MU Chemistry 2030 - Introduction to Organic Chemistry - Fall Semester 2012

CONSUMER INFORMATION, SB 389, QUESTIONS
1. The course content, including the lectures, syllabus, grading standards, and student responsibilities, was presented clearly.
2. The instructor was interested in student learning.
3. Considering both the possibilities and limitations of the subject matter and the course (including class size and facilities), the instructor taught effectively.

QUESTIONS
1. List the strong and weak features of the lecturer and include suggestions for improvement.
2. Compare the lecturer to other you have had (especially with those in science courses at this level.
3. List the strong and weak features of the overall course (not the lecturer) and include suggestions on how its quality might be improved.
4. Compare the course with the others you have taken.
5. Your overall rating of the course (circle letter grade). A B C D E
6. My approximate GPA prior to the current semester was ____.

Student #1
1. Well organized. a. Need more practice during the class
2. Need more practice
3.
4.
5. A
6. 3.38

Student 2
1. Sometime he goes too much with the slide and not into enough depth
2. The best science teacher I've had. You can tell his excitement which gets me more interested
3. It's organic chemistry, so that's a weakness in its self [sic], But it was very well laid out and explained
4. I understood it the best
5. A
6. 3.715

Student 3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. C
6. 3.2

Student 4
1. Sometimes was hard to maintain interest in topic, but was definitely enthusiastic with subject
2. Much more excited about science than other professors
3. Hard to maintain a passing grade, content very useful
4. About the same
5. C
6. 3.84

Student 5
1. The teacher is very knowledgeable but it was really difficult to understand some of his examples
2. A harder course and more concepts to know but the teacher overall was efficient at teaching it
3. Strong = long class period; Weak = confusing tests
4. Difficult
5. C
6. 2.5

Student 6
1. Excited
a. Helpful
2. Better
3. Boring/difficult
4. Meh [sic]
5. B
6. 3.5

Student 7
1. Enthusiasm for subject content
2. Knew the information extremely well. Teaching method better than past
3. Information taught well
4. Better
5. A
6. 3.6

Student 8
1. He has a good method but could have been more informative
2. Good in terms of helpfulness and availability
3.
4.
5. B
6.

Student 9
1. The length of the class is long and more actual examples would be nice. Loved take home exams
2. Very smart. Good teacher
3. Tough material
4. Hard course, lots of studying
5. B
6. 3.93

Student 10
1. N/A
2. N/A
3. It's a one semester course so it cannot be slowed down. Maybe a more in depth book
4. Good
5. A
6. 3.8

Student 11
1. Strong: excited, good at recognizing when students are lost and then spending extra time on those subjects
a. Weak: needs more examples to help teach application of the material
2. Really good- offered a lot of resources for help (review sessions, practice tests, office hours)
3. Strong: good pace
a. Weak: sapling was terrible, a waste of time and did not help me learn the material
4. Best chem class I've taken
5. A
6. 3.98

Student 12
1. Good points. Stayed on schedule
2. Good at answering questions
3. Pretty good class
4.
5. B
6. 2.6

Student 13
1. Very enthusiastic, good teacher, interesting person
2. Very knowledgeable, well defined material
3.
4.
5. A
6. 3.9

Student 14
1. Bonh's [sic] lectures. Straight from book. Use class time to explain how to do problems and concepts in a different way than the book does would be more helpful.
2. One of the worst science lecturers. I dreaded going to class. He thinks we should just be able to learn on our own.
3. Course has a lot of content to learn
4. Very very hard
5. C
6. 3.97

Student 15
1. Mainly just reading off of slides, not a lot of examples. a. Very knowledgeable though and showed enthusiasm
2.
3. Other methods besides online homework and slides
4. Hard
5. C
6. 3.1

Student 16
1. Strong: knows material very well.
a. Weak: doesn't explain in a way that students can understand
2. A lot nicer than [name omitted]
3. Get rid of Sapling 4. Harder
5. C
6. 3.65

Student 17
1. Weak: moving to fast, a lot of confusion in lecture
a. Strong: willingness to help, homework, extra practice, organization
2. The lecturer was ok compared to other lecture I have had
3.
4.
5. B
6. 2.8

Student 18
1. Have more practice problems during lecture to enhance understanding
2. Uses less examples found on tests
3.
4.
5. C
6. 3.2

Student 19
1. You can't expect students to attend review sessions, so cover everything in class. Don't just say I'll go over this in more detail at the review sessions
2. Definitely more excited by science than other teachers
3. Allow a note card as a cheat sheet for first couple of exams because there was too much info
4. Fast paced
5. B
6.

