Teaching Evaluations - Philosophy

TEACHING AND LEARNING DEPARTMENT ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

Kapeldreef 62 – bus 5206 BE-3001 Heverlee

Report of the feedback questionnaire ‘Texts from the History of Philosophy: Seminar’

Fauve Lybaert (2012-2013)

This report presents an overview of the online student questionnaire concerning ‘Texts from the History of Philosophy: Seminar’. Students were being asked to give their opinion on the teaching of the tutor, and also the tutor filled in his or her self-reflection.

The questionnaire is carried out in the context of the educational support for assistants, and the results are being discussed afterwards with the educational developers in the faculty and the Teaching and Learning Department. This exercise is an excellent opportunity to gain insight in teaching skills and is used to optimize teaching where possible, in cooperation with the Teaching and Learning Department.

All questions had to be answered on a 6 point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree).

The first table in this report presents an overview of the results in terms of the mean score, standard deviation, distribution of the answers and the percentage students that disagreed for each question. This last percentage is the sum of ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’ and ‘rather disagree’.

The second table presents a comparison between the tutor and students answers. When the difference in scores between the students and tutor is less than the standard deviation (of students answers), the self-evaluation is correct. If the difference is more than 1 standard deviation, the tutor over- or underestimated him or herself.

2

Table 1: overview answer pattern

question N res

pons mean std

strongly disagree

disagree rather

disagree rather agree

agree strongly

agree % 'disagree

¤

v01 Participation in this course/seminar enabled me to develop skills relevant to my studies in Philosophy

21 75.0% 5.52 0.68 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 28.6% 61.9% 0.0%

v02 The content of this course/seminar was well-structured 21 75.0% 5.43 0.75 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 0.0%

v03 The goals of the course/seminar were clear to me 21 75.0% 5.38 0.67 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 42.9% 47.6% 0.0%

v04 The relation between assignments and requirements during the course/seminar and the final evaluation was made clear

21 75.0% 5.48 0.68 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 33.3% 57.1% 0.0%

v05 The teacher had a good command of the subject matter of the course/seminar

21 75.0% 5.57 0.51 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 42.9% 57.1% 0.0%

v06 The teacher made efficient use of the teaching aids available to him/her (Black/white board, projector, on-line learning platform, Internet resour

21 75.0% 5.24 0.77 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.0% 38.1% 42.9% 0.0%

v07 The teacher made sure we had adequate study material (articles, syllabus, hand-outs...)

21 75.0% 5.71 0.46 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 71.4% 0.0%

v08 The teacher responded to questions in an appropriate manner 21 75.0% 5.62 0.59 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 28.6% 66.7% 0.0%

v09 The teacher showed a willingness to assists students 21 75.0% 5.62 0.67 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 19.0% 71.4% 0.0%

v10 The teacher stimulated me to think about the subject matter of the course/seminar

21 75.0% 5.52 0.51 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 47.6% 52.4% 0.0%

v11 The teacher sustained my intellectual interest in the subject matter 21 75.0% 5.38 0.59 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 52.4% 42.9% 0.0%

v12 The teacher treated students fairly and equally 21 75.0% 5.86 0.36 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 85.7% 0.0%

v13 The teacher was well-prepared for his/her classes 21 75.0% 5.71 0.46 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 71.4% 0.0%

v14 The teachers critical comments were appropriate and timely 21 75.0% 5.62 0.59 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 28.6% 66.7% 0.0%

v15 This course/seminar was adapted to the intellectual level of the students 21 75.0% 5.24 0.89 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 14.3% 33.3% 47.6% 4.8%

v16 There was sufficient opportunity to ask questions and get feedback 21 75.0% 5.62 0.59 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 28.6% 66.7% 0.0%

¤ 'disagree is the sum of 'strongly disagree', 'disagree' and 'rather disagree'

3

Table 2: comparison teacher-students

question self

evaluation (1)

mean answer

students (2)

std (3)

difference students

assistent (4) interpretation (5)

v01 Participation in this course/seminar enabled me to develop skills relevant to my studies in Philosophy 6 5.52 0.68 0.48 =

v02 The content of this course/seminar was well-structured 3 5.43 0.75 -2.43 underestimation

v03 The goals of the course/seminar were clear to me 4 5.38 0.67 -1.38 underestimation

v04 The relation between assignments and requirements during the course/seminar and the final evaluation was made clear 5 5.48 0.68 -0.48 =

v05 The teacher had a good command of the subject matter of the course/seminar 5 5.57 0.51 -0.57 underestimation

v06 The teacher made efficient use of the teaching aids available to him/her (Black/white board, projector, on-line learning platform, Internet resour

