TEACHING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

APPENDIX 2.3. TEACHING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

i) Student Evaluation a. Student Evaluation-Teaching Index Chart b. Student Feedback on Teaching Summary of Evaluation

STAFF TEACHING INDEX CHART AY 2008 Sem 2 ADM Printed on 11-MAY-2009

Staff ID: G5791157W Name: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez

100 87.49

87.22 80

Lecture Seminar

Teaching Index

Tutorial

60

40

20

0

Sample Size

0

2008/2009

2008/2009

Sem1

Sem2

2008/2009 Sem1 FDN120

2008/2009 Sem2 FDN122

20 40

38

44

60

Average School Mean Acad Year

2006

2006

2007

2007

2008

2008

Class Type

LEC

TUT

LEC

TUT

LEC

TUT

Mean Teaching Index Score in School

81.48

80.55

80.52

81.74

81.09

79.95

Num Staff

23

15

34

35

38

70

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation School of Art, Design and Media

Back

| Close

Main Menu

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2008/2009 - Semester 1 Date: 14-MAY-2009 13:21:13 Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: FDN120 2D DES & COLOR WORKSHOP I Type : Tutorial, Group G3

Criteria for consideration Preparation & Organisation - The instructor is well-prepared for class.

1 - Lessons are systematically structured and organized.

Knowledge - The instructor appears knowledgeable in teaching his/her subject.

2 - The instructor is able to use alternative ways of explaining the material when necessary.

Enthusiasm for the subject - The instructor teaches the subject with passion.

3 - The instructor simulates my interest in the subject.

Learning and Thinking - The instructor's teaching approach 4 stimulates thinking and problem solving.

Delivery - The instructor communicates effectively.

5 - The pace and pitch of the class session is appropriate 6 Effectiveness - I learnt a lot about the subject from

Total Mean SD Response

Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree (5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

13

4.85

.36

11

2

0

0

0

13

4.69

.61

10

2

1

0

0

13

4.54

.5

7

6

0

0

0

13

4.38

.74

7

4

2

0

0

13

4.15

.66

4

7

2

0

0

13

4.38

.49

5

8

0

0

0

this instructor.

Overall Rating 7 The instructor is proficient in his/her teaching.

13

4.62

.49

8

5

0

0

0

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.52 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 4.68, Lowest Teaching Score: 3.28 Median Teaching Score: 4.16 Other Comments What do you like best about the instructor with regard to his/her teaching?

1. Very passionate about given subject to teach.

2. She keeps encouraging you, even though you know that your work isn't fantastic. She'll suggest ways of improving, and she always provides the extra help (through her own stash of art books and whatnot) when she can give it.

3. I like how she is very kind, and so very encouraging with her students. She is also know what she is doing in class.

4. She is very detailed in her teachings and she is very concern about the students' work. Dedicated.

5. Ina is a very nice lady who is patient. She is very friendly and warm towards her students and this allows her students to approach her without fear.

6. the assignments she gives are very interesting and leaves us with alot of room for creativity. there're very simple guidelines and that's all, the rest is really up to us to create based on our creativeness. she encourages experimentation with different medium instead of going digital all the time.

7. I like her approachable nature, which allows me to learn more than just what is taught in class.

8. Highly flexible and that's really fun for students like us who enjoy exploring with the new mediums and concepts we are exposed to.

What improvements would you suggest, if any?

1.

2. PLEASE GIVE US ALL MORE, and BETTER printers! One printer in Block S3.1 that is very very unreliable is not enough for everyone... (Because we need to print a lot for this module...)

3. I think she should be clearer on how things should be, without being afraid to hurt us or something. I think she should be clearer, like if the work's bad, then say that it's bad.

4.

5.

6. probably give more useful critiques. as most of the time, she praises almost everyone's works but the grades we get varies quite abit. eg; she would say that classmate A's work is beautiful, very nice. and classmate B's work is wonderful, so pretty. but in the end, classmate A gets a grade B and classmate B gets a grad A. this leaves many of us wondering, what's the difference between "beautiful, nice" and "wonderful, pretty".

7.

8.

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation School of Art, Design and Media

Back

| Close

Main Menu

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2008/2009 - Semester 1 Date: 14-MAY-2009 13:22:51 Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: FDN120 2D DES & COLOR WORKSHOP I Type : Tutorial, Group G5

Criteria for consideration Preparation & Organisation - The instructor is well-prepared for class.

1 - Lessons are systematically structured and organized.

Knowledge - The instructor appears knowledgeable in teaching his/her subject.

2 - The instructor is able to use alternative ways of explaining the material when necessary.

Enthusiasm for the subject - The instructor teaches the subject with passion.

3 - The instructor simulates my interest in the subject.

Learning and Thinking - The instructor's teaching approach 4 stimulates thinking and problem solving.

Delivery - The instructor communicates effectively.

5 - The pace and pitch of the class session is appropriate 6 Effectiveness - I learnt a lot about the subject from

Total Mean SD Response

Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree (5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

12

4.17

.55

3

8

1

0

0

12

4.17

.55

3

8

1

0

0

12

4.33

.47

4

8

0

0

0

12

4

.41

1

10

1

0

0

12

3.92

.49

1

9

2

0

0

12

3.92

.49

1

9

2

0

0

this instructor.

Overall Rating 7 The instructor is proficient in his/her teaching.

12

4.08

.28

1

11

0

0

0

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.08 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 4.68, Lowest Teaching Score: 3.28 Median Teaching Score: 4.16 Other Comments What do you like best about the instructor with regard to his/her teaching?

1. basically makes 2D fastinating to study.

2. very structured classes each week with clear agenda importance given to basic concepts and elements that are necessary for the course

What improvements would you suggest, if any?

1. she is over fickle in her opinions.changes critiques each week.

2. more exposure to hands-on techniques and skill-based knowledge during class

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

Characters typed: 0

Add Comments

Print

Cancel

School of Art, Design and Media

Back Copyright Š 2001-2009 Nanyang Technological University All Rights Reserved

| Close

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation School of Art, Design and Media

Back

| Close

Main Menu

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2008/2009 - Semester 1 Date: 14-MAY-2009 13:23:48 Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: FDN120 2D DES & COLOR WORKSHOP I Type : Tutorial, Group G8

Criteria for consideration Preparation & Organisation - The instructor is well-prepared for class.

1 - Lessons are systematically structured and organized.

Knowledge - The instructor appears knowledgeable in teaching his/her subject.

2 - The instructor is able to use alternative ways of explaining the material when necessary.

Enthusiasm for the subject - The instructor teaches the subject with passion.

3 - The instructor simulates my interest in the subject.

Learning and Thinking - The instructor's teaching approach 4 stimulates thinking and problem solving.

Delivery - The instructor communicates effectively.

5 - The pace and pitch of the class session is appropriate 6 Effectiveness - I learnt a lot about the subject from

Total Mean SD Response

Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree (5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

13

4.62

.49

8

5

0

0

0

13

4.69

.46

9

4

0

0

0

13

4.62

.84

10

2

0

1

0

13

4.46

.63

7

5

1

0

0

13

4.38

.84

7

5

0

1

0

13

4.23

.7

5

6

2

0

0

this instructor.

Overall Rating 7 The instructor is proficient in his/her teaching.

13

4.38

.63

6

6

1

0

0

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.48 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 4.68, Lowest Teaching Score: 3.28 Median Teaching Score: 4.16 Other Comments What do you like best about the instructor with regard to his/her teaching?

1. Her comments are very constructive and effective in helping me to improve my work.

2. Very cheerful and enthusiastic teacher. She helps every student bring out their best in them and draw out ideas that they normally won't think of. She is also very appreciative of her students' works too.

3. She is about the most passionate professor who is very concerned about our work, right from the concept to the process and finally the product. She gives the most constructive and specific ideas, suggestions, comments and stimulates interest in the student for his/her own project. She also does not think twice about giving students her own books for referencing purposes and her own acrylic/alcohol based materials for their work.

4. A very dedicated teacher who truly understands her trait. Encourages student to play with materials and explore with depth. Trains student to be artistes by putting their works on platforms.

5. She usually brings out design books to inspire and stimulate creative thinking in class before we start on a project and that has encouraged me to delve into more research and development, to widen my creative scope before embarking on a new assignment/project.

What improvements would you suggest, if any?

1.

2. None 3. Ina should probably be more discerning towards the judging of the final work and not be influenced too much by the so-called stories behind its conception, which might also sometimes stray away from the project brief's specifications.

4.

5. Perhaps slide show presentations could have a shorter duration as 2D technical subjects can get painfully dry.

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

Characters typed: 0

Add Comments

Print

Cancel

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation School of Art, Design and Media

Back

| Close

Main Menu

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2008/2009 - Semester 2 Date: 11-MAY-2009 20:23:41 Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: FDN122 2D DES & COLOUR WKSHOP II Type : Tutorial, Group G3

Criteria for consideration Preparation & Organisation - The instructor is well-prepared for class.