Student 20
1. It's hard to understand all of the concepts because we go through them so quickly and they aren't explained as well as they could be
2.
3. The book for this course is not good. It barely explains anything
4.
5. C
6. 3.5

Student 21
1. Almost too intelligent. I felt he knew his material so well, he felt like we should also know it and didn't take the time to teach us some things well.
2. Moved really fast, expected us to understand things very quickly. Didn't really teach as much as just talked and expected us to know.
3. N/A
4.
5. B
6. 3.7

Student 22
1. More practice problems during class
2. I preferred other. I liked Dr. [omitted] the best
3. More practice problems during class
4. Hard
5. B
6. 3.75

Student 23
1. Talk a little slower at times. Go over important factors more than once. Make lecture more exciting
2. Good at covering material and working on probs in class
3. Sapling was bad, didn't always work sometimes hard to know what the program specifically wanted
4.
5. B
6.

Student 24
1. Glaser organized but he doesn't really teach he just goes through slides and reads them. It would be better if he could include practice problems in the lecture
2. He doesn't ask questions or involve students in the lecture as much as other teachers
3. The course could be improved by moving through the material slower
4. It was very difficult
5. B
6. 3.9

Student 25
1. Very enthusiastic and knowledgeable
a. Sometimes unclear and sped through material
2. Compared to others he taught very well
3. Material difficult, maybe too much expected of basic organic class
4. Harder
5. B
6. 4.0

Student 26
1. Class needs more application of material. If somebody can't ake it to office hours they miss out on explanation of how to apply material in lecture. Also the book does not explain much. If it was a MWF course with F for practice would be a lot better
2. Along the lines of other professors. Also tegrity never worked
3. Make is a MWF course
4.
5. C
6. 3.5

Student 27
1. Strong: knows material a. Weak: not good at explaining, boring
2.
3. Weak: overly difficult, too much information, learning things that are not tested over
4.
5. D
6. 3.73

Student 28
1. Strong: knows what he is talking about. a. Weak: ad at [sic] presenting info
2.
3. Weak: dislike the course, not interesting
4. Didn't like it
5. D
6. 3.5

Student 29
1. Slow down your teaching speed
2. He teaches at the same level. Kind of works fast so it can be hard to learn some things
3. A lot of info to learn in a short amount of time
4. About the same difficulty
5. B
6. 2.7

Student 30
1. Clear on expectations/learning objectives. Sometimes rambled
2. More interested in student learning than previous science instructors and kept class engaged
3. Too much material covered too quickly
4. More interesting than chem 1320
5. B
6. 3.3

Student 31
1. Strong: enthusiasm for subject matter
a. Weak: lack of in class examples
2. I don't think using powerpoint is the most beneficial way to teach. Instead, writing on a projector and giving more examples would help.
3. Loved office hours. I often left like I learned more from Pete than in class. He does not make enough money for the work he puts into it
4.
5. C
6. 3.3

Student 32
1. I thought overall you taught us helpful information, but it was sometimes hard to follow. Do more in class examples on the board.
2. You are much nice and enthusiastic and approachable than some of my past chem instructors
3. Making the class 3 days a week for 50 minutes
4. I thought this one was most interesting
5. A
6. 3.3

Student 33
1. Use different examples for your slides. Everything is straight from the books so we have no secondary source of information
2. Average
3. The class was too long 4.
5. D
6. 2.8

Student 34
1. Was very knowledgeable about topic but was sort of hard to understand -needs to explain topics better
2. Science is hard to explain so average
3. Grading was fair
4. Good
5. B
6. 3.3

