Electrical Engineering 290O - Spring 1992

Instructor Roger T. Howe 4 respondents
Discusses points of view other than his/her own 4.3 / 5
Discusses recent developments in the field 5.0 / 5
Gives references for more interesting & invovled points 4.7 / 5
Emphasizes conceptual understanding 4.0 / 5
Lectures clearly 4.7 / 5
Is well prepared 4.7 / 5
Gives lectures that are well organized 4.7 / 5
Summarizes major points 4.0 / 5
States objectives for each class session 4.7 / 5
Identifies what he/she considers important 4.7 / 5
Is careful and precise in answering questions 4.3 / 5
Uses visual aids and blackboards effectively 4.7 / 5
Demonstrates familiarity with subject matter 5.0 / 5
Encourages questions from students 4.7 / 5
Knows if the class is understanding him/her or not 4.7 / 5
Has students apply concepts to demonstrate understanding 3.3 / 5
Has genuine interest in students 4.7 / 5
Gives personal help to students having problems in course 4.0 / 5
Relates to students as individuals 4.0 / 5
Is accessible to students out of class 4.7 / 5
Is valued for advice not directly related to the course 4.7 / 5
Has an interesting style of presentation 4.7 / 5
Is enthusiastic about his/her subject 5.0 / 5
Varies the speed and tone of his/her voice 4.7 / 5
Has concern for the quality of his/her teaching 4.7 / 5
Motivates students to do their best work 4.7 / 5
Gives interesting and stimulating assignments 3.7 / 5
Stimulates your interest in the subject 5.0 / 5
Gives exams permitting students to show understanding 5.0 / 5
Uses a grading system that is clearly defined and equitable 4.0 / 5
Required course material is sufficiently covered in lecture 3.3 / 5
Pace of the course is too fast 1.7 / 5
Course is concerned with theory more than its application 1.7 / 5
The required text is beneficial 4.0 / 5
Work load is heavier than for courses of comparable credit 2.0 / 5
Rate the overall teaching effectiveness of this instructor 6.0 / 7
How worthwhile was this course compared with others at U.C.? 6.0 / 7
Instructor Richard S. Muller 4 respondents
Discusses points of view other than his/her own 4.7 / 5
Discusses recent developments in the field 5.0 / 5
Gives references for more interesting & invovled points 4.7 / 5
Emphasizes conceptual understanding 3.7 / 5
Lectures clearly 4.0 / 5
Is well prepared 4.7 / 5
Gives lectures that are well organized 4.7 / 5
Summarizes major points 4.3 / 5
States objectives for each class session 4.0 / 5
Identifies what he/she considers important 4.3 / 5
Is careful and precise in answering questions 4.7 / 5
Uses visual aids and blackboards effectively 4.7 / 5
Demonstrates familiarity with subject matter 5.0 / 5
Encourages questions from students 4.7 / 5
Knows if the class is understanding him/her or not 4.3 / 5
Has students apply concepts to demonstrate understanding 3.0 / 5
Has genuine interest in students 5.0 / 5
Gives personal help to students having problems in course 4.3 / 5
Relates to students as individuals 4.3 / 5
Is accessible to students out of class 4.7 / 5
Is valued for advice not directly related to the course 5.0 / 5
Has an interesting style of presentation 4.7 / 5
Is enthusiastic about his/her subject 5.0 / 5
Varies the speed and tone of his/her voice 4.3 / 5
Has concern for the quality of his/her teaching 4.7 / 5
Motivates students to do their best work 5.0 / 5
Gives interesting and stimulating assignments 4.0 / 5
Stimulates your interest in the subject 4.7 / 5
Gives exams permitting students to show understanding 4.0 / 5
Uses a grading system that is clearly defined and equitable 4.0 / 5
Required course material is sufficiently covered in lecture 3.7 / 5
Pace of the course is too fast 2.0 / 5
Course is concerned with theory more than its application 1.7 / 5
The required text is beneficial 4.0 / 5
Work load is heavier than for courses of comparable credit 2.0 / 5
Rate the overall teaching effectiveness of this instructor 6.0 / 7
How worthwhile was this course compared with others at U.C.? 6.2 / 7