5 5.24 0.77 -0.24 =

v07 The teacher made sure we had adequate study material (articles, syllabus, hand-outs...) 5 5.71 0.46 -0.71 underestimation

v08 The teacher responded to questions in an appropriate manner 5 5.62 0.59 -0.62 underestimation

v09 The teacher showed a willingness to assists students 5 5.62 0.67 -0.62 =

v10 The teacher stimulated me to think about the subject matter of the course/seminar 6 5.52 0.51 0.48 =

v11 The teacher sustained my intellectual interest in the subject matter 6 5.38 0.59 0.62 overestimation

v12 The teacher treated students fairly and equally 5 5.86 0.36 -0.86 underestimation

v13 The teacher was well-prepared for his/her classes 5 5.71 0.46 -0.71 underestimation

v14 The teachers critical comments were appropriate and timely 5 5.62 0.59 -0.62 underestimation

v15 This course/seminar was adapted to the intellectual level of the students 4 5.24 0.89 -1.24 underestimation

v16 There was sufficient opportunity to ask questions and get feedback 6 5.62 0.59 0.38 =

(1) answer teacher

(2) mean answer students

(3) standard deviation student answers

(4) difference students-teacher

(5) interpretation. When the difference student-teacher is less then the standard deviation, the self evaluation is correct.

4

Open questions (presented as answered by the students)

What aspects of this course/seminar did you find especially good? Own comment:

The students were almost always all present. They were very concentrated and respectful towards one another (they listened well). In spite of the difficult text we read, we had fruitful, clarifying discussions.

Student’s comments:

Student presentations on texts and the submission of summaries.

I liked that this seminar was more based on discussing and presentations – more practice on speaking, understanding each other, expressing thoughts about the material and good experience on preparing for presentations.

Free discussions.

The opportunity for a guided discussion with fellow students.

The discussions were a very good exercise and also the seminar was very helpful to understand some of the texts that were usually difficult to understand.

The weekly writing task was very helpful to develop writing skills as well as to better settle the information gained from the texts in my memory. I also liked the freedom people were given in designing their own class.

I liked how we had to actively participate in the learning process, rather than be spoon-fed.

The well structured work on the text's: the home work given prior the seminar that lead to the seminar itself and gave opportunity to understand and prepare better for the given matterial.

That the teacher was helpful.

The texts weren't very long which makes it better to write short summaries that provide the core idea of the text.

The fact that there was a lot of participation and there was a constant weekly reading.

good selection of reading material

open discussions

This entire course was very well done.

Having to read varying philosophical texts on varying subjects from varying backgrounds exposed me to a wide scope of thinking hence teaching me many new ideas. It also greatly improved my critical reading speed.

I enjoyed the discussions in the class. I think it really increased our philosophical mindset.

The opportunity to deal with a wide variety of philosophical theories and viewpoints.

I gained more experience and confidence in dealing with difficult analytical texts. I learned how to dissect relevant information from less important. I also learned how to summarize in a short and concise way, and to turn those into presentations that would appeal to my classmates.

5

What changes could be made to improve this course/seminar? Own comment:

I would change the evaluation method of the presentations. Now I evaluated the group which presented as a whole, because I want to stimulate group work at that moment and wanted to avoid that each student just cared about his part of the presentation. However this method of group evaluation is in some cases rather unfair, as certain students clearly did not put in much effort, whereas others do. The next time I would either give half of the mark to the whole group and the other to the presenting individual. Or, I would start with evaluating the group as group, and correct the mark for individuals if a big discrepancy is visible.


Divide the group into smaller discussion groups (so everyone would participate more).

It was a little too big group. But, everything was good.

The course was too easy.

A long term deadline instead of a weekly deadline for assignments.

So far I wouldn't change anything about this seminar.

Since everybody had to post their assignments openly already, it would only make sense to also grade them publicly. Otherwise the benefit one can get from reading other people's texts is limited, as we couldn't always be sure whether they did better or worse than us. Also, the groups for presentations grew very large, and it was a big hassle to try and bring together six people, and try to effectively cooperate.

None that I can think of.

Evaluation should not change during the course if some tasks (in particularly the participation notes) were walid just for half of the course and then they just disappeared and were changed with other ones ("present sheet"to keep track who attended) then the evaluation for them is not clear.

None

Some more texts about philosophy of science are always welcome.

Just to schedule a better hour and make groups of maximum4 people, although it might be hard to do so

less emphasis on presentations, this was an unproductive element of the seminar in my opinion

proposing specific questions from text

I found the seminar to be very well organized and prepared so I wouldn't change anything directly related to the seminar.

I think some subjects in the seminar were tough to grasp. So I would have changed the structure of the seminar.

Some readings were rather long, making it difficult to complete the assignments properly.

I think that the presentations groups should be as small as possible. I think students will learn more if they have to present with only one partner. Then it is also enough to only give one presentation instead of two.

6

Other comments: Own comment:

I thoroughly enjoyed instructing this seminar. The students drove a major part of it, by presenting and guiding the discussion in turn. I think I developed good mandatory blackboard assignments in advance of the class, so the discussions were fruitful. I will greatly miss teaching next semester.


Very enthusiastic teacher.

Fauve likes clarify all things, she's always trying to understand everybody and to be understood by others. She's very smart and I think she did great job!

Fauve was a good assistant and I appreciate her help during the whole semester

I would particularly like to emphasize and commend the teacher's willingness to help her students, not only by answering our questions about this course but also giving us tips on how to study for our other courses and her timely reviews and correction of the summaries we submitted on Toledo.