Student 35
1. Seemed to jump around subjects in a confusing way
2. Enthusiastic needed to talk down more though
3. Difficult homework, liked tests being written
4. Difficult
5. B
6. 3.2

Student 36
1. I would have liked for him to use the blackboard more for drawing instead of just using powerpoint
2. He knew the material very well but has a hard time simplifying it for the students
3. Should be 5o minutes MWF. 1 hour and 15 minutes it's way too long. Use of blackboard during class would be better
4. Good. Would not be getting an A without the TA
5. C
6. 4.0

Student 37
1. Should stop and draw molecules/explain on chalkboard more. We need time to think about the things we learn before we can build on them
2. Better lecturing voice than Kline. Keep Pete as TA. Learned/Reinforced more than lecturer
3. Should NOT be 75 minute class. There is too much to go over/overwhelming to have to get so much info at once. Make it 50 minute class
4. Good
5. A
6. 3.7

Student 38
1.
2. Very enthusiastic, knows subject well, wants students to learn
3. It would be nice to have more problems worked out during lecture; ones similar to problems on homework and tests. Just coming to lecture and looking at slides was not very helpful to me personally
4. Hard, requires a lot of extra time.
5. B
6. 3.0

Student 39
1. Notes not complete, sometimes hard to follow. Didn't understand how some people were struggling. Two take home tests made preparing for the final difficult
2. Average
3. A lot of reactions, made it difficult
4. Average
5. C
6. 3.72

Student 40
1. Use Tegrity! Need a microphone so that the explanations can be recoded and heard again on Tegrity
2.
3. Shorter classes-it's hard to focus on organic chemistry for an hour and a half
4.
5. A
6. 3.56

Student 41
1. Notes with examples from outside the book would be more helpful. So would better tegrity recordings
2. Seems enthusiastic but sometimes answers are confusing
3. The take home tests were nice..until we reached the in-class test. I did not feel prepared
4. Fairly difficult
5. C
6. 3.7

Student 42
1. I felt in lecture confused from over-complication of concepts
2.
3. Course material was fluent in order
4. Very difficult, but easier once a rhythm was found
5. C
6.

Student 43
1. He followed the powerpoints and book and gave the notes. a. The explanations of slides weren't always clear
2. Other could explain concepts more clearly/fully
3. Course has a good TA with office ours to better explain things
4. Harder
5. C
6. 3.64

Student 44
1. Lots of times I got lost or couldn't follow. Lots of it didn't make sense or I would go home remembering nothing. HAVE BETTER examples and explanation techniques
2. Did not expand on ways lecture could be taught
3. Strong: take home test and order of material.
a. Weak: short review sessions on Wed. Need to be at least 1/2 hour longer 4. Still learned a lot from TA but lecturer not as good
5. B
6. 3.4

Student 45
1. He is very enthusiastic, but needs to make material more fun
2. He is by far one of the better ones
3. The quality might be improved if this class were 3x a week at 50 minutes.
4.
5. B
6. 3.8

Student 46
1. Chemistry is like math-this course needs to be taught more like a math course. We need to do problems together in class on the board. Just seeing a picture of a problem already worked out does not help. Do problems in class!
2. This was not as interactive as other courses. He just prepared powerpoints from the book and rambled about them
3. Weak: 2 days/week. Needs to be 3 days for 50 minutes. Need a whiteboard room!
4.
5. C
6. 3.9

Student 47
1. Very enthusiastic and very interested in student learning. Did not explain mechanisms well, or at all. Maybe include those or write mechanisms on board
2. Very helpful compared to all other chem professors who didn't really care how we did. Taught in overall effective manner.
3. Way too many tests, maybe reduce to 4 overall exams
4.
5. A
6. 3.53

Student 48
1. Uses too many plain powerpoints lectures without details. Lectures were hard to follow because the professor talked to students as if they'd had previous organic chemistry when this was not true
2. Didn't explain concepts as well as other science teachers
3.
4.
5. D
6. 3.78