1 - Lessons are systematically structured and organized.

Knowledge - The instructor appears knowledgeable in teaching his/her subject.

2 - The instructor is able to use alternative ways of explaining the material when necessary.

Enthusiasm for the subject - The instructor teaches the subject with passion.

3 - The instructor simulates my interest in the subject.

Learning and Thinking - The instructor's teaching approach 4 stimulates thinking and problem solving.

Delivery - The instructor communicates effectively.

5 - The pace and pitch of the class session is appropriate 6 Effectiveness - I learnt a lot about the subject from

Total Mean SD Response

Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree (5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

17

4.82

.38

14

3

0

0

0

17

4.59

.49

10

7

0

0

0

17

4.88

.32

15

2

0

0

0

17

4.29

.67

7

8

2

0

0

17

4.35

.68

8

7

2

0

0

17

4.47

.5

8

9

0

0

0

this instructor.

Overall Rating 7 The instructor is proficient in his/her teaching.

17

4.71

.46

12

5

0

0

0

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.59 Other Comments What do you like best about the instructor with regard to his/her teaching?

1. I loved the projects Ina gave us. I felt that they were challenging, engaging, and really allowed us to be creative and stretched our potential.

2. She shares her feelings and honest opinion on her views of our work..

3. She gives a lot of freedom for students to display our ideas and gives sufficient information during classes to help us proceed with projects. Her flexibility with time and deadlines allow students to produce better work independently.

4. Ina is a very friendly and gentle teacher. She never fails to inspire us with her keenness and attitude toward this subject. Graphic design is not my forte but I have been looking forward to attending her classes because of the sustained interest she can instill every week. She is very loving toward us, and cares for not only our work but also our general well-being. Her interest and attitude toward our artworks throughout the semester has encouraged and inspired many of us to continue working diligently for this module even though we may be very busy with others.

5. very supportive and motivating. assignments give students alot of room to think freely and push boundaries. likes the non-conformity of her teaching style.

6. Always ready to help students. We love Ina!

What improvements would you suggest, if any?

1. Would like to have a good, working color laser/inkjet 2D printer at the open lab. It would save us alot of time journeying down to print shops outside school.

2.

3. Resources at S3.1 for foundation year is lacking. Especially the printers and papers. Students have to travel to and fro town/ADM building to get printing done. The access of the rooms is also limited after class hours, which restricted students to work and use equipments inside the studio of respective modules (e.g paper cutter, rulers, materials) Foundation students have no proper access to hands-on equipments after class (even in ADM building). At S3.1, there is a lack of space for students to put up work and lighting is poor for portfolio execution.

4.

5.

6.

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

Characters typed: 0

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation School of Art, Design and Media

Back

| Close

Main Menu

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2008/2009 - Semester 2 Date: 11-MAY-2009 20:45:16 Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: FDN122 2D DES & COLOUR WKSHOP II Type : Tutorial, Group G8

Criteria for consideration Preparation & Organisation - The instructor is well-prepared for class.

1 - Lessons are systematically structured and organized.

Knowledge - The instructor appears knowledgeable in teaching his/her subject.

2 - The instructor is able to use alternative ways of explaining the material when necessary.

Enthusiasm for the subject - The instructor teaches the subject with passion.

3 - The instructor simulates my interest in the subject.

Learning and Thinking - The instructor's teaching approach 4 stimulates thinking and problem solving.

Delivery - The instructor communicates effectively.

5 - The pace and pitch of the class session is appropriate 6 Effectiveness - I learnt a lot about the subject from

Total Mean SD Response

Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree (5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

13

4.46

.5

6

7

0

0

0

13

4.62

.49

8

5

0

0

0

13

4.69

.46

9

4

0

0

0

13

4.15

.36

2

11

0

0

0

13

4.15

.53

3

9

1

0

0

13

4.31

.46

4

9

0

0

0

this instructor.

Overall Rating 7 The instructor is proficient in his/her teaching.

13

4.38

.49

5

8

0

0

0

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.39 Other Comments What do you like best about the instructor with regard to his/her teaching?

1. She's a good prof whose passionate and always ready to assist her students, be it giving advises or lending us materials. She never rejects or disagree ideas from students but strive to improve on them with examples and resources.

2. She imparts very useful techniques to students.

3. One of only two tutors that make me like the module and want to work hard for it because of the effort she puts in. Her guidance is always present and its never too late to reach her, for that, i thank her.

4. She is very open minded to everyone's styles and interests, she appreciates different aspects of beauty.

5. her lessons of what she expects of us is clear, she gives a clear template of what she expects(the minimal standard she accepts) and she lets us expand further and develop our own ideas

What improvements would you suggest, if any?

1. Its wonderful as it is!

2. I hope the school will allow art works to be place around the school. Currently the school looks like a office and lacks any inner-asesthetic value. Its uninspiring. In addition, the school lacks any studio to allow students to do exploratory work. There rarely is any open classroom. In addition, Foundation year students do not get to use studio labs (eg,Lighting studio) and is only allowed a limited amount of selection in borrowing equipments. I suggest the school allow foundation year students those in their various major to share the spaces and equiments with their seniors.

3.

4. More towels/rags, fans, squeegees in the print room.

5.

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

Characters typed: 0

Add Comments

Print

Cancel

School of Art, Design and Media

Back Copyright Š 2001-2009 Nanyang Technological University All Rights Reserved

| Close

21/11/2011

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summar. Of Evaluation

Main Menu Choos e another Feedback

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2011/2012 Semester 1 Date: 21-NOV-2011 03:40 PM Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chave.

Course: DN1002 (FOUNDATION 2D I ) Method: TUT, Group: G9 Actual Class Si e: 18

Criteria for consideration

Total Mean Responses

SD

Strongl Agree

Strongl Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

Encouraged engagement in the course As a result of the teaching 1 approaches taken b this facult member, I was involved and interested in the course.

17

4.41

.77

9

7

0

1

0

Communicated clearl This facult member was eas to 2 understand in all forms of communication including in classes, online, and in writing.

17

4

1.03

6

8

0

3

0

Was approachable This facult member created 3 opportunities, either in classes, or outside classes, for students to ask questions and seek help.

17

4.65

.48

11

6

0

0

0

Helped students understand important concepts This facult member took steps to ensure that I understood how the 4 subject matter of the course is framed b principles or concepts, or how the details fit together into concepts.

17

4.29

.75

7

9

0

1

0

17

4.18

.51

4

12

1

0

0

Encouraged critical thinking in the subject area The teaching approaches of this 5 facult member encouraged me to think deepl and anal ticall about ntu.edu.sg/

/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY

1/4

21/11/2011

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

.

I

.

Presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical w a.

T

17

4.24

.64

6

9

2

0

0

17

4.35

.68

8

7

2

0

0

.

J

Encouraged creative thinking in the subject matter T ' .

(I ) Mean Teaching Score: 4.3 (A ) Highest Teaching Score: 4.73, Lowest Teaching Score: 3.38 Median Teaching Score: 4.3 Do ou hav e an further comments on this facult member's encouragement of engagement in the course?

1. M

.F

Do ou hav e an further comments on this facult member's abilit to communicate clearl ?

1.

A '

I

&

,

,

'

,&I

.

Do ou hav e an further comments about this facult member's approachabilit ?

1. A

I

.

Do ou hav e an further comments about how this facult member helped ou understand concepts?

1.

I

S 2. & "

.T

.

"

.C

'

,

,

& .

'

Do ou hav e an further comments to make about this facult member's encouragement of critical thinking?

1. S

.A

,

.

Do ou hav e an further comments on the wa this facult member presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical wa ? ntu.edu.sg/

/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY

2/4

21/11/2011

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

Do . ou hav e an further comments on the wa this facult member encouraged creativ e thinking in the subject matter?

1. Wan.

op

h he bo nda ie , e c.

Please comment on this facult member's strengths 1. Ve 2.

pa

iona e eache

ho in pi e and mo i a e

den

ell.

Ve engaging and a gh a lo of impo an concep . Al a p ojec .

illing o help hen Im in need o in do b

i h he

3. Kind a i de, ea il app oachable.

4. Able o empha i e impo ance of de ign p inciple .

5.

She go a pa ion on eaching and impa ing kno ledge o and e f n and lea ning p ojec .

6. Ina'

e

f iendl and app oachable.

7. I hink he made each le 8.

. I can feel he a m in he eaching. Engage

She i al a inno a i e.

on in e e ing and a gh e e

o fle ible and app oachable

hing clea l .

o . He commen

and feedback a e al a

con

c i e and

Please comment on how the facult member might improv e the teaching and learning in this course.