I really liked Fauve. She comes across as somebody who really knows a lot. I liked the way she taught too, she was just slightly guiding us on the backgroup and really stimulated us in thinking for ourselves.

1

03:38 vrijdag, februari 03, 2012

Report of the feedback questionnaire 'Metaphysics seminar'


International Programme of the Institute of Philosophy This report gives a summary of the online student questionnaire concerning the ‘Metaphysics seminar’.

2


Tabel 1: Summary answers

question N res pons

mean std strongly disagree

disagree rather disagree

rather agree

agree strongly agree

% 'dis'agree

¤

a. This course/seminar was adapted to the intellectual level of the students

20 74.1% 5.10 0.72 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 65.0% 25.0% 5.0%

b. The content of this course/seminar was well-structured 20 74.1% 5.25 0.64 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 55.0% 35.0% 0.0%

c. The teacher stimulated me to think about the subject matter 20 74.1% 5.25 0.97 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 5.0% 35.0% 50.0% 10.0%

d. The goals of the course/seminar were clear to me 20 74.1% 5.20 0.62 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 60.0% 30.0% 0.0%

e. The relation between assignments and requirements during the course/seminar and the final evaluation was made clear

20 74.1% 5.10 1.02 0.0% 0.0% 15.0% 0.0% 45.0% 40.0% 15.0%

f. The teacher was well-prepared for his or her classes 20 74.1% 5.70 0.47 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 70.0% 0.0%

g. The teacher made efficient use of the teaching aids available to him/her (Black/white board, projector, on-line learning platform, Internet resourc

20 74.1% 4.90 0.85 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% 60.0% 20.0% 10.0%

h. The teacher made sure we had adequate study material (articles, syllabus, hand-outs...)

20 74.1% 5.00 0.65 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 0.0%

i. The teacher had a good command of the subject matter of the course/seminar

20 74.1% 5.50 0.69 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 30.0% 60.0% 0.0%

j. The teacher responded to questions in an appropriate manner 20 74.1% 5.75 0.44 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 0.0%

k. The teacher treated students fairly and equally 20 74.1% 5.75 0.44 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 0.0%

l. The teachers critical comments were appropriate and timely 20 74.1% 5.55 0.51 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45.0% 55.0% 0.0%

m. The teacher showed a willingness to assists students 20 74.1% 5.55 0.60 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 35.0% 60.0% 0.0%

n. The teacher sustained the students intellectual interest in the subject matter

20 74.1% 5.40 0.82 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 35.0% 55.0% 5.0%

o. Participation in this course/seminar enabled me to develop skills relevant to my studies in Philosophy

20 74.1% 5.25 1.16 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 10.0% 20.0% 60.0% 10.0%

¤ 'dis'agree is the sum of 'strongly disagree', 'disagree' and 'rather disagree'

3


Tabel 2: Comparison teacher-students

question self

evaluation (1)

mean answer students

(2)

std (3)

difference students assistent

(4)

interpretation (5)

a. This course/seminar was adapted to the intellectual level of the students 5 5.10 0.72 -0.10 =

b. The content of this course/seminar was well-structured 5 5.25 0.64 -0.25 =

c. The teacher stimulated me to think about the subject matter 6 5.25 0.97 0.75 =

d. The goals of the course/seminar were clear to me 5 5.20 0.62 -0.20 =

e. The relation between assignments and requirements during the course/seminar and the final evaluation was made clear

4 5.10 1.02 -1.10 underestimation

f. The teacher was well-prepared for his or her classes 4 5.70 0.47 -1.70 underestimation

g. The teacher made efficient use of the teaching aids available to him/her (Black/white board, projector, on-line learning platform, Internet resourc

6 4.90 0.85 1.10 overestimation

h. The teacher made sure we had adequate study material (articles, syllabus, hand-outs...) 5 5.00 0.65 0.00 =

i. The teacher had a good command of the subject matter of the course/seminar 4 5.50 0.69 -1.50 underestimation

j. The teacher responded to questions in an appropriate manner 5 5.75 0.44 -0.75 underestimation

k. The teacher treated students fairly and equally 5 5.75 0.44 -0.75 underestimation

l. The teachers critical comments were appropriate and timely 5 5.55 0.51 -0.55 underestimation

m. The teacher showed a willingness to assists students 5 5.55 0.60 -0.55 =

n. The teacher sustained the students intellectual interest in the subject matter 5 5.40 0.82 -0.40 =

o. Participation in this course/seminar enabled me to develop skills relevant to my studies in Philosophy 5 5.25 1.16 -0.25 =

(1) answer teacher (2) mean answer students

(3) standard deviation student answers (4) difference students-teacher

(5) interpretation. When the difference student-teacher is less then the standard deviation, the self evaluation is correct.

4


Open questions (presented as answered by the students)

What aspects of this course/seminar did you find especially good?

• The fact that we got a historical overview of metaphysics (which means that everyone gets to read a philosopher he particularly likes) and that we were stimulated to not just read the texts, but understand them thoroughly by writing a summary and question every week.

• The broad overview of the content matter that we were able to see through primary texts. The assignment of presentating and leading the discussion was, for one self, especially useful.