Student 49
1. Accent is a little harder to understand. a. Very enthusiastic and
offers to help any way he can
2. He is probably one of my favorites
3. NONE
4.
5. A
6. 3.1

Student 50
1. Very long classes!! a. Would've been better if we would've actually leaned instead of just listened to powerpoint. b. Lectures were boring and long and not really helpful. c. Powerpoints were organized but not helpful
2. Well the TA Pete taught me WAY more. We actually actively learned by writing stuff down and practiced
3. The hour and 15 minutes classes were WAY TOO LONG. This class would be so MUCH BETTER if it was MWF for 50 minutes
4.
5. C
6. 3.5

Student 51
1. I wish there was more explanations. I am a hands-on person so I can't just learn by listening. But I understand that it is hard to fit all the content in
2. Very nice and understanding. Very helpful when I would go into office hours. Fair when it came to test
3. 50 minute classes would be better 3 times a week.
4. Harder, but very fair
5. B
6. 3.8

Student 52
1. Strong: sometimes easy to follow. a. Weak: boring sometimes
2. Not the but not the worst
3. The TA was awesome
4.
5. B/C
6. 1.7

Student 53
1. For the future I think you would either have all or none take home test. Having a combination of both makes it very difficult to establish as effective study routine-because a lot less preparation is required for a take home test.
2. Just as good-high level of enthusiasm
3.
4. Similar
5. B
6. ~3.3

Student 54
1. Strong: very interested in student learning, very approachable. Weak: difficult to follow at times
2. A much better lecturer than this had previously; more interesting and more laid back (not as stressful lecturer)
3. Strong: review sessions helpful
a. Weak: sometimes rushed
4.
5. B
6. 3.358

Student 55
1. Strong: very interested in subject matter. a. Weak: not enough time to go into so much detail
2. He does the best he can and really does try to help
3. This course needs to be 3 days a week. Only 2 days does not allot enough time a. Also too much info squeezed into once semester
4.
5. B
6. 3.6

Student 56
1. Very easy to understand what he is saying. Could teach in a way that would make it easier for us to understand teach more straight forward-this is what we have, this is what we need in the end this is how you get it.
2. You are much more pleasant than other chemistry professors
3. The take home tests probably took away from my learning experience but I definitely will not complain about them
4. I liked it better than chem 1320 with [name omitted]
5. B
6. 3.57

Student 57
1. Organized information mechanisms of the reactions would have been extremely helpful!
2. Seemed to make information well learnable offered lots of opportunities for help
3. Not a bad course. There is a lot of material covered in a short time
4.
5. C
6.

Student 58
1. Hard to understand at times. Hard to learn from lecture only need hard on . TA taught me more
2. Doesn't explain material. Says briefly once and says yes? Okay? Good lets go
3. Hate the hour and 15 min
4. Very hard
5. B
6. 3.8

Student 59
1. The lecture is too long, I can't oncentrate after 45 min. Maybe can make it to 3 classes per week
2. Enthusiastic. Generous he gave 2 take home tests helpful in grading
3. Too long. Make it 3 days per week. TA is helpful
4. Good
5. B
6. 3.5

Student 60
1. Strong: was very enthusiastic about topic and was interested in student learning. a. Weak: expected students to learn the majority of the material on their own instead of doing in-class learning
2. Very poor when compared to other
3.
4.
5. D
6. 3.6

Student 61
1. Good use of time, no pointless off topic conversations
a. Bad: uses tegrity, but you cannot hear please wear a microphone!
2. Pretty good
3. More explanations/help with Sapling
4. Not a fan
5. B
6.