1. nil 2. Some in

c ion gi en e e no clea .

3. mo e con

l a ion e

4.

ion d ing p ojec

Ina belie e he' clea abo he in p oblem lie in he lang age..

5. be le

bjec i e hen ie ing

han no mal

c ion b

o ial

ha ' onl beca

ei'

epea ed a fe

ime . Ho e e he

den ' o k.

6. 7. I hink ma be he can ho

a li le mo e ideo

8. i hope ha he e ill ha e mo e of i

ela ed o he co

al e ample fo ea

e.

dige ion of each ne a

ignmen .

On av erage, I rate the difficult of the content taught b this facult member as compared to the rest of the courses I hav e taken, as m ch mo e diffic l

0

ligh l mo e diffic l 3 ame

8

ligh l ea ie

5

m ch ea ie

1

I attended: 80% o mo e of he cla Some ha le Le ntu.edu.sg/

e

a gh b

han 80% of he cla

han 50% of he cla

e

hi fac l

membe

17

e

a gh b

hi fac l

membe 0

a gh b

hi fac l

membe

0

/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY

3/4

21/11/2011

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

Where it was required, I prepared for the classes taught by this faculty member: All, or most of the time 15 Some of the time

1

Hardl. an of the time 0 Never

0

Print

Cancel

. 2001-2011 Nanyang Tec hnological Univ ers ity

ntu.edu.sg/

/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY

4/4

29/5/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation

Main Menu Choos e another Feedback

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2011/2012 Semester 1 Date: 29-MAY-2014 11:58 AM Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: DN1002 (FOUNDATION 2D I) Method: TUT, Group: G5 Actual Class Size: 18 Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

.5

10

9

0

0

0

4.42

.59

9

9

1

0

0

19

4.68

.46

13

6

0

0

0

19

4.47

.5

9

10

0

0

0

Encouraged critical thinking in the subject area The teaching approaches of this faculty member encouraged me to 5 think deeply and analytically about the knowledge and concepts in the course.

19

4.37

.48

7

12

0

0

0

Presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical w ay I The way this faculty member designed and conducted classes helped to build my knowledge and understanding in a systematic way.

19

4.37

.48

7

12

0

0

0

Encouraged creative thinking in the subject matter J This faculty member's teaching invited me to think about the subject matter in innovative and inventive ways.

19

4.42

.67

10

7

2

0

0

Total Responses

Mean

Encouraged engagement in the course 1 As a result of the teaching approaches taken by this faculty member, I was involved and interested in the course.

19

4.53

Communicated clearly 2 This faculty member was easy to understand in all forms of communication including in classes, online, and in writing.

19

Was approachable 3 This faculty member created opportunities, either in classes, or outside classes, for students to ask questions and seek help.

Criteria for consideration

4

Helped students understand important concepts This faculty member took steps to ensure that I understood how the subject matter of the course is framed by principles or concepts, or how the details fit together into concepts.

SD

Strongly Disagree Disagree

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.47 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 4.73, Lowest Teaching Score: 3.38 Median Teaching Score: 4.3 Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's encouragement of engagement in the course?

1. Nil 2. we are taught to do beyond the requirements, to excel and push our limits. a great motivation

Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's ability to communicate clearly?

1. sufficient lecture slides and sessions to equip us for what is to come.

2. Nil

Do you hav e any further comments about this faculty member's approachability?

1. Nil 2. very delighted to hear of new concepts/idea, greatly boost students morale!

Do you hav e any further comments about how this faculty member helped you understand concepts?

1. Nil

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/webexe88/owa/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

1/3

29/5/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

2. it is important to cultivate a vision of excellence and I can feel it from her teaching approach.

Do you hav e any further comments to make about this faculty member's encouragement of critical thinking?

1. Nil 2. a reason behind every action, it looks like this applies to everything in the universe heh.

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical way?

1. Nil

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member encouraged creativ e thinking in the subject matter?

1. Nil

Please comment on this faculty member's strengths 1. encouraging 2. N.A. 3. She lets us explore without much restriction based on the themes.

4. Encouragement and guidance 5. She would be able to express to us her expectations and in what direction we are supposed to head.

6. Very helpful and encouraging. Constructive feedback.

7. giving constructive critics.

8. Very passionate about teaching and very serious about students understanding and learning the right things.

9. Very encouraging and accepts all the difference strength/ knowledge we have.

10. Very approachable. Very committed. Understanding.

11. She gives a thorough explanation of project briefs, as well as patient to hear out our ideas.

12. She always encourage students to explore and define the topics themselves.

13. ability to guide and give good advices, encourages student to work on their strength 14. Able to present ideas clearly.

Please comment on how the faculty member might improv e the teaching and learning in this course.

1. She should go deeper in the new definition and how to apply it on the work.

2. N.A. 3. ~ 4. Provide more visuals 5. More technical approach?

6.

To equally divide tutorial time in class so that each student gets an equal amount of time to enquire about their works. i.e.Time management for presentations and in-class tutorials

7. None 8. -

On av erage, I rate the difficulty of the content taught by this faculty member as compared to the rest of the courses I hav e taken, as much more difficult

1

slightly more difficult 7 same

7

slightly easier

2

much easier

1

I attended: 80% or more of the classes taught by this faculty member

18

Somewhat less than 80% of the classes taught by this faculty member 0 Less than 50% of the classes taught by this faculty member

0

Where it was required, I prepared for the classes taught by this faculty member: All, or most of the time 17 Some of the time

1

Hardly any of the time 0 Never

0

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/webexe88/owa/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

2/3

11/06/2012

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation

Main Menu Choos e another Feedback

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2011/2012 Semester 2 Date: 11-JUN-2012 12:10 PM Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: DN1006 (FOUNDATION 2D II) Method: TUT, Group: G5 Actual Class Size: 19 Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

.32

15

2

0

0

0

4.71

.46

12

5

0

0

0

17

5

0

17

0

0

0

0

17

4.88

.32

15

2

0

0

0

Encouraged critical thinking in the subject area The teaching approaches of this faculty member encouraged me to 5 think deeply and analytically about the knowledge and concepts in the course.

17

4.76

.42

13

4

0

0

0

Presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical w ay I The way this faculty member designed and conducted classes helped to build my knowledge and understanding in a systematic way.

17

4.88

.32

15

2

0

0

0

Encouraged creative thinking in the subject matter J This faculty member's teaching invited me to think about the subject matter in innovative and inventive ways.

17

5

0

17

0

0

0

0

Total Responses

Mean

Encouraged engagement in the course 1 As a result of the teaching approaches taken by this faculty member, I was involved and interested in the course.

17

4.88

Communicated clearly 2 This faculty member was easy to understand in all forms of communication including in classes, online, and in writing.

17

Was approachable 3 This faculty member created opportunities, either in classes, or outside classes, for students to ask questions and seek help.

Criteria for consideration

4

Helped students understand important concepts This faculty member took steps to ensure that I understood how the subject matter of the course is framed by principles or concepts, or how the details fit together into concepts.

SD

Strongly Disagree Disagree

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.87 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 4.87, Lowest Teaching Score: 2.83 Median Teaching Score: 4.35 Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's encouragement of engagement in the course?

Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's ability to communicate clearly?

Do you hav e any further comments about this faculty member's approachability?

1. Highly approachable and friendly :)

Do you hav e any further comments about how this faculty member helped you understand concepts?

1. Lots of notes and link to help us better understand theories.

Do you hav e any further comments to make about this faculty member's encouragement of critical thinking?

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical way?

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/webexe88/owa/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

1/3

11/06/2012

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member encouraged creativ e thinking in the subject matter?

Please comment on this faculty member's strengths 1. Very friendly and approachable. One of the best prof to speak to.

2. very approachable and encouraging,lessons are enjoyable makes lessons fun. very patient and understanding and is very encouraging of all our projects. engages deeply with students on a very individual and personal level.

3.

4. Very experienced and inspiring! Projects are carefully planned and interesting to carry out. very friendly and approachable, teaches us by hands on techniques, thus demonstrates she knows what she's doing. encourages creative thought and enjoying your work instead of doing for the sake of doing and grades.

5.

6. Really passionate about the arts and the well being of her students. Great teacher!

7. Very mindful and flexible to students' workload, stressing importance of quality over a fast job done. Guides each students work progress and improving the next.

8. Very approachable. Encourage challenges to student.

Miss Ina is very encouraging, which inspires me to do well in my work and take pride in it too. She is also dedicated to her teaching, often giving thorough advice 9. and feedback on our projects on how they can be improved. With her guidance, I am more compelled to experiment with new ideas and go beyond my comfort zone.

10. approachable and helpful. guide and does not spoon feed. i love her.