• The great stress on the participation of the students. The idea that the students had to make their own summary of the discussed texts, was stimulating.

• Het was goed om eens verplicht te worden een tekst zodanig lang te bekijken tot je hem begreep/er specifieke vragen omtrent kon formuleren.

• Het format van eerst in kleinere groepjes te discussiëren rond een welbepaalde problematiek in de tekst om daarna de discussie te verbreden naar heel de klas, vond ik bijzonder goed. Deze manier van werken was wel te kiezen door de studenten zelf, maar bleek voor mij heel effectief in het leren werken met teksten en het discussiëren erover. De interjecties van de docent zelf tijdens het werkcollege waren heel waardevol.

• De presentaties vooraf hielpen om de tekst beter te begrijpen. • Het systeem zit heel goed in elkaar. Doordat we de teksten moesten voorbereiden, had iedereen in

de colleges een goede basis om er zich verder in te verdiepen. • Uiteindelijk waren de groepsdiscussies altijd heel aangenaam en gecombineerd met de

presentaties zorgden ze er zo goed als elke keer voor dat ik de stof snapte na de les, wat bij mijn voorbereiding niet altijd het geval was.

• weekly new topics; general historical overview through primary texts • Every week we had to post a summary of the text we had to read for the next seminar on Toledo. I

think this was more appropriate for this kind of seminar than writing a paper about one subject or philosopher at the end of the semester.

• vooral dat we verschillende filosofen en hun theorieen hebben behandeld • The discussions and the way they were organized. The teacher made it easy for everyone to

participate. That we had several authors and there was a mix between continental and analytical philosophy.

• We read the author's own texts. That way, we came into contact with their original ideas and could form our own opinions about them. This reduces the effect of interpretation. When a teacher interprets a text and then provides his/her own version of a text (each teachers highlights some other points), students are confronted already with some sort of opinion of which they make their own, second opinion. Secondly, we had to post a summary and critical suggestion to each text every week. This encouraged us to keep track of the material. We could ask for feedback. Thus, we could improve our writing and make progress. This also resulted in the fact that we didn't have to write a final paper, reducing some of the stress during the exams.

• It was a real challenging course, that made that you could learn a lot from it. The way the course was structured (with the post we had to do on toledo), made that you had to think a lot about the subjects. I learned very much from this seminar, about reading and comprehending philosophical texts. I really had the feeling that I understood things better at the end of the seminars.

• The diversity of metaphysic subjects was very enriching. Yet the course kept being coherent. I've learned to think deeply about different metaphysical subjects, yet maintaining an overlooking perspective. We managed to touch a lot of different metaphysical dimensions

• De verschillende teksten werden goed in de diepte besproken zodat je achteraf de tekst zeker beter begreep. Bovendien was de inhoud vrij gevarieerd, waardoor de stof en de lessen boeiend bleven.

• De selectie van teksten What changes could be made to improve this course/seminar?

5


• Aristotle was of course the main topic this year, but it would have been interesting to get a more

balanced historical overview (more contemporary and modern philosophy and less classical thinking). It is of course understandable to keep to the main topic a bit longer.

• The fact that the initiative was primarily laid down at the students also had its downside; meaning, sometimes more background information, historical placing or explanation, coming from the teacher, was wanted, to be sure the essence was completely understood by the students.

• "Perhaps not that much stress on Aristotle, but on more contemporary philosophers" • Dit seminarie ging vooral over het lezen van teksten en het leren begrijpen ervan. Nederlandse

vertalingen zouden dit vergemakkelijken. Het belang van de samenvattingen was ook niet echt duidelijk (er was geen richtlijn over hoe lang die moest zijn, hoe diep je er moest op ingaan).

• Aanvankelijk was het nog zoeken naar welke lengte van teksten haalbaar was en konden er nog wijzigingen worden aangebracht, waardoor het moeilijk was om een reader te verspreiden vanaf het begin van het semester. Het zou echter wel handig zijn om deze teksten vanaf de eerste les mee te krijgen, zodat we meteen kunnen kiezen welke tekst we willen presenteren en het voorbereidend werk al meteen beter kunnen spreiden.

• De discussies voelden soms erg geforceerd aan. • ik vind dat aan het semenarie weinig veranderd hoeft te worden. • All the texts were in English and for some philosophers that was quite difficult. Maybe some texts in

dutch would have been easier. • / • When we were put in small groups for discussion, it would sometimes occur that the discussion

subjects ran out. Maybe the teacher should've had to intervene a bit quicker, so the discussion wouldn't run dry.

• Soms vond ik het moeilijk om een goed overzicht te bewaren over de studie van metafysica doorheen de tijd. De teksten werden ietwat te veel op zichzelf besproken, waardoor de samenhang af en toe wel wat verloren leek te gaan.