Student 62
1. Very helpful in office hours-incorporate this type of explanation into class instead of just reading off the slides-actually teach
2.
3. Review sessions/practice tests very helpful
4.
5. C
6. 3.6

Student 63
1. New terms should be defined clearly in class and in the notes. Notes were easy to follow in class but difficult to understand by myself, more notes on the slides would be helpful
2. Definitely easier to follow than other Chemistry teachers I have had
3. Learned a lot but it was fast paced and sometimes hard to follow
4. I liked this course more than other chem courses
5. A
6. 3.5

Student 64
1. More review sessions would help since we never got much time at each one. Sometimes it was difficult understanding because he would talk too fast
2. Made it interesting and fun
3. Allow more time for memorization of molecules
4. Good course- enjoyed better than other science classes
5. A
6. 3.4

Student 65
1. More in class practice problems instead of hardcore lecture all the time. a. More review sessions. b. Helped me understand concepts
2. Other lectures had more in-class examples and problems and had more homework in case of low exams scores
3. A lot of stuff to memorize (Give us more time or perhaps small quizzes)
4. Good course
5. A
6. 3.3

Student 66
1. Strong: very intelligent on the subject. a. Weak: too advanced for this course (difficult to follow). Would be good in grad level classes
2. More difficult to understand lectures. Tests are not over the large topics
3. Too much detail for "survey class"
4. Too difficult for an intro to organic
5. D
6. 3.3

Student 67
1. Dr. Glaser's lectures were energetic which was helpful for such an early, difficult class. He could stop or slow down if he sees majority of students do not understand, the lecture time should be more flexible
2. Dr. Glaser was the happiest and easiest to approach lecturer I have had in science class, but still could be more flexible
3. Weak: 8am! Only 2 days a week
4.
5. C
6. 3.4

Student 68
1. Overall was pretty good, but I found myself very confused during class and don't think I would have the grade I do if it weren't or Pete's office hours and reading the text. Also, I don't think the review sessions were helpful because you often went on tangents with other problems not on old exams making it hard to follow.
2. Was more enthusiastic and was interested in student learning
3. Difficult course but take home tests were nice because I felt like I really learned the material when completing them
4.
5. B
6. 3.4

Student 69
1. Strong enthusiasm and obvious enjoyment of subject matter. Occasionally hard to follow conceptually. Using a microphone for the recordings might work better
2. I feel Dr. Glaser did a good job lecturing, it's just hard to grasp organic chemistry concepts the first time you see them
3. Excellent additional help provided
a. Sapling was kind of a pain
b. Tegrities were sometimes hard to hear
4. Harder
5. B
6. 4.0

Student 70
1. Examples need help. Clearer instructions would be nice. This course does not prepare for future Chemistry classes
2. Comparatively speaking this is the worse class I have ever taken. I pretty much taught myself
3. Using a book that corresponds with the homework. Teaching us how to do the objectives we have questions about instead of doing them for us
4. This has by far been the worse class I've ever taken
5. D
6. 3.6

Student 71
1. Strong: He knows his shit. a. Weak: he can't teach. Glaser stands up there assuming we are all as intelligent as he is and we aren't. Go back to teaching 8000 level classes
2. Glaser is slacking. He can't communicate, use tegrity or teach. I had to teach myself
3. Weak: doesn't teach what you need for OchemII
4. One of the most challenging courses I have taken
5. D
6. 3.5

Student 72
1. Difficult to follow lectures. He didn't usee enough transitions and seemed to be a bit sporadic in his lessons.
2. I think the whole Chemistry/science department needs to be reevaluated
3. Sapling is unreliable and a frustrating hw system to use, I'd recommend a different program
4. Definitely the most difficult in terms of exams and content
5. C
6. 3.7

Student 73
1. Strong: enthusiasm for the class and wants student to learn. a. Weak: should have written equations out instead of pre-made powerpoints. I couldn't learn that way. Give out book work for a completion grade
2. Much harder to follow along with. a. Other gave more examples. b. Felt like I taught myself most of it.
3. Was a very difficult course. Required a lot more time than the average class
4. Hard-should be two semester long
5. D
6. 3.1

Student 74
1. Strong: enthusiastic, available to meet with students, grades fairly, able to explain one-on-one; a. Weak: difficult to follow powerpoint slides, should provide more interactive lectures
2. Enthusiasm, interested in student success
3. Strong: good amount of info covered awesome TA!
a. Weak: should be 3x/week instead of 2, hard to maintain focus for 1 hour 15 min
4. More enthusiastic but more complicated
5. B
6. 4.0