11. Ina is very approachable and friendly and always gives very constructive criticism.

12. very freeform Ina's passion and commitment to the ideas and execution of works by her students is unparalleled. From idea conception to regular checking in, her assignments 13. present a challenge, but never once going overboard. Going beyond her role as an assistant professor, Ina inspires her students to creatively invest in their work and not just go through the motions like clockwork.

Please comment on how the faculty member might improv e the teaching and learning in this course.

1. 2. 3. she's awesome enough as it is 4. Nil. 5.

Perhaps she can tap more on her overseas education knowledge and weave it into her lessons/work requirements for students to benefit even more from her wealth of experience. Teach more classes because many students want to be under her tutelage.

On av erage, I rate the difficulty of the content taught by this faculty member as compared to the rest of the courses I hav e taken, as much more difficult

0

slightly more difficult 5 same

9

slightly easier

2

much easier

1

I attended: 80% or more of the classes taught by this faculty member

17

Somewhat less than 80% of the classes taught by this faculty member 0 Less than 50% of the classes taught by this faculty member

0

Where it was required, I prepared for the classes taught by this faculty member: All, or most of the time 17 Some of the time

0

Hardly any of the time 0 Never

0

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

Characters typed: 0

Save Comments

Print

Cancel

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/webexe88/owa/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

2/3

11/06/2012

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation

Main Menu Choos e another Feedback

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2011/2012 Semester 2 Date: 11-JUN-2012 12:12 PM Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: VIS290 (PATTERN,ART,DES & ARCHITECTURE) Method: TUT, Group: G1 Actual Class Size: 22 Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

.63

7

5

1

0

0

4.69

.46

9

4

0

0

0

13

4.69

.46

9

4

0

0

0

13

4.62

.62

9

3

1

0

0

Encouraged critical thinking in the subject area The teaching approaches of this faculty member encouraged me to 5 think deeply and analytically about the knowledge and concepts in the course.

13

4.54

.63

8

4

1

0

0

Presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical w ay I The way this faculty member designed and conducted classes helped to build my knowledge and understanding in a systematic way.

13

4.62

.62

9

3

1

0

0

Encouraged creative thinking in the subject matter J This faculty member's teaching invited me to think about the subject matter in innovative and inventive ways.

13

4.62

.62

9

3

1

0

0

Total Responses

Mean

Encouraged engagement in the course 1 As a result of the teaching approaches taken by this faculty member, I was involved and interested in the course.

13

4.46

Communicated clearly 2 This faculty member was easy to understand in all forms of communication including in classes, online, and in writing.

13

Was approachable 3 This faculty member created opportunities, either in classes, or outside classes, for students to ask questions and seek help.

Criteria for consideration

4

Helped students understand important concepts This faculty member took steps to ensure that I understood how the subject matter of the course is framed by principles or concepts, or how the details fit together into concepts.

SD

Strongly Disagree Disagree

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.61 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 4.61, Lowest Teaching Score: 4.61 Median Teaching Score: 4.61 Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's encouragement of engagement in the course?

Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's ability to communicate clearly?

Do you hav e any further comments about this faculty member's approachability?

1. Very friendly to all ideas, despite we may have very different ideas compared to peers in class.

Do you hav e any further comments about how this faculty member helped you understand concepts?

1. shows tons of examples, provides notes to bring across point.

Do you hav e any further comments to make about this faculty member's encouragement of critical thinking?

1. encouraged different kinds of experimentation whenever possible. she is happy to see all kinds of effort done.

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical way?

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/webexe88/owa/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

1/3

11/06/2012

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member encouraged creativ e thinking in the subject matter?

Please comment on this faculty member's strengths 1. I like how she calls in experts to show us what we are interested in.

2.

very understanding as always, and sensitive to the time needed for each project. i very much agree with the cancellation of project three, two projects are good enough for learning; if only we had a chance to further develop project 1!

3. Extremely vibrant presentation strategies - encourages students to be more proactive in using spaces as a medium in itself.

4. nil 5.

Ina is very passionate about what she is teaching and gives opportunities for students to explore and experiment in their interests with the themes of subjects in class. She has been a very patience professor and try her best to engage each of us with the best she can.

6. Very helpful and approachable. Ina is very friendly and she understands the workload students are going through. empathetic and very flexible.

7.

Ina's passion in the subject is very evident and her positive outlook always bolster the class' confidence! Ina is such a pleasant professor that allows all her students to fully express themselves in all aspects of their work! would definitely recommend all my peers being taught by her!

8.

Ina is a great prof to have as a mentor. She has a different aesthetic from most other profs and as such, it's always an interesting workflow to get into. It is refreshing to attend her class.

9. ability to see beyond the scope of our projects, envisioning it with bigger agenda 10. A very dedicated and passionate educator, willing to go the extra miles for her students, always inspiring.

11. Very supportive of ideas and motivates students well

Please comment on how the faculty member might improv e the teaching and learning in this course.

1. more continuation of project 1 :) 2. Slightly better time/project management to include 1 more assignment to round-off the module.

3. nil 4. two projects are more manageable than three.

5. sometimes her criticism are too nice, people might not get it!

6. Maybe have just two major projects. I did feel that the weight of the projects were not distributed evenly due to the time eventually spent on the second one.

7. -nil8. More hands-on activities/experimental exercises in pattern-making

On av erage, I rate the difficulty of the content taught by this faculty member as compared to the rest of the courses I hav e taken, as much more difficult

0

slightly more difficult 6 same

4

slightly easier

3

much easier

0

I attended: 80% or more of the classes taught by this faculty member

13

Somewhat less than 80% of the classes taught by this faculty member 0 Less than 50% of the classes taught by this faculty member

0

Where it was required, I prepared for the classes taught by this faculty member: All, or most of the time 12 Some of the time

1

Hardly any of the time 0 Never

0

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

Characters typed: 0

Save Comments

Print

Cancel

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/webexe88/owa/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

2/3

11/21/12

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation

Main Menu Choos e another Feedback

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2012/2013 Semester 1 Date: 21-NOV-2012 11:00 PM Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: DN1002 (FOUNDATION 2D I) Method: TUT, Group: G3 Actual Class Size: 20 Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

.46

12

5

0

0

0

4.47

.5

8

9

0

0

0

17

4.88

.32

15

2

0

0

0

Total Responses

Mean

Encouraged engagement in the course 1 As a result of the teaching approaches taken by this faculty member, I was involved and interested in the course.

17

4.71

Communicated clearly 2 This faculty member was easy to understand in all forms of communication including in classes, online, and in writing.

17

Was approachable 3 This faculty member created opportunities, either in classes, or outside classes, for students to ask questions and seek help.

Criteria for consideration

SD

Strongly Disagree Disagree

4

Helped students understand important concepts This faculty member took steps to ensure that I understood how the subject matter of the course is framed by principles or concepts, or how the details fit together into concepts.

17

4.65

.48

11

6

0

0

0

5

Encouraged critical thinking in the subject area The teaching approaches of this faculty member encouraged me to think deeply and analytically about the knowledge and concepts in the course.

17

4.53

.5

9

8

0

0

0

Presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical w ay I The way this faculty member designed and conducted classes helped to build my knowledge and understanding in a systematic way.

17

4.53

.5

9

8

0

0

0

Encouraged creative thinking in the subject matter J This faculty member's teaching invited me to think about the subject matter in innovative and inventive ways.

17

4.76

.42

13

4

0

0

0

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.65 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 5, Lowest Teaching Score: 3.29 Median Teaching Score: 4.44 Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's encouragement of engagement in the course?

1. Nil

Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's ability to communicate clearly?

1. Nil

Do you hav e any further comments about this faculty member's approachability?

1. Makes efforts to be available to answer students queries after lessons as well.

2. Nil

Do you hav e any further comments about how this faculty member helped you understand concepts?

1. Nil

Do you hav e any further comments to make about this faculty member's encouragement of critical thinking?

1. I've done lots of reading because of her uploading slides to edventure 2. Nil

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical way?

1. NIL

wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

1/2

11/21/12

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member encouraged creativ e thinking in the subject matter?

1. She allowed room for flexibility 2. Nil

Please comment on this faculty member's strengths 1. She ensures that her concepts are communicated clearly.

2. Very friendly and approachable!

3. deliver art concepts well 4. Gives detailed briefs of all projects and exercise which guides student to fullest.

5. She is very approachable and cares for her students.

6. Very friendly towards students 7. Helps to present the topics clearly. Approachable in consulting about ideas.

8. Ina is very patient and willing to help us out whenever we consult her.

9. She is very nice and approachable! She is extremely helpful as she never hesitates to provide us with reference materials to help generate ideas.

10. Allowed freedom of students to work they way they want to. students do not feel restricted when producing their works.

11. Very approachable and encouraging on our ideas. Patient with our works!

12. She is very patient and encouraging.

13. 14. Ina was very caring and approachable to all students. We bonded well with her.

