.06 | 3.55 |
| 5. My instructor explains the subject clearly. | 2.04 | 2.83 |
| 6. It is easy to hear and understand my instructor. | 2.63 | 3.42 |
| 7. My instructor is enthusiastic about teaching this course. | 2.63 | 3.62 |
| 8. My instructor makes the subject interesting. | 1.85 | 2.91 |
| 9. My instructor is regularly available for consultation. | 2.23 | 3.00 |
| 10. I am pleased with the text required for this course. | 1.60 | 2.79 |
| 11. Course assignments help in learning the subject matter. | 2.14 | 2.81 |
| 12. Duplicated handouts are valuable supplements to this course. | 2.44 | 3.42 |
| 13. The level of difficulty of this course is appropriate for me. | 2.24 | 2.94 |
| 14. The grading procedures for the course are fair. | 1.41 | 3.21 |
| 15. The exams cover the most important aspects of the course. | 1.18 | 3.00 |
| 16. Exams in in this course are fair. | 1.34 | 2.85 |
| 17. I learned a lot in this course. | 2.36 | 3.15 |
The evaluations show that student satisfaction was overall quite high, significantly higher this year than last year. The change of the textbook from Voet & Voet to Garrett & Grisham lead to a great improvement in student satisfaction (question 10) in spite of a few students who made explicit comments about disliking the current text. There was also a dramatic change in the perception regarding the grading procedures in spite of the fact that they were fundamentally the same. The difference probably stems from the fact that the exams were easier and shorter with a somewhat higher mean during Fall 2001, leading to an overall psychological improvement rather than an actual change.
The expository comments were overall quite favorable although there were some substantive criticisms as would be expected. 44 of 53 respondents included comments. There were students who liked the Socratic method I use for class sessions and others that were less enthusiastic with it. A few of the comments have been included below to represent some of the general trends echoed by several students:
- It made a huge difference to me that Prof. Feig learned and used our names. Frankly, had he not shown so much interest in us and such enthusiasm for the class, I probably would not try nearly as hard as I do. Prof. Feig's enthusiasm is contagious! Having the class notes/slides handed out was very helpful too!
- I have never had an instructor supply me so many tools for learning the subject. Instructor has a very good idea of what topics of course are most difficult for students to understand and he does a great job of teaching.
- Interactive learning made lectures both interesting and enjoyable.
- It was frustrating working with the computer programs sometimes when things didn't work right and it took a lot of time working out bugs, but overall using the computers (especially PDB and Chime) was beneficial and will be useful in the future.
- Too much emphasis on making students participate... Let whoever wants to participate do it on their own.
- I really don't like the way he lectures. It is more of a discussion than a lecture.
- Exams are too long.
Informal student feedback provides strong incentive to continue to use bioinformatics exercises in this course. Several of the students have come to me and told me how helpful this course has been. They report using the web and the bioinformatics databases extensively in their work for other classes without being explicitly told to do so by their instructor. Thus, knowledge of these tools and their ability to use them has changed the way they approach learning. These students are actively seeking enrichment beyond the textbooks and class lecture/discussion, taking advantage of the way information is disseminated and analyzed in modern biochemistry.
On Friday, 9/21/01, a colleague of mine observed and critiqued the classroom discussion. That day’s topic was protein folding and the GroEL/GroES chaperone complex. The following are verbatim comments from his critique:
- I enjoyed the class very much… I thought you did a good job.
- [You were] particularly good at involving the students in discussion and getting interesting and topical material in front of the students. I noticed that most of the students were very attentive.
- You explained things well and handled questions fluidly. It is clear that the students have no problem asking questions, so they must be feeling pretty comfortable. Excellent use of graphics. This was clearly a case where graphics can be used very effectively. I enjoyed the way the kids ooohed when you rotated the protein.