• Eventueel teksten voorzien in het engels maar ook een nederlandse vertaling Other comments:

• Ik vond het steeds erg interessante seminaries. • Zeer degelijk seminarie over heel de lijn! Enorm veel bijgeleerd, zowel op inhoudelijk vlak (breder

inzicht in de auteurs) als op methodologisch vlak (hoe een filosofische tekst te lezen). • In the beginning of the course the texts were a bit too long to make summaries. It took a very long

time. This was changed throughout the course. That way, the amount of material was just right. Metaphysics isn't the easiest course out there, but ms. Lybaert did a really great job in explaining everything in an understandable way and introduced us to the REAL metaphysics: we came in contact with original texts and had to think from our own. Thus engaging us in actually "doing" metaphysics already.

• Let professor Lybaert give this seminar for the next years!

1= I strongly disagree, 2= I disagree, 3= I rather disagree, 4= I rather agree, 5= I agree, 6= I strongly agree

KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT

LEUVEN

2011.02.11

Report of the feedback questionnaire ‘Philosophical Anthropology Seminar’ (W0EC1B)


International Programme of the Institute of Philosophy 1. This course/seminar was adapted to the intellectual level of the students .

Answered: 8 Mean: 4.13 Not answered: 0 Sd: 0.64

0 0 1

52

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6


2

2. The content of this course/seminar was well-structured.


3. The teacher stimulated me to think about the subject matter.


0 0 02 3 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6

0 0 1 1 24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6


3

4. The goals of the course/seminar were clear to me.


5. The relation between assignements and requirements during the course/seminar

and the final evaluation was made clear.


0 0 1 2 14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6

0 0 0 14 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6


4

6. The teacher was well-prepared for his or her classes.


7. The teacher made efficient use of the teaching aids available to him/her

(Black/white board, projector, on-line learning platform, Internet resources).


0 0 0 0 1

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6

0 0 02 1

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6


5

8. The teacher made sure we had adequate study material (articles, syllabus, hand-

outs…).


9. The teacher had a good command of the subject matter of the course/seminar.


0 0 1 0

4 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6

0 0 0 0

4 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6


6

10. The teacher responded to questions in an appropriate manner.


11. The teacher treated students fairly and equally.


0 0 0 0

53

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6

0 0 0 13 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6


7

12. The teacher’s critical comments were appropriate and timely.


13. The teacher showed a willingness to assists students.


0 0 0 14 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6

0 0 0 1 0

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6


8

14. The teacher sustained the student’s intellectual interest in the subject matter.


15. Participation in this course/seminar enabled me to develop skills relevant to my

studies in Philosophy.


0 0 0 03

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6

0 0 1 0

52

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6

9

Comparison Fauve Lybaert - Students

answers

teacher

answers

students

missing

values

mean

(students)

standaard deviation

(students)

difference teacher -

students interpretation

This course/seminar was adapted to the intellectual level of students. D=4 8 0 4,13 ,64 -,13 =

The content of this course/seminar was well-structured. E=5 8 0 5,13 ,83 -,13 =

The teacher stimulated me to think about the subject matter. D=4 8 0 5,13 1,13 -1,13 =

The goals of the course/seminar were clear to me. E=5 8 0 5,00 1,20 ,00 =

The relation between assignments and requirements during the course/seminar and the

final evaluation was made clear. E=5 8 0 5,25 ,71 -,25 =

The teacher was well-prepared for his or her classes. E=5 8 0 5,88 ,35 -,88 underestimation

The teacher made efficient use of teaching aids available to him/her (Black/white board,

projector, on-line learning pla E=5 8 0 5,38 ,92 -,38 =

The teacher made sure we had adequate study material (articles, syllabus, hand-outs,...). D=4 8 0 5,13 ,99 -1,13 underestimation

The teacher had a good command of the subject matter of the course/seminar. E=5 8 0 5,50 ,53 -,50 =

The teacher responded to questions in an appropriate manner. D=4 8 0 5,38 ,52 -1,38 underestimation

The teacher treated students fairly and equally. E=5 8 0 5,38 ,74 -,38 =

The teacher s critical comments were appropriate and timely. E=5 8 0 5,25 ,71 -,25 =

The teacher showed a willingness to assists students. F=6 8 0 5,75 ,71 ,25 =

The teacher sustained the student s intellectual interest in the subject matter. E=5 8 0 5,63 ,52 -,63 underestimation

Participation in this course/seminar enabled me to develop skills relevant to my studies in

Philosophy. E=5 8 0 5,00 ,93 ,00 =

10

16. What aspects of this course/seminar did you find especially good? I think a good aspect was that we were introduced to a variety of philosophers.

Use of Toledo – good, nice to have a class where we could find everything on Toledo.

Certain complicated material was clarified in an interesting yet simple way. Which enabled me to develop skills relevant to my studies in Philosophy, for example.

We’re a small group and it’s easier to understand what we’re working on. Each and every one of us seems to be eager to get through to one another.

Topic Preparation of the teacher. Openness to shape opinions and comments Reading lots of texts by different authors.

The approach to Personal identity was for me new and fresh. After this course, my opinion about analytic philosophers, it’s better than before.

Teacher’s attitude and style of teaching the variety and continuity of the subjects. I liked that this course looked at many different perspectives and traditions to

address one problem – the concept of personal identity. It was well structured and well taught and the content was challenging.