Please comment on how the faculty member might improv e the teaching and learning in this course.

1. I wish she could overlook the creation of groups more carefully. An isolate like me is bound to have personality clashes with other cliquey groups.

2. nil 3. NIL 4. NIL 5. 6. Her handling of an incident in class left a bit to be desired. There was a class issue with one of the students being overly demanding and bringing in her parents to accuse other students of being unfriendly even though she was the one not pulling her weight on the project. Ina showed considerable understanding to all students 7. but I feel that she could have stood up for the accused students or taken a neutral stance rather than taking the side of the girl just because her parents were overbearing and demanding. I feel that the school acted rather unfairly in this matter so there was little that she could have done in the end. However, I still think that Ina could have stood up for her students rather than giving in the way she did.

On av erage, I rate the difficulty of the content taught by this faculty member as compared to the rest of the courses I hav e taken, as much more difficult

0

slightly more difficult 5 same

6

slightly easier

4

much easier

2

I attended: 80% or more of the classes taught by this faculty member

17

Somewhat less than 80% of the classes taught by this faculty member 0 Less than 50% of the classes taught by this faculty member

0

Where it was required, I prepared for the classes taught by this faculty member: All, or most of the time 15 Some of the time

2

Hardly any of the time 0 Never

0

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

Characters typed: 0

Save Comments

Print

Cancel

Š 2001-2012 Nanyang Tec hnologic al Univ ersity

wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

2/2

11/21/12

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation

Main Menu Choos e another Feedback

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2012/2013 Semester 1 Date: 21-NOV-2012 10:58 PM Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: DN1002 (FOUNDATION 2D I) Method: TUT, Group: G2 Actual Class Size: 20 Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

.49

12

8

0

0

0

4.2

.75

8

8

4

0

0

20

4.85

.36

17

3

0

0

0

Total Responses

Mean

Encouraged engagement in the course 1 As a result of the teaching approaches taken by this faculty member, I was involved and interested in the course.

20

4.6

Communicated clearly 2 This faculty member was easy to understand in all forms of communication including in classes, online, and in writing.

20

Was approachable 3 This faculty member created opportunities, either in classes, or outside classes, for students to ask questions and seek help.

Criteria for consideration

SD

Strongly Disagree Disagree

4

Helped students understand important concepts This faculty member took steps to ensure that I understood how the subject matter of the course is framed by principles or concepts, or how the details fit together into concepts.

20

4.35

.65

9

9

2

0

0

5

Encouraged critical thinking in the subject area The teaching approaches of this faculty member encouraged me to think deeply and analytically about the knowledge and concepts in the course.

20

4.35

.73

10

7

3

0

0

Presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical w ay I The way this faculty member designed and conducted classes helped to build my knowledge and understanding in a systematic way.

20

4.45

.59

10

9

1

0

0

Encouraged creative thinking in the subject matter J This faculty member's teaching invited me to think about the subject matter in innovative and inventive ways.

20

4.65

.48

13

7

0

0

0

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.49 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 5, Lowest Teaching Score: 3.29 Median Teaching Score: 4.44 Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's encouragement of engagement in the course?

Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's ability to communicate clearly?

1. Instructions tend to be a little confusing sometimes.

Do you hav e any further comments about this faculty member's approachability?

Do you hav e any further comments about how this faculty member helped you understand concepts?

Do you hav e any further comments to make about this faculty member's encouragement of critical thinking?

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical way?

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member encouraged creativ e thinking in the subject matter?

Please comment on this faculty member's strengths 1. Really approachable.

2.

Prof Ina is very nice and always encourages us to do better. Even when we are facing problems, she is always readily available for consults and will give us her views on our works.

wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

1/3

11/21/12

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

3. Very Encouraging. Warm. Approachable. Open to and welcome all students' ideas and views. Brings out the best in every student.

4. She is very approachable. She shows enthusiasm and interest in her students' works.

5.

She has alot of patience, and does not reject ideas from students without valid reasonings. Moreover, she also encouraged us to come out with our personalised ideas/ works with our own individual styles.

6.

She is approachable. She does not compromise on the depth of an idea because she pushes you to explore your potential on the subject. She encourages, corrects and challenges but do so in a way that you can accept. She also gives you a very clear idea as to how you can do well in her class. Ina rocks.

7. She is always approachable and ready to give ideas.

8. encouraging to all 9. Creative and out of the box 10. She is very encouraging and approachable, always ready to give advice and suggestions on how to improve.

11.

She is always providing valuable and constructive feedback, this is especially important to me as an art student when I am not able to take a step back and view my work from a third person's point of view.

12. Affable and encouraging towards creativity.

13. Very approachable, very open-minded to our ideas and what we want to do. Makes an effort to do interesting activities and assignments for class.

14.

Ina is very patient with the students. She guides and give adequate comments and feedbacks to the works we produce which is essential to further progress ourselves. She is really very approachable, no matter what problems we have she will try ways to solve or give alternatives.

15. she is very keen on helping us expand our ideas and is always willing to teach us more than what she originally planned on She is very encouraging which propels us to explore and develop new ideas. Even when we feel that the idea might not work out, she still encourages us to develop the ideas further and with her vast knowledge and experience, she steers us in the direction, building upon our original idea towards creating something 16. feasible but still allowing us to explore and showcase our original idea. She also is very open to hear us out and is open to feedback constantly about her teaching. She makes sure that we understand that we get her. She is always looking out for ways to make her classes more interesting and engaging, suggesting interesting projects we get to do using the skills we learnt from her class.

17.

Not just a teacher but a motherly figure and friend who is very encouraging and warm. Her confidence in us helps us believe in our work, and that pushes us to excel and become better artists.

Please comment on how the faculty member might improv e the teaching and learning in this course.

1. I think sometimes instructions get misinterpreted and it is inevitable. However Prof Ina will often clarify then ASAP! 2. - Nil 3. She's nice.

4. She could be clearer in conveying her messages during class. Although she did always send reminder emails to confirm our doubts.

5. 6. 7. Maybe she could introduce more in-class practices with traditional media (besides ink drawings and monoprinting) 8. Structuring on theory.

9. 10. Probably do more hands on work=) 11. 12.

Introduce other activities to do while other classmates are seeking consultation - Set a task for class members to complete by the end of class: E.g. Monoprints, draw 10 sets of drawings (Where applicable to current projects)

On av erage, I rate the difficulty of the content taught by this faculty member as compared to the rest of the courses I hav e taken, as much more difficult

0

slightly more difficult 2 same

11

slightly easier

6

much easier

1

I attended: 80% or more of the classes taught by this faculty member

20

Somewhat less than 80% of the classes taught by this faculty member 0 Less than 50% of the classes taught by this faculty member

0

Where it was required, I prepared for the classes taught by this faculty member: All, or most of the time 16 Some of the time

2

Hardly any of the time 0 Never

2

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

Characters typed: 0

wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

2/3

13/2/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation

Main Menu Choos e another Feedback

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2012/2013 Semester 2 Date: 13-FEB-2014 03:53 PM Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: DN1006 (FOUNDATION 2D II) Method: TUT, Group: G3 Actual Class Size: 23 Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

.48

13

7

0

0

0

4.6

.49

12

8

0

0

0

20

4.95

.22

19

1

0

0

0

20

4.7

.46

14

6

0

0

0

Encouraged critical thinking in the subject area 5 The teaching approaches of this faculty member encouraged me to think deeply and analytically about the knowledge and concepts in the course.

20

4.7

.46

14

6

0

0

0

Presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical w ay I The way this faculty member designed and conducted classes helped to build my knowledge and understanding in a systematic way.

20

4.6

.49

12

8

0

0

0

Encouraged creative thinking in the subject matter J This faculty member's teaching invited me to think about the subject matter in innovative and inventive ways.

20

4.8

.4

16

4

0

0

0

Total Responses

Mean

Encouraged engagement in the course 1 As a result of the teaching approaches taken by this faculty member, I was involved and interested in the course.

20

4.65

Communicated clearly 2 This faculty member was easy to understand in all forms of communication including in classes, online, and in writing.

20

Was approachable 3 This faculty member created opportunities, either in classes, or outside classes, for students to ask questions and seek help.

Criteria for consideration

4

Helped students understand important concepts This faculty member took steps to ensure that I understood how the subject matter of the course is framed by principles or concepts, or how the details fit together into concepts.

SD

Strongly Disagree Disagree

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.71 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 4.71, Lowest Teaching Score: 2.61 Median Teaching Score: 4.38 Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's encouragement of engagement in the course?

Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's ability to communicate clearly?

Do you hav e any further comments about this faculty member's approachability?

1. She makes herself approachable and available to all students to enquire about the projects almost all time time which is extremely encouraging for students.

Do you hav e any further comments about how this faculty member helped you understand concepts?

Do you hav e any further comments to make about this faculty member's encouragement of critical thinking?

