Electrical Engineering 225C - Spring 1991

Instructor Jan Rabaey 16 respondents
Discusses points of view other than his/her own 3.9 / 5
Discusses recent developments in the field 4.3 / 5
Gives references for more interesting & invovled points 4.0 / 5
Emphasizes conceptual understanding 3.6 / 5
Lectures clearly 3.3 / 5
Is well prepared 3.5 / 5
Gives lectures that are well organized 3.3 / 5
Summarizes major points 3.1 / 5
States objectives for each class session 3.5 / 5
Identifies what he/she considers important 3.9 / 5
Is careful and precise in answering questions 3.2 / 5
Uses visual aids and blackboards effectively 3.4 / 5
Demonstrates familiarity with subject matter 4.3 / 5
Encourages questions from students 3.7 / 5
Knows if the class is understanding him/her or not 3.0 / 5
Has students apply concepts to demonstrate understanding 2.9 / 5
Has genuine interest in students 3.5 / 5
Gives personal help to students having problems in course 3.1 / 5
Relates to students as individuals 3.6 / 5
Is accessible to students out of class 3.6 / 5
Is valued for advice not directly related to the course 3.7 / 5
Has an interesting style of presentation 3.5 / 5
Is enthusiastic about his/her subject 4.3 / 5
Varies the speed and tone of his/her voice 3.9 / 5
Has concern for the quality of his/her teaching 3.7 / 5
Motivates students to do their best work 3.1 / 5
Gives interesting and stimulating assignments 2.9 / 5
Stimulates your interest in the subject 3.5 / 5
Gives exams permitting students to show understanding 3.0 / 5
Uses a grading system that is clearly defined and equitable 2.7 / 5
Required course material is sufficiently covered in lecture 3.4 / 5
Pace of the course is too fast 3.8 / 5
Course is concerned with theory more than its application 2.1 / 5
The required text is beneficial 2.4 / 5
Work load is heavier than for courses of comparable credit 2.7 / 5
Rate the overall teaching effectiveness of this instructor 4.6 / 7
How worthwhile was this course compared with others at U.C.? 4.4 / 7
Instructor Robert W. Brodersen 15 respondents
Discusses points of view other than his/her own 3.4 / 5
Discusses recent developments in the field 3.8 / 5
Gives references for more interesting & invovled points 3.5 / 5
Emphasizes conceptual understanding 3.0 / 5
Lectures clearly 2.6 / 5
Is well prepared 2.9 / 5
Gives lectures that are well organized 2.9 / 5
Summarizes major points 3.1 / 5
States objectives for each class session 3.3 / 5
Identifies what he/she considers important 3.5 / 5
Is careful and precise in answering questions 2.8 / 5
Uses visual aids and blackboards effectively 2.8 / 5
Demonstrates familiarity with subject matter 3.9 / 5
Encourages questions from students 3.3 / 5
Knows if the class is understanding him/her or not 2.6 / 5
Has students apply concepts to demonstrate understanding 2.6 / 5
Has genuine interest in students 3.0 / 5
Gives personal help to students having problems in course 2.8 / 5
Relates to students as individuals 2.9 / 5
Is accessible to students out of class 3.1 / 5
Is valued for advice not directly related to the course 3.3 / 5
Has an interesting style of presentation 2.6 / 5
Is enthusiastic about his/her subject 3.9 / 5
Varies the speed and tone of his/her voice 3.1 / 5
Has concern for the quality of his/her teaching 3.0 / 5
Motivates students to do their best work 2.9 / 5
Gives interesting and stimulating assignments 2.6 / 5
Stimulates your interest in the subject 2.8 / 5
Gives exams permitting students to show understanding 2.3 / 5
Uses a grading system that is clearly defined and equitable 2.5 / 5
Required course material is sufficiently covered in lecture 3.0 / 5
Pace of the course is too fast 3.6 / 5
Course is concerned with theory more than its application 2.2 / 5
The required text is beneficial 2.6 / 5
Work load is heavier than for courses of comparable credit 2.9 / 5
Rate the overall teaching effectiveness of this instructor 3.7 / 7
How worthwhile was this course compared with others at U.C.? 4.2 / 7
TA S. Tony
This instructor's ratings are hidden.