Reaction assistant: The texts were related and the one text could give critique on the other text or bring different texts together.

17. What changes could be made to improve this course? Maybe a brief summary about each philosophers claim at the beginning of each

lecture, sometimes it was difficult to grasp the main idea. To improve the course, I think it should raise more problematic questions with

relation to the topic in order to raise discussion. Movie The text was very hard sometimes, maybe this. Two hours is a bit too short. Class should be at least three hours. Time management could be improved – less review on past concepts and more

analysis of the current text. Also to be more critical of students’ comments when they are off topic/irrelevant etc so the discussion is more focused.

Reaction assistant: I could tell the students in advance to focus on particular parts and not on other parts. I could put a hand-out on Toledo after class with the most important points.

18. Other comments:

Taking into account the context of the whole semester. I find this class to be very

useful. I think it was a good seminar. Thank to the good work of the teacher. Overall I really enjoyed this course. The texts were interesting and challenging and

the discussions were enriching for the most part. I think Ms Lybaert did a really good job of instructing the course and making relevant examples.

Reaction assistant: * It would be good to have a projector and project the text or show some PowerPoint for structure. * The texts were definitely really hard for the students, but I still choose them because one of the main goals of the seminar was to learn how to read texts, not to remember all details of the text. Still next time, I may put some easier texts in between the more difficult ones.

Teaching evaluation by students – Philosophy of Mind/ ‘Wijsgerige psychologie’

Instructor: Fauve Lybaert

Course: Philosophy of Mind/ ‘Wijsgerige psychologie’, KU

Leuven, Institute of Philosophy, First bachelors, Dutch program

Student total: 49

Date: Spring 2011

Course description:

I taught the sessions on personal identity.

Description of the data below: Below you’ll find individual charts with student responses to each question, as well as some written student feedback. Students’ evaluations (green shades refer to agreement, red to disagreement)

I disagree4%

I somewhat disagree

13%

I somewhat agree21%

I agree54%

I strongly agree6%

no opinion/ I do not know

2%

This course/seminar was intellectually demanding

I disagree4% I somewhat

disagree8%

I agree76%

I strongly agree12%

This course/seminar was well-organized in terms of subject matter

I disagree4%

I somewhat disagree

12%

I somewhat agree29%

I agree39%

I strongly agree16%

The teacher stimulated the student to think about the subject matter of

the course/seminar

I disagree4%

I somewhat disagree

4%I somewhat

agree14%

I agree59%

I strongly agree19%

The teacher communicated a clear sense of direction to the

course/seminar as a whole

I strongly disagree

2%

I disagree4%

I somewhat disagree

12%I somewhat

agree21%

I agree53%

I strongly agree6%


2%

This course/seminar was intellectually demanding

I disagree2%

I somewhat agree

2%

I agree25%

I strongly agree69%


2%

The teacher was well prepared for his or her classes.

I strongly disagree

2%I somewhat

disagree6%

I somewhat agree25%

I agree47%

I strongly agree18%


2%

The teacher made efficient use of the teaching aids available to him/her

(Black/white-board, projector, hand-outs)

I disagree2%

I somewhat disagree

4%

I somewhat agree10%

I agree57%

I strongly agree23%


4%

The teacher communicated a good command of the subject matter of

the course/seminar.

I somewhat disagree

4%

I somewhat agree

8%

I agree41%

I strongly agree47%

The teacher responded to questions in an appropiate manner

I disagree2%

I agree29%

I strongly agree67%


2%

The teacher treated students fairly and equally.


agree23%

I agree55%

I strongly agree10%

no opinion/ I do not

know8%

The teacher's critical comments were appropriate and timely.


agree2%

I agree20%

I strongly agree76%

The teacher showed a willingness to assist students

Some impressions of students:

“This course was interesting and well presented.”

“Great care for students.” “Er was veel aandacht voor het feit of iedereen alles wel

verstond.” “[The teacher is] very patient [and] clear].” “De leerkracht was erg

behulpzaam en betrokken bij de leerstof.” “Aangename lessen op ideaal tempo.”

“Er was zeker ruimte voor het bediscussiëren van de leerstof.” “Question responding:

was always to the point.” “Could answer questions very good.” “The teacher is very

motivated, especially when she had to answer the questions of the students.”

I disagree2%

I somewhat disagree

4%

I somewhat agree29%

I agree53%

I strongly agree12%

The teacher sustained the student's intellectual interest in the subject

matter.

I disagree4%

I somewhat disagree

4%

I somewhat agree18%

I agree45%

I strongly agree23%


6%

Participation in this course/seminar enabled the student to develop skills

relevant to his or her studies in Philosophy

“Duidelijke uitleg en goede interactie met de studenten.” “Very clear, good teaching.

Friendly towards everyone.” “Leerkracht was zeer behulpzaam. Stond open voor

vragen.” “I appreciated that any question could be asked, because we always get

complete and clear answers.” “Geduldig antwoorden op vragen.”