1. She makes extreme efforts to consult and analyse students idea to further improve for the better.

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical way?

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

1/3

13/2/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member encouraged creativ e thinking in the subject matter?

Please comment on this faculty member's strengths 1.

She takes the time and effort to guide each an every one of us. She does not give direct answers, but prompts and gives suggestions that we take back to think through and come up with beautiful concepts.

2. Very encouraging. Stimulates good learning environment. Paces lessons well.

3. approachable, allows me to develop in my major (product design) even though i am in a 2D foundation class.

4.

Very approachable and encouraged deeper evaluation and thinking beyond the normal guidelines. Clear class outlines given at the beginning of the semester which ensures that everyone knows what is going on in the class. Weekly email updates were also relevant and helpful.

5. Very clear and concise with teaching, was willing to help students outside of class time to improve.

6.

She is able to provide assistance to any student who requires help or better understanding in the subject. When meeting obstacles, she is able to provide encouragements and guidance to the student leading them back to the correct path.

7.

She is caring and welfare towards her students. She guide us across the whole semester smoothly without fail and even gave us comments on how to improve our work. I learn a lot from her.

8. She is very approachable and is always encouraging to students when we are facing difficulties in the assignments.

9.

She is very approachable and this help me to not be afraid to ask questions. She also alway suggests and encourage me with more ideas and is never discouraging.

10. She's very accepting towards students' ideas and always encourages us to follow our hearts.

11. gentle, kind 12. Very flexible 13.

She is extremely kind and approachable.. Her criticism are very constructive and efficient which benefits the students.. My favourite facilitator in the campus so far..

14. Willing to help students anytime. Not restricted to only lesson time.

15.

Ina is really approachable. I tend to be rather introvert so she helps me overcome my barrier to ask her whenever in doubt. She is also willing to hear me out when I am confused about something. Thank you, Ina :)

16.

Ina allows her students to explore their own areas of interest and guides them along as they do so. More than just insisting upon what she prefers or likes, she gives autonomy to her students, which is essential in my opinion, for the course.

17. Ina is very polite, she is also a very encouraging and inspiring teacher.

Please comment on how the faculty member might improv e the teaching and learning in this course.

1. Great Job! 2. 3. everything is good 4. 5. 6. NIL 7. Nil 8. nil 9. more lectures 10. Nil. 11. Maybe more engagement with the class as a whole? Because for projects we tend to have individual consultations but I guess that is inevitable.

12. Perhaps give more readings and resources?

On av erage, I rate the difficulty of the content taught by this faculty member as compared to the rest of the courses I hav e taken, as much more difficult

0

slightly more difficult 3 same

15

slightly easier

1

much easier

1

I attended: 80% or more of the classes taught by this faculty member

19

Somewhat less than 80% of the classes taught by this faculty member 1 Less than 50% of the classes taught by this faculty member

0

Where it was required, I prepared for the classes taught by this faculty member: All, or most of the time 14 Some of the time

6

Hardly any of the time 0 Never

0

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

2/3

13/2/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation

Main Menu Choos e another Feedback

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2012/2013 Semester 2 Date: 13-FEB-2014 03:56 PM Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: DV2011 (PATTERN,ART,DES & ARCHITECTURE) Method: TUT, Group: G1 Actual Class Size: 20 Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

.61

10

3

1

0

0

4.36

.61

6

7

1

0

0

14

5

0

14

0

0

0

0

14

4.36

.61

6

7

1

0

0

Encouraged critical thinking in the subject area 5 The teaching approaches of this faculty member encouraged me to think deeply and analytically about the knowledge and concepts in the course.

14

4.29

.59

5

8

1

0

0

Presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical w ay I The way this faculty member designed and conducted classes helped to build my knowledge and understanding in a systematic way.

14

4.29

.7

6

6

2

0

0

Encouraged creative thinking in the subject matter J This faculty member's teaching invited me to think about the subject matter in innovative and inventive ways.

14

4.5

.63

8

5

1

0

0

Total Responses

Mean

Encouraged engagement in the course 1 As a result of the teaching approaches taken by this faculty member, I was involved and interested in the course.

14

4.64

Communicated clearly 2 This faculty member was easy to understand in all forms of communication including in classes, online, and in writing.

14

Was approachable 3 This faculty member created opportunities, either in classes, or outside classes, for students to ask questions and seek help.

Criteria for consideration

4

Helped students understand important concepts This faculty member took steps to ensure that I understood how the subject matter of the course is framed by principles or concepts, or how the details fit together into concepts.

SD

Strongly Disagree Disagree

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.49 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 4.49, Lowest Teaching Score: 4.49 Median Teaching Score: 4.49 Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's encouragement of engagement in the course?

Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's ability to communicate clearly?

Do you hav e any further comments about this faculty member's approachability?

Do you hav e any further comments about how this faculty member helped you understand concepts?

Do you hav e any further comments to make about this faculty member's encouragement of critical thinking?

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical way?

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member encouraged creativ e thinking in the subject matter?

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

1/2

13/2/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

Please comment on this faculty member's strengths 1. She is really understanding, encouraging and helpful.

2. I really enjoyed your lessons because of your positive outlook and enthusiasm you bring to the class.

3.

able to provide interesting platforms to conduct class and allow us to share our findings, for example using he platform on pinterest as an ongoing boards to "record" our findings. good structure in the class. managing well between the individual consultation and conducting the class, giving instructions as a group.

4. She's very concerned about students' progress.

5.

Professor Ina is extremely detailed, helpful and motivating. She is also encouraging and provide critical insights to the module. Her artistic exploration also motivated us to go beyond the scope of our learning.

6. Very encouraging! Always give constructive feedback on student's progress so to help the student to achieve even greater.

7. Good guidance from her and push the students to a better level 8. very approachable and encouraging.

Please comment on how the faculty member might improv e the teaching and learning in this course.

1. maybe a field trip could be good.

2. Nothing

On av erage, I rate the difficulty of the content taught by this faculty member as compared to the rest of the courses I hav e taken, as much more difficult

0

slightly more difficult 1 same

11

slightly easier

2

much easier

0

I attended: 80% or more of the classes taught by this faculty member

14

Somewhat less than 80% of the classes taught by this faculty member 0 Less than 50% of the classes taught by this faculty member

0

Where it was required, I prepared for the classes taught by this faculty member: All, or most of the time 12 Some of the time

2

Hardly any of the time 0 Never

0

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

Characters typed: 0

Save Comments

Print

Cancel

Š 2001-2014 Nanyang Technological Univ ers ity

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

2/2

13/2/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation

Main Menu Choos e another Feedback

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2013/2014 Semester 1 Date: 13-FEB-2014 03:59 PM Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: DN1002 (FOUNDATION 2D I) Method: TUT, Group: G1 Actual Class Size: 22 Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

.43

15

5

0

0

0

4.35

.57

8

11

1

0

0

20

4.9

.3

18

2

0

0

0

20

4.6

.49

12

8

0

0

0

Encouraged critical thinking in the subject area 5 The teaching approaches of this faculty member encouraged me to think deeply and analytically about the knowledge and concepts in the course.

20

4.4

.49

8

12

0

0

0

Presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical w ay I The way this faculty member designed and conducted classes helped to build my knowledge and understanding in a systematic way.

20

4.5

.59

11

8

1

0

0

Encouraged creative thinking in the subject matter J This faculty member's teaching invited me to think about the subject matter in innovative and inventive ways.

20

4.7

.46

14

6

0

0

0

Total Responses

Mean

Encouraged engagement in the course 1 As a result of the teaching approaches taken by this faculty member, I was involved and interested in the course.

20

4.75

Communicated clearly 2 This faculty member was easy to understand in all forms of communication including in classes, online, and in writing.

20

Was approachable 3 This faculty member created opportunities, either in classes, or outside classes, for students to ask questions and seek help.

Criteria for consideration

4

Helped students understand important concepts This faculty member took steps to ensure that I understood how the subject matter of the course is framed by principles or concepts, or how the details fit together into concepts.

SD

Strongly Disagree Disagree

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.6 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 4.6, Lowest Teaching Score: 2.5 Median Teaching Score: 4.11 Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's encouragement of engagement in the course?

Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's ability to communicate clearly?

Do you hav e any further comments about this faculty member's approachability?

Do you hav e any further comments about how this faculty member helped you understand concepts?

Do you hav e any further comments to make about this faculty member's encouragement of critical thinking?

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical way?

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member encouraged creativ e thinking in the subject matter?

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

1/2

13/2/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

Please comment on this faculty member's strengths 1.

She's very open to students' concepts, and helps to build on them using what she's taught - at the same time she also allows personal exploration, letting us learn at our own pace.

2.

Ina is very approachable and helpful in guiding us in our work. I also really appreciate her efforts in sending us weekly project reminders through our personal emails. This really helps me to understand the course progression clearly.