Instructor Albert Pisano 3 respondents
Discusses points of view other than his/her own 4.0 / 5
Discusses recent developments in the field 5.0 / 5
Gives references for more interesting & invovled points 3.5 / 5
Emphasizes conceptual understanding 3.5 / 5
Lectures clearly 4.5 / 5
Is well prepared 4.0 / 5
Gives lectures that are well organized 4.5 / 5
Summarizes major points 4.0 / 5
States objectives for each class session 4.0 / 5
Identifies what he/she considers important 4.0 / 5
Is careful and precise in answering questions 5.0 / 5
Uses visual aids and blackboards effectively 4.5 / 5
Demonstrates familiarity with subject matter 5.0 / 5
Encourages questions from students 4.5 / 5
Knows if the class is understanding him/her or not 4.0 / 5
Has students apply concepts to demonstrate understanding 2.5 / 5
Has genuine interest in students 4.5 / 5
Gives personal help to students having problems in course 4.0 / 5
Relates to students as individuals 4.0 / 5
Is accessible to students out of class 4.5 / 5
Is valued for advice not directly related to the course 4.5 / 5
Has an interesting style of presentation 4.5 / 5
Is enthusiastic about his/her subject 5.0 / 5
Varies the speed and tone of his/her voice 3.0 / 5
Has concern for the quality of his/her teaching 4.5 / 5
Motivates students to do their best work 4.0 / 5
Gives interesting and stimulating assignments 3.0 / 5
Stimulates your interest in the subject 4.5 / 5
Gives exams permitting students to show understanding N/A
Uses a grading system that is clearly defined and equitable 3.5 / 5
Required course material is sufficiently covered in lecture 3.5 / 5
Pace of the course is too fast 1.5 / 5
Course is concerned with theory more than its application 2.0 / 5
The required text is beneficial 3.5 / 5
Work load is heavier than for courses of comparable credit 2.0 / 5
Rate the overall teaching effectiveness of this instructor 5.0 / 7
How worthwhile was this course compared with others at U.C.? 5.7 / 7
Instructor Richard M. White 4 respondents
Discusses points of view other than his/her own 4.8 / 5
Discusses recent developments in the field 4.8 / 5
Gives references for more interesting & invovled points 4.8 / 5
Emphasizes conceptual understanding 3.5 / 5
Lectures clearly 4.2 / 5
Is well prepared 4.8 / 5
Gives lectures that are well organized 4.0 / 5
Summarizes major points 4.0 / 5
States objectives for each class session 4.2 / 5
Identifies what he/she considers important 4.0 / 5
Is careful and precise in answering questions 4.2 / 5
Uses visual aids and blackboards effectively 4.0 / 5
Demonstrates familiarity with subject matter 5.0 / 5
Encourages questions from students 4.2 / 5
Knows if the class is understanding him/her or not 4.2 / 5
Has students apply concepts to demonstrate understanding 3.5 / 5
Has genuine interest in students 5.0 / 5
Gives personal help to students having problems in course 4.2 / 5
Relates to students as individuals 4.5 / 5
Is accessible to students out of class 4.5 / 5
Is valued for advice not directly related to the course 4.0 / 5
Has an interesting style of presentation 4.0 / 5
Is enthusiastic about his/her subject 5.0 / 5
Varies the speed and tone of his/her voice 4.0 / 5
Has concern for the quality of his/her teaching 4.5 / 5
Motivates students to do their best work 4.5 / 5
Gives interesting and stimulating assignments 3.5 / 5
Stimulates your interest in the subject 4.8 / 5
Gives exams permitting students to show understanding N/A
Uses a grading system that is clearly defined and equitable 3.8 / 5
Required course material is sufficiently covered in lecture 3.3 / 5
Pace of the course is too fast 1.7 / 5
Course is concerned with theory more than its application 1.7 / 5
The required text is beneficial 4.0 / 5
Work load is heavier than for courses of comparable credit 2.0 / 5
Rate the overall teaching effectiveness of this instructor 6.0 / 7
How worthwhile was this course compared with others at U.C.? 6.0 / 7