“Very clear, well structured lessons.” “Het was goed uitgelegd, duidelijk,

gestructureerd.” “Klare uitleg van de stof.” “It was very clear.” “Everything was very

clear!” “Well structured.” “The lectures were very clear.” “A lot of examples were

given.” “Duidelijke uitleg.” “De lessen waren duidelijk en gestructureerd. Inleiding en

slot waren goed.” “De lessen waren duidelijk en de onderwerpen waren duidelijk

omlijnd.” “Duidelijk, overzichtelijk.” “The course was well organised and structured.

It built up logically and coherently.” “Goede herhaling na elke les en duidelijke

samenvattingen.”

“The teacher had a strong background. She knew at all times what she was talking

about. The subject was well defined.”

“Teacher was very well prepared.” “Teacher was well prepared.” “De lessen waren

zeer goed voorbereid.”

Q: What aspects of this course did you find especially good? A: “The relevance of the

topics for psychology students.”

Teaching evaluation by students – Tutorial Philosophy of Mind – Group 1


Course: Tutorial Philosophy of Mind (Group 1), KU Leuven, Institute

of Philosophy, First bachelors, Dutch program

Student total: 12

Date: Spring 2011

Course description:

The intention of this tutorial is to prepare students well for their exam. I explain what they did not understand in class. I further give advice on how to prepare for the exam, as well as on how to tackle the exam itself.

Description of the data below: You’ll find individual charts with student responses to each question which was asked, as well as some written student feedback. The questions are standard questions. Students answer the same questions independent of whether they attended a lecture series, seminar or tutorial. So not all questions are as relevant to this particular tutorial.

Students’ evaluations (numbers refer to absolute numbers of students):

0 2 4 6 8 10

This course/seminar wasintellectually demanding

no opinion/ I do notknow

I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

This course/seminar waswell-organized in terms of

subject matter


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

The teacher stimulated thestudent to think about the

subject matter of thecourse/seminar


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

The teacher communicateda clear sense of direction to

the course/seminar as awhole

0 1 2 3 4 5 6


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

The relation betweenassignments and

requirements during thecourse/ seminar and the

final evaluation of thestudent were made clear.


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 5 10 15

The teacher was wellprepared for his or her

classes.


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

I strongly disagree

0 1 2 3 4 5

The teacher made efficientuse of the teaching aids

available to him/her(Black/white-board,

projector, hand-outs)


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

The teacher communicateda good command of the

subject matter of thecourse/seminar.

I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

I strongly disagree

0 2 4 6 8 10

The teacher responded toquestions in an appropiate

manner


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

The teacher treatedstudents fairly and equally.


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

The teacher showed awillingness to assist

students


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

A student’s impression:

0 2 4 6 8

The teacher sustained thestudent's intellectualinterest in the subject

matter.


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

Participation in thiscourse/seminar enabledthe student to develop

skills relevant to his or herstudies in Philosophy


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

The teacher's criticalcomments were

appropriate and timely.


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

"Monitoraat was zeer nuttig, helder en duidelijke uitleg, zelfs beter als de les zelf. Goed gedaan en heel erg bedankt!"

Teaching evaluation by students – Tutorial Philosophy of Mind – Group 2


Course: Tutorial Philosophy of Mind (Group 2), KU Leuven,

Institute of Philosophy, First bachelors, Dutch program

Student total: 13

Date: Spring 2011

Course description:

The intention of this tutorial is to prepare students well for their exam. I explain what they did not understand in class. I further give advice on how to prepare for the exam, as well as on how to tackle the exam itself.

Description of the data below: You’ll find individual charts with student responses to each question which was asked, as well as some written student feedback. The questions are standard questions. Students answer the same questions independent of whether they attended a lecture series, seminar or tutorial. So not all questions are as relevant to this particular tutorial.

Students’ evaluations (numbers refer to absolute numbers of students):

0 2 4 6 8 10

This course/seminar wasintellectually demanding


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

This course/seminar waswell-organized in terms of

subject matter


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

The teacher stimulated thestudent to think about the

subject matter of thecourse/seminar


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

The teacher communicateda clear sense of direction to

the course/seminar as awhole


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

The relation betweenassignments and

requirements during thecourse/ seminar and the

final evaluation of thestudent were made clear.


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8 10

The teacher was wellprepared for his or her

classes.


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

The teacher made efficientuse of the teaching aids

available to him/her(Black/white-board,

projector, hand-outs)


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

The teacher communicateda good command of the

subject matter of thecourse/seminar.


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

The teacher responded toquestions in an appropiate

manner


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

The teacher treatedstudents fairly and equally.


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

The teacher's criticalcomments were

appropriate and timely.


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

The teacher showed awillingness to assist

students


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

The teacher sustained thestudent's intellectualinterest in the subject

matter.


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

0 2 4 6 8

Participation in thiscourse/seminar enabledthe student to develop

skills relevant to his or herstudies in Philosophy


I strongly agree

I agree

I somewhat agree

I somewhat disagree

I disagree

Some impressions of students:

“Zeer heldere uitleg van de soms redelijk complexe leerstof, maakte veel duidelijk.”

“heel goed uitgelegd, gestructureerd, zeer aangename lessen”

“The teacher was always interested in the students’ opinions”

“Very well organized and prepared.”