3. Very understanding and helpful, doesn't mind spending longer time to make sure that students understand the topic and assignments.

4.

Prof Ina is patient in her teaching and very understanding towards her students problems and needs. She also encourages her students in their works and suggests better ideas in order to help them improve.

5. nil 6.

Ina encouraged creative thinking and experimentation. I was able to learn a lot under her mentorship as she really allows us to explore and experiment anything we have an interest for.

7. Ina is extremely approachable and understanding.She sincely cares for her student's welfare.

8. Ina is a genuine lecturer who opens up to students and stands up for them whenever they are met with unreasonable situations.

9. She was very encouraging when teaching us, and always expressed excitement at the completion of our projects.

10. Generous with care and warmth for her students.

Please comment on how the faculty member might improv e the teaching and learning in this course.

1. More opportunities for consultation during class duration.

2. NIL 3. nil 4. More hands-on/ techniques.

5. Additional photoshop lessons 6.

It would be highly appreciated if Ina provide more negative critic to our work so that we know exactly where to improve on. I understand that she doesn't want to hurt our feelings, but I believe constructive criticism can definitely bring us to greater heights.

7. More feedback on our works to show us how we can improve 8. She's a perfect role model for a prof who is so passionate in what she does.

On av erage, I rate the difficulty of the content taught by this faculty member as compared to the rest of the courses I hav e taken, as much more difficult

0

slightly more difficult 10 same

8

slightly easier

1

much easier

1

I attended: 80% or more of the classes taught by this faculty member

19

Somewhat less than 80% of the classes taught by this faculty member 0 Less than 50% of the classes taught by this faculty member

0

Where it was required, I prepared for the classes taught by this faculty member: All, or most of the time 17 Some of the time

2

Hardly any of the time 0 Never

0

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

Characters typed: 0

Save Comments

Print

Cancel

Š 2001-2014 Nanyang Technological Univ ers ity

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

2/2

13/2/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation

Main Menu Choos e another Feedback

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2013/2014 Semester 1 Date: 13-FEB-2014 04:00 PM Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: DV2011 (PATTERN,ART,DES & ARCHITECTURE) Method: TUT, Group: G1 Actual Class Size: 22 Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

.6

11

4

1

0

0

4.56

.79

11

4

0

1

0

16

4.69

.58

12

3

1

0

0

16

4.5

.79

10

5

0

1

0

Encouraged critical thinking in the subject area 5 The teaching approaches of this faculty member encouraged me to think deeply and analytically about the knowledge and concepts in the course.

16

4.38

.78

8

7

0

1

0

Presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical w ay I The way this faculty member designed and conducted classes helped to build my knowledge and understanding in a systematic way.

16

4.56

.79

11

4

0

1

0

Encouraged creative thinking in the subject matter J This faculty member's teaching invited me to think about the subject matter in innovative and inventive ways.

16

4.69

.77

13

2

0

1

0

Total Responses

Mean

Encouraged engagement in the course 1 As a result of the teaching approaches taken by this faculty member, I was involved and interested in the course.

16

4.63

Communicated clearly 2 This faculty member was easy to understand in all forms of communication including in classes, online, and in writing.

16

Was approachable 3 This faculty member created opportunities, either in classes, or outside classes, for students to ask questions and seek help.

Criteria for consideration

4

Helped students understand important concepts This faculty member took steps to ensure that I understood how the subject matter of the course is framed by principles or concepts, or how the details fit together into concepts.

SD

Strongly Disagree Disagree

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.57 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 4.57, Lowest Teaching Score: 4.57 Median Teaching Score: 4.57 Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's encouragement of engagement in the course?

1. Very exciting briefs and inspiring presentations that motivate me to generate better works.

Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's ability to communicate clearly?

1.

Yes, Ina is very clear with her deadlines and what she expects from us. She emails us to make sure we are in track and makes sure we are aware of our project timelines.

Do you hav e any further comments about this faculty member's approachability?

1.

Ina is extremely approachable and a great mentor to talk to. It is also very, very amazing how she pushes our works to be exhibited and seen by people outside the class, which I really appreciate.

Do you hav e any further comments about how this faculty member helped you understand concepts?

1.

Ina is very open to different methods/approaches, but uses her experience in the area to push us towards our desired outcome. She gives us information and readings to understand our concepts better.

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

1/3

13/2/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

Do you hav e any further comments to make about this faculty member's encouragement of critical thinking?

1.

Ina's project briefs are very open and flexible, which encourages us to research and read widely. Ina references artists all around the world and open my eyes to many possibilities, ranging from prints, to sculpture to installations.

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical way?

1.

There are two projects in this class, which are structured to help us understand very different concepts to making. The switch from 2d to 3d help to build my skills in a very systematic way. I was given enough time to explore and experiment.

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member encouraged creativ e thinking in the subject matter?

1. Definitely. Ina constantly pushes us to create good pieces of art.

Please comment on this faculty member's strengths 1. Very bubbly prof. Makes class very lively She is extremely helpful and supportive of students proposals and it helps to build confidence in the students. She always gives constructive and critical feedback.

2.

3. She is really encouraging and is willing to hear and aid students whenever in trouble and give good insights into the project at hand.

4. Ina gives us useful feedback about our work and how we can improve it.

Does not criticise students' proposal directly but give other suggestions or kind feedbacks instead. very considerate and generous in helping student with any fees incurred during production.

5.

6. very approachable and open for feedbacks Flexible, open briefs that allow alot of room for exploration and experimentation. Very patient mentor that strikes a healthy balance between understanding our 7. limitations (time, money, skill) and wanting us to excel beyond our own expectations. Pushes our works to be seen beyond the classroom. Goes the extra mile to help us get our works exhibited.

8. supportive and inspiring, very interesting projects to work on that keep me genuinely interested 9. Was approachable and open to ideas. Hence, cultivating a positive learning envrionment 10.

Approachable, she was very helpful with simplifying pattern structures and making them more accessible and understandable. Very open to all forms of work and exploration of ideas.

11.

ina was very understanding whilst still being firm, and was willing to adapt and be flexible to each student's strengths so as to help students produce their best work. she establish a positive class atmosphere that was very conducive to creation.

Ina is a very passionate lecturer. Her projects are always very interesting and the themes are always unique. That is the reason I chose this module. Ina always come out with cool and challenging project briefs that allow us to push our creativity. Another reason I look forward to take Ina's class is that she is very 12. encouraging and she always try her best to approach organizations and opportunities to exhibit our works. This is so important to build up student's portfolio as well as it gave us a lot of motivations and passion in doing designs. I feel Ina is serious about her student's works and she really respect everyone's design as well as our effort.

Makes class fun and engaging and always give constructive comments on work and how to make it better. Definitely one of the most fun modules despite all the 13. workload. She encourages me to work harder and push more despite being in a different major, even though I came in later to the class she made me understand what I had missed out and helped me to catch up on the things I had missed out.

14. Ina is very approachable and helped us to understand our strengths better to create better outcomes for briefs.

Please comment on how the faculty member might improv e the teaching and learning in this course.

1. Nil 2. i feel the curriculum should be more defined in terms of time line even though the flexible timeline gives us many opportunities to build stronger works.

3. No comments 4.

time management!!! too lenient in setting deadlines or time frame to submit work. slow pace. lectures was very minimal and not useful at all. it's more like a self study module.

5. 6. Ina's wonderful, but maybe she can afford to be a little stricter.

7. 8.

There is only one thing that I think needs improvement. The schedule! I realized we are always quite behind the schedule. Although we managed to pull it through but it is a hardship.

9. -

On av erage, I rate the difficulty of the content taught by this faculty member as compared to the rest of the courses I hav e taken, as much more difficult

0

slightly more difficult 8 same

6

slightly easier

2

much easier

0

I attended: 80% or more of the classes taught by this faculty member

16

Somewhat less than 80% of the classes taught by this faculty member 0

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

2/3

13/2/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

Less than 50% of the classes taught by this faculty member

0

Where it was required, I prepared for the classes taught by this faculty member: All, or most of the time 15 Some of the time

1

Hardly any of the time 0 Never

0

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

Characters typed: 0

Save Comments

Print

Cancel

Š 2001-2014 Nanyang Technological Univ ers ity

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

3/3

27/5/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation

Main Menu Choos e another Feedback

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2013/2014 Semester 2 Date: 27-MAY-2014 01:08 PM Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: DV2011 (PATTERN,ART,DES & ARCHITECTURE) Method: TUT, Group: G1 Actual Class Size: 22 Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

.5

9

11

0

0

0

4.35

.48

7

13

0

0

0

20

4.8

.4

16

4

0

0

0

20

4.35

.57

8

11

1

0

0

Encouraged critical thinking in the subject area The teaching approaches of this faculty member encouraged me to 5 think deeply and analytically about the knowledge and concepts in the course.

