Overview
I attended Pitt from the fall of 97 through the summer of 2004. I taught the "gentler" Intro course (CS0007) a total of 8 times (through December 2003) and the primary major intro course twice (CS0401). Enrollment varied greatly from as few as 10 to as many as 45. On average I had about 25 students per class while teaching at Pitt.I did not have access to CS department evaluation data (as I did at UW) because evaluations are performed at the university level. As with UW-Madison, evaluations at Pitt include both a ranked form (no sample available) and an open-ended questions (sample open-ended form).
The instructor-related questions from the rated form are:
- Presented the course in an organized manner
- Stimulated my thinking
- Evaluated my work fairly
- Made good use of examples
- Maintained a good learning environment
- Was accessible to students
- Overall teaching effectiveness
Overall Ratings
Student responses to the final question (effectiveness) are
summarized
in the following chart. The university mean was a constant from
year-to-year.
This next chart summarizes student responses to each of the seven instructor-related questions over all of the classes I have taught at Pitt:
As you can see, my means are consistently well above the university means in all categories.
Detailed
breakdown of
all rated categories
The following table shows a more complete view the data from
my Pitt
evaluations. Because the analysis provided by Pitt was different
from UW, this chart is somewhat different. Pitt uses a decile system to help instructors
understand how their ratings compare to everyone else. The
numbers in red represent my decile placement within all
evaluated instructors at Pitt. For example, a 10 implies upper
10% for all rated instructors in that category, 9 means upper
20%, 8 upper 30%, etc.).| Date |
Num Resp |
Organization |
Stimulated Thinking |
Evaluated work farily |
Used Examples |
Learning
Environment |
Accessible |
Teaching Effectiveness |
| fall
97 |
35 |
4.56
(9) |
4.35
(9) |
4.26
(8) |
4.62
(10) |
4.76
(10) |
4.56
(10) |
4.53
(10) |
| spr
98 |
33 |
4.41
(8) |
4.38
(9) |
4.34
(8) |
4.44
(9) |
4.59
(10) |
4.30
(8) |
4.38
(8) |
| fall
98 |
30 |
4.43
(9) |
4.24
(8) |
4.47
(10) |
4.57
(9) |
4.43
(9) |
4.58
(10) |
4.33
(8) |
| spr
99 |
28 |
4.43
(9) |
4.04
(7) |
4.50
(10) |
4.39
(8) |
4.46
(9) |
4.60
(10) |
4.32
(8) |
| sum
01a |
20 |
4.35
(9) |
4.20
(8) |
4.70
(10) |
4.42
(9) |
4.55
(10) |
4.63
(10) |
4.50
(9) |
| sum
01b |
20 |
4.20
(6) |
3.85
(5) |
4.45
(10) |
4.40
(8) |
4.25
(7) |
3.86
(4)¹ |
4.35
(8) |
| fall
01 |
27 |
4.63
(10) |
4.37
(9) |
4.56
(10) |
4.74
(10) |
4.63
(10) |
4.56
(10) |
4.42
(9) |
| spr
02 |
14 |
4.93
(10) |
4.64
(10) |
4.79
(10) |
4.79
(10) |
4.86
(10) |
4.50
(9) |
4.79
(10) |
| mean |
- |
4.49 |
4.26 |
4.51 |
4.55 |
4.57 |
4.45 |
4.45 |
| Univ. mean |
- |
3.99 |
3.79 |
3.99 |
3.94 |
3.97 |
3.95 |
3.87 |
Open-ended
question
responses
In the UW-Madison
evaluations I
presented comments from students in my best rated semester. Below
are comments from my lowest
rated semester: Spring 1999. The question was to identify
strengths and weaknesses
of the instructor (sample):- Strengths:
- He is very energetic and makes programming seem fun. This was my 1st programming class and I was very impressed with his teaching skills, especially considering how young he is.
- enjoyment of subject, application examples
- H. is very personable. He went through the material like most introductory [instructors] would, but he has a personality that is really conducive to teaching. This was the only hour+ course I've taken which I've been able to remain awake the entire time.
- Personality, I really disliked the subject but lecture was much better than it could've been, humor, fairness, approachable
- He really cares if the students don't understand and tries to clarify to the best of his ability.
- Used examples well down to earth, really tried to help all the time.
- Use of examples, showed complex programming ideas in everyday situations, really captured my interest
- The little jokes and side comments gave us a chance to relax and let the information sink in. Good voice - loud enough for everyone to hear.
- Good use of examples, good side comments, jokes, etc.
- Very organized, stories kept class as interesting as Pascal could get, personality was great
- Very well organized + enthusiastic! I think he really cared about students progress + did a great job of clarifying concepts.
- Very enthusiastic.
- Accessible when needed & taught the course in an organized manner.
- He used good examples in class that were helpful to grasp concepts. He also made himself very accessible to students who needed help.
- Friendly, easily approachable, broke things down + went at a nice steady pace with the course, did not try + rush through material, focused on what was important, not petty
- gave many examples to help clarify concepts, very helpful with questions & problems.
- Chad made good use of a lot of examples to explain the concepts. He gave back all assignments very quickly and graded pretty fairly.
- He goes over many examples, gives thorough notes, is helpful when you have ???, he is accomodating if you need help.
- Good sense of humor and enthusiasm, tried to help the students as much as possible
- His ability to relate examples to everyday life.
- The sidenotes help keep class interesting, good use of interesting examples for program code. Having lots of things to be graded on is a good idea. Tests are fair.
- Good use of examples clarified concepts. Jokes kept a lighter feeling in the class. Felt comfortable approaching him for help. Taught well, I learned a lot in class.
- He taught in a competent ordlerly manner.
- Relates material to everyday things whenever possible. Creates a comfortable learning environment.
- Easy to talk to, very down to earth.
- Everything is great, excllent teacher
- Good use of examples. Introduced concepts in a clear and understandable manner.
- Kept the mood light, nice guy, relatively easy
grader, very
knowledgeable, can come up with examples from his head quickly.
- Weaknesses:
(about 20% of
students left it blank)
- programming assignments were too involved compared to other classes at this level
- the notes were sometimes hard to follow on the board during lecture - sometimes went too fast.
- Some of the examples used in class are hard to relate to progs and tests.
- He used too small of examples and his tests were really hard
- very few, potential to be too strict if he loses humor
- Seemed that when you talk, you look at the board a lot and not at the class.
- none, really. Good instructor all around.
- tests & programs were too hard! find a better TA [directed towards me, so this most likely refers to the grader -hcl]
- Sometimes got a little rushed - not too much. personally, I would like to see something besides beer examples. :)
- none really, class sometimes dry & long.
- sometimes went through important topics quick
- sometimes unavailable for help, took a little long to get emails back
- The examples given in class didn't relate to the problems on the tests + the programs.
- Tests were a little too hard... but what can ya say!
- goes a little fast, sometimes unreadable board work
- the class was long and sometimes he had trouble holding my attention the whole time
- talks kind of fast
- Try to give more help in the program instructions.
- none
- nothing
- He does talk fast.
- He writes too low on the board, I can never see the
bottom of
the board. I end up standing to see it.
MAIN PAGE | AWARDS | PHILOSOPHY | EXPERIENCE | EVALUATIONS | MATERIALS | REFERENCES