Student 75
1. +: Clear voice in class and always answers questions. a. -: tended to go through material very quickly, even if half the class was lost. Maybe should take 5-10 minutes half-way through class to review
2. Has an attitude as if he expected us to become chemistry experts, even though this is only an intro class, and seemed to look down on people who didn't understand something
3. Extremely informative. Tegrity could be better-hard to hear him on it. More examples in class would be helpful
4. Much more studying required than any other
5. B
6. 3.9

Student 76
1. Very enthusiastic about the subject, could find better ways to relate it to the real world and stuff we already understand
2.
3. Hour and 15 min is really hard to pay attention through the whole things 4.
5. C
6. 3.6

Student 78
1. I think the greatest feature of Dr. Glaser is he loves what he does and is really interested in student learning
2. Dr. Glaser was actually my favorite professor this semester. He does a great job with review sessions and you can tell he wants student success.
3. I loved the DNA section. It really made organic chemistry interesting and allowed me to see the big picture which is sometimes hard in other chapters
4.
5. B
6. 3.4

Student 79
1. Strong: knows what he is talking about and tries to make it understandable. a. Weak; easy to get lost and loose interest. Let info and new names sink in. don't just speed ahead talking about info that hasn't quite settled. Repeatedly make small explanations of new names
2. Not the best but not the worst teacher. He seemed like a nice funny guy
3. Too much info for one semester of class
4. Way too much info
5. D
6. 3.4

Student 80
1. More written notes on slides not just pics from book- they help but its hard to write everything and pick out main points -few more notes on slides-in words. Very knowledgeable and interesting-really enjoyed his class
2. More entertaining, caring about our understanding, personable, reasonable
3. Strong: reasonable, interesting, tests very fair - not all going to need to memorize everything so take homes made much more sense
4. Made sense!
5. A
6. 3.4

Student 81
1. Spend more time on subject matter. Allow time for info to sink in. Could better explain topics.
2. Subject matter is more difficult, but explain topics more in depth/spend more time on them
3. Course SHOULD NOT be help at 8am T&R. If at 8am should be MWF or later in the day on T&R
4.
5. D
6. 3.3

Student 82
1. I would say use electronics more. Tegrity is used, but we can't hear without a mic. If you could draw on slide as you go that be helpful otherwise they're just slides
2. Definitely more personable and understanding
3. A lot of material in the class it moves really fast past (slow down a little) if its [sic] at 8am its hard to maintain focus for 75 minutes. The TA office hours should be included as a credit for discussion class we learn a lot there.
4. A little better than most.
5. C
6. 2.9

Student 83
1. Strong: knowledgeable in chem. Enthusiastic. a. Weak: lectures way too fast. Assumes everyone gets Chemistry. b. Improve: Make slides that outline things using more words instead of just pictures-helps in note taking
2. Dr. Glaser is more enthusiastic than any chem teacher I've had at Mizzou. I find chem to be extremely difficult to understand, so I don't feel that I can accurately compare the teachers
3. Strong: Info mostly learnt [sic]. a. Weak: not enough ways to practice. b. Improve: do more IN CLASS interactive examples
4.
5. B
6. 3.385

Student 84
1. No weak features. Dr. Glaser went above and beyond as an instructor! I have struggled before but with his class it became more clear. And he was always available for help.
2. I was retaking this course in which I previously had a different instructor and struggled. Dr. Glaser however made it much more clear and understandable
3.
4. With this course I finally felt like the instructor cared and wanted to help.
5. A
6. 3.0

Student 85
1. Strong: is interested in the subject. a. Weak: cannot give simple, easy to understand examples. Since this is an intro class, need to "dumb donw" lectures to make them understandable. I was completely lost during lectures. I'm still not sure of what I think I learned this semester
2. He is very interesting personally. He just talks way over the student comprehension level.
3. Strong: the sequence of topics introduced.
a. Weak: the amount of learning done outside of class. I spent 20+ hours weekly trying to teach this to myself.
4. N/A
5. D
6. 3.4