20

4.35

.57

8

11

1

0

0

Presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical w ay I The way this faculty member designed and conducted classes helped to build my knowledge and understanding in a systematic way.

20

4.3

.64

8

10

2

0

0

Encouraged creative thinking in the subject matter J This faculty member's teaching invited me to think about the subject matter in innovative and inventive ways.

20

4.55

.59

12

7

1

0

0

Total Responses

Mean

Encouraged engagement in the course 1 As a result of the teaching approaches taken by this faculty member, I was involved and interested in the course.

20

4.45

Communicated clearly 2 This faculty member was easy to understand in all forms of communication including in classes, online, and in writing.

20

Was approachable 3 This faculty member created opportunities, either in classes, or outside classes, for students to ask questions and seek help.

Criteria for consideration

4

Helped students understand important concepts This faculty member took steps to ensure that I understood how the subject matter of the course is framed by principles or concepts, or how the details fit together into concepts.

SD

Strongly Disagree Disagree

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.45 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 4.45, Lowest Teaching Score: 4.45 Median Teaching Score: 4.45 Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's encouragement of engagement in the course?

1.

Ina showed us multiple examples of works from across the board, past-year students, industry players and even her own. It inspires a lot in us. She had different class exercises to induce pattern-making drive.

Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's ability to communicate clearly?

Do you hav e any further comments about this faculty member's approachability?

She took time out of her own schedule, in her own free time, to come back to school for private consultations of our class's works and was very concerned with 1. each of our individual's progress. She took money out from her pocket to buy extra test print material for the class when printing error occurred. A teacher who not only invests her own time, but effort and money. Exemplary.

Do you hav e any further comments about how this faculty member helped you understand concepts?

Do you hav e any further comments to make about this faculty member's encouragement of critical thinking?

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/webexe88/owa/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

1/2

27/5/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical way?

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member encouraged creativ e thinking in the subject matter?

Please comment on this faculty member's strengths 1. Open to suggestions.

2.

Always active in replying all class related enquires through emails fast and efficiently.. Tries best to set extra time after class for students for consultation if necessary.. Approachable by all students..

3. Professor Ina is very patient, kind and insightful.

4. Ina is very experienced and skilful in the creation and concept of patterns.

5. Encouraging teacher 6. Patient, provides students with constructive feedback, encouraging, engaging 7. Approachable. Many suggestions. Encouraging 8. Ina provides a platform for personal voice to shine through. In her class, the environment she creates is free and creative. I really enjoy her classes.

She made her work, teaching, so comfortable and enjoyable it becomes as though its her own private life. This makes students comfortable working around her 9. too, and as such, we produce the best works. Very approachable and helpful. She attends to all students' problems even if they are personal. We can always count on Ina as a reliable adult, counsellor, good teacher, motivator and a person to turn to when you are in doubt.

Please comment on how the faculty member might improv e the teaching and learning in this course.

1. Nil 2. She is awesome!

3. Perhaps Ina could cut down on the number of assignments and allow the class to create experiential patterns through outside class interactions or trips.

4.

sometimes students do not know what is expected from her because of changes here and there for projects, slightly unclear due to constant changes. workload can be a little heavy.

5. more exercises and smaller assignments 6. More lectures and showing inspirational works

On av erage, I rate the difficulty of the content taught by this faculty member as compared to the rest of the courses I hav e taken, as much more difficult

2

slightly more difficult 4 same

13

slightly easier

1

much easier

0

I attended: 80% or more of the classes taught by this faculty member

19

Somewhat less than 80% of the classes taught by this faculty member 0 Less than 50% of the classes taught by this faculty member

0

Where it was required, I prepared for the classes taught by this faculty member: All, or most of the time 18 Some of the time

2

Hardly any of the time 0 Never

0

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

Characters typed: 0

Save Comments

Print

Cancel

Š 2001-2014 Nanyang Technologic al Univ ersity

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/webexe88/owa/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

2/2

27/5/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING Summary Of Evaluation

Main Menu Choos e another Feedback

Student Feedback on Teaching for Academic Year 2013/2014 Semester 2 Date: 27-MAY-2014 01:13 PM Instructor: Asst Prof Ina Conradi Chavez Course: DN1006 (FOUNDATION 2D II) Method: TUT, Group: G8 Actual Class Size: 23 Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

.43

16

5

0

0

0

4.57

.49

12

9

0

0

0

21

4.86

.35

18

3

0

0

0

21

4.81

.39

17

4

0

0

0

Encouraged critical thinking in the subject area The teaching approaches of this faculty member encouraged me to 5 think deeply and analytically about the knowledge and concepts in the course.

21

4.71

.45

15

6

0

0

0

Presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical w ay I The way this faculty member designed and conducted classes helped to build my knowledge and understanding in a systematic way.

21

4.67

.56

15

5

1

0

0

Encouraged creative thinking in the subject matter J This faculty member's teaching invited me to think about the subject matter in innovative and inventive ways.

21

4.86

.35

18

3

0

0

0

Total Responses

Mean

Encouraged engagement in the course 1 As a result of the teaching approaches taken by this faculty member, I was involved and interested in the course.

21

4.76

Communicated clearly 2 This faculty member was easy to understand in all forms of communication including in classes, online, and in writing.

21

Was approachable 3 This faculty member created opportunities, either in classes, or outside classes, for students to ask questions and seek help.

Criteria for consideration

4

Helped students understand important concepts This faculty member took steps to ensure that I understood how the subject matter of the course is framed by principles or concepts, or how the details fit together into concepts.

SD

Strongly Disagree Disagree

(Individual) Mean Teaching Score: 4.75 (Across all faculty for the same course) Highest Teaching Score: 4.75, Lowest Teaching Score: 3.79 Median Teaching Score: 4.08 Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's encouragement of engagement in the course?

Do you hav e any further comments on this faculty member's ability to communicate clearly?

Do you hav e any further comments about this faculty member's approachability?

Do you hav e any further comments about how this faculty member helped you understand concepts?

1. Very detailed provision of resources to learn new skills eg. notes for silk screen, principles of design.

Do you hav e any further comments to make about this faculty member's encouragement of critical thinking?

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member presented the subject matter in a methodical and logical way?

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

1/3

27/5/2014

STUDENT FEEDBACK ON TEACHING

Do you hav e any further comments on the way this faculty member encouraged creativ e thinking in the subject matter?

Please comment on this faculty member's strengths 1. Open to student's idea and always encourages student's to break out of their boundaries 2. Miss Ina is a very friendly faculty and it is very easy to approach her when you are facing difficulties.

3. She's very approachable, and has many good suggestions for projects.

4.

really kind and understanding of student's difficulties/problems in and outside of school that may affect schoolwork. thinks from students' point of view frequently when thinking of projects so that we feel inspired to do the project

5. Very approachable, encouraged us to push our projects further 6. Ina is patient in explaining ideas and she tries to bring out everyone's strength 7. Very nurturing as she provides a lot of resources for us to use in our projects so we don't have to fork out the finances ourselves.

8. She gives a lot of support and encouragement to help us better our works.

9.

Class environment is very fun and has a lot of freedom of expression, there is no discrimination against any style. In fact different styles are encouraged and I think that is what encourages us as students to experiment more instead of just following the brief.

10.

Ina is a very encouraging lecturer. Under her guidance, I was able to do the assignments with confidence. She's very flexible and gives students the opportunity to develop their ideas.

11. Encouraging and sets students thinking.

12.

She is very encouraging and gives constructive feedback on how to improve on my work. Also, she is very dedicated to her students and gets back to her students very promptly.

Please comment on how the faculty member might improv e the teaching and learning in this course.

1. already the best 2. nil 3. 4. nil 5. Project briefs were sometimes confusing 6. Perhaps can focus more on evaluating the content and elements of design underlying each student's work rather than the style itself.

7. more space haha. Especially with silk printing it is difficult to work with big materials in the tiny space, but I guess nothing can be done about this 8. NIL 9. -

On av erage, I rate the difficulty of the content taught by this faculty member as compared to the rest of the courses I hav e taken, as much more difficult

1

slightly more difficult 10 same

9

slightly easier

0

much easier

1

I attended: 80% or more of the classes taught by this faculty member

20

Somewhat less than 80% of the classes taught by this faculty member 1 Less than 50% of the classes taught by this faculty member

0

Where it was required, I prepared for the classes taught by this faculty member: All, or most of the time 17 Some of the time

4

Hardly any of the time 0 Never

0

Faculty Comments (max 500 chars)

Characters typed: 0

Save Comments

Print

Cancel

https://wis.ntu.edu.sg/pls/webexe88/FEEDBACK_TEACHING_REPORTS.DISPLAY_SUMMARY_REPORT

2/3