“Duidelijke uitleg. Vragen van studententen goed beantwoord.”

“Ingewikkelde problemen heel duidelijk gemaakt.”

1. Fauve Lybaert, the guest instructor, explained the course material clearly. Strongly Disagree = 1/Disagree = 2/Uncertain = 3/Agree = 4/Strongly Agree = 5

R 1 0 0.00%

R 2 4 14.81%

R 3 1 3.70%

R 4 12 44.44%

R 5 5 18.52%

N/A 0 0.00%

N/R 5 18.52%

Mean 3.82

STD 1.01

2. The guest instructor's section of the course was well organized. Strongly Disagree = 1/Disagree = 2/Uncertain = 3/Agree = 4/Strongly Agree = 5

0 0.00%

2 7.41%

2 7.41%

11 40.74%

7 25.93%

0 0.00%

5 18.52%

4.05 0.90

3. The atmosphere in the guest instructor's classes was conductive to learning. Strongly Disagree = 1/Disagree = 2/Uncertain = 3/Agree = 4/Strongly Agree = 5

0 0.00%

3 11.11%

2 7.41%

9 33.33%

8 29.63%

0 0.00%

5 18.52%

4.00 1.02

4. The guest instructor was sensitive to student needs. Strongly Disagree = 1/Disagree = 2/Uncertain = 3/Agree = 4/Strongly Agree = 5

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

3 11.11%

13 48.15%

6 22.22%

0 0.00%

5 18.52%

4.14 0.64

5. I learned a great deal from the guest instructor. Strongly Disagree = 1/Disagree = 2/Uncertain = 3/Agree = 4/Strongly Agree = 5

0 0.00%

5 18.52%

2 7.41%

12 44.44%

3 11.11%

0 0.00%

5 18.52%

3.59 1.01

1. Fauve Lybaert, the guest instructor, explained the course material clearly. Strongly Disagree = 1/Disagree = 2/Uncertain = 3/Agree = 4/Strongly Agree = 5

R 1 0 0.00%

R 2 1 4.17%

R 3 2 8.33%

R 4 9 37.50%

R 5 7 29.17%

N/A 0 0.00%

N/R 5 20.83%

Mean 4.16

STD 0.83

2. The guest instructor's section of the course was well organized. Strongly Disagree = 1/Disagree = 2/Uncertain = 3/Agree = 4/Strongly Agree = 5

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

2 8.33%

12 50.00%

5 20.83%

0 0.00%

5 20.83%

4.16 0.60

3. The atmosphere in the guest instructor's classes was conductive to learning. Strongly Disagree = 1/Disagree = 2/Uncertain = 3/Agree = 4/Strongly Agree = 5

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

2 8.33%

12 50.00%

5 20.83%

0 0.00%

5 20.83%

4.16 0.60

4. The guest instructor was sensitive to student needs. Strongly Disagree = 1/Disagree = 2/Uncertain = 3/Agree = 4/Strongly Agree = 5

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

3 12.50%

10 41.67%

6 25.00%

0 0.00%

5 20.83%

4.16 0.69

5. I learned a great deal from the guest instructor. Strongly Disagree = 1/Disagree = 2/Uncertain = 3/Agree = 4/Strongly Agree = 5

0 0.00%

3 12.50%

1 4.17%

9 37.50%

6 25.00%

0 0.00%

5 20.83%

3.95 1.03

Depar tment of Ph i losophy

140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02467–0123

13 September, 2010

To Whom It May Concern: In the Spring of 2010 at Boston College I invited Fauve Lybaert to lead a series of four classes for two sections of my undergraduate course entitled Philosophy of the Person. Students in both of the courses enjoyed the classes very much. The content of her teaching was clear, balanced, and subtle, and she quickly established a respectful and compassionate connection with the class. These are the things that make an excellent teacher. Her choice of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations was superb and fit the themes of the course very well. She began her classes with a clear but nuanced overview of the differences and similarities between analytic and continental philosophical approaches, then discussed the change in Wittgenstein’s approach from the Tractatus to the Investigations before concentrating on the argument against private language. She began classes with seminar-style discussion, which often led to that day’s lecture topic, and then usually closed with discussion. The first thing that stood out about her teaching style was an ability to situate problems clearly in the realm of philosophical discourse. She was adept at indicating how useful the diversity of philosophical opinion is without losing sight of how compelling the current argument was. This unusual balance of philosophical judgement requires a broad grasp of philosophical work, clarity of expression, and a clear grip on the actual problems at hand. On the other hand she was dedicated to developing in students core practices necessary to philosophical thinking. Each class she discussed with students in a very candid way how they worked with the text, highlighting good techniques for comprehension and giving them very helpful suggestions for engaging the text critically. She gave one assignment to quote, paraphrase, and analyze an argument, and had students respond to and improve one another’s work. These activities focus directly on elements of the practice of doing philosophy, which would benefit almost anyone. In these classes Fauve showed the ability, insight, and passion that will make her a great teacher. Sincerely, Mark Sentesy

Teaching Evaluations - Philosophy

Documents

Transcript of Teaching Evaluations - Philosophy