Course Evaluation Reports

Semester	201107
Course #:	MATH411
Section #:	0101	# of Students in Course:	9
Course Name:	ADV CALCULUS II	# of Evaluations Submitted:	6
Instructor:	Wilson, E	Response Rate:	66.7%

ALL RESPONSES Course Evaluation Reports
ADMINISTRATOR UNIVERSITY-WIDE GROUP/COURSE ITEMS APPLIED TO ALL SECTION INSTRUCTORS
Questions for use by faculty/instructors and for administrative purposes
N/A responses have been excluded from the following calculations.

							MATH411	0101	COLLEGE COMPARISON*
	Number of Responses	% Strongly Disagree	% Disagree	% Neutral	% Agree	% Strongly Agree	Mean	Stdv.	Mean
The course was intellectually challenging.	6	0	0	0	17	83	3.83	0.408	3.54
I learned a lot from this course.	6	0	0	0	50	50	3.50	0.548	3.29

* Average rating for all similarly leveled course sections (e.g., all 200-level course sections) in this college.

How does this course fit into your academic plan or course of study? (Number of Responses 6)
0% CORE Requirement	83% Major/Certificate/Minor/Program Requirement	17% Elective
Additional comments (e.g., about course content/materials, teaching style, etc.):
Thanks for an awesome eight weeks! I hope you get to teach this course again. A little more time devoted to Greene, Stokes, curl, etc., would be nice, possibly at the expense of something else in the course (the proof of the change of variables theorem?). Fitzpatrick lumps all the best stuff together in the last section of his book. It could be unpacked more effectively.
Excellent professor, one of the best I've had at UMD.
I do not normally laud professors since most I've come across are uninspiring or not too above average, but I've decided to make an exception and write an essay. In a sentence, Dr. Wilson is a paragon of what I look for from a professor. I?ve taken courses with approximately 50 different professors or postgraduate instructors in college. Among those, I think Dr. Wilson is unequivocally one of the best, if not the best, professor I?ve ever had. I look to instructors for inspiration or motivation, not necessarily for an exposition of the course material; I prefer not to go to classes because I usually zone out during lectures and learn more efficiently from textbooks. Furthermore, the idea of going to a math class at 9:30AM in the summer makes me sad. In spite of this, Dr. Wilson?s teaching style kept me reasonably engaged in my state of torpor by cracking jokes or pointing out interesting relationships between various theorems in analysis and applications to different fields in and/or outside of math. This is exactly what does make me come to class (besides the daily mandatory quizzes). That said, the reasons I think she stands out more than any other professor are numerous, but to list the most important ones to me: 1). She routinely encouraged students (via extra homework points) to think more about concepts and to prove/disprove various statements with strong relevance to the subject, but which were not necessarily covered by the class textbook itself. For one example in particular, we were asked to prove/disprove a more general statement than the additivity-over-domains property of the Riemann integral in R^n. Consequently, I developed a strong understanding of the relationship between Jordan measure and the Riemann integral as well as their analogue relation to Lebesgue measure and the Lebesgue integral (these were outside the scope of this course, but mentioned when appropriate to help illustrate extensions of the topic to graduate real-analysis). As a result of this, I believe I gained a greater understanding of several sections of the course. 2). Dr. Wilson showed genuine interest in the subject as well as other areas of math outside her particular field. At the risk of sounding too corny, I thought her enthusiasm for math was infectious. Unlike other math classes where the course is taught entirely within the context of the subject area (and usually via a monologue), she explained how concepts from analysis are used in or can be extended to different areas of math (examples included differential geometry, PDE?s, and theorems relevant to graduate analysis [minimization theorem/implicit function theorem]. As a result of this, I felt motivated and satisfied by learning the material since she demonstrated that it actually had practical (applied or theoretical) use beyond some contrived classroom exercise. 3). Whenever students (or at least, I) had questions or needed more clarification on a topic, Dr. Wilson nearly always had a thorough explanation. In the event that she couldn?t answer it right away, she would either pose it as a question for us to prove (Re: reason 1).) or would promptly find out and inform the class. I thought this was extremely helpful because it helps expand upon or reinforce concepts. Also, while not particularly relevant, Dr. Wilson also has a very funny sense of humor.

ADMINISTRATOR UNIVERSITY-WIDE INSTRUCTOR ITEMS:
Questions for use by faculty/instructors and for administrative purposes
N/A responses have been excluded from the following calculations.

Instructor: Wilson, E							MATH411	0101	COLLEGE COMPARISON*
	Number of Responses	% Strongly Disagree	% Disagree	% Neutral	% Agree	% Strongly Agree	Mean	Stdv.	Mean
The instructor treated students with respect.	6	0	0	0	0	100	4.00	0.000	3.60
The instructor was well-prepared for class.	6	0	0	0	33	67	3.67	0.516	3.35
Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher.	6	0	0	0	33	67	3.67	0.516	3.18

* Average rating for all similarly leveled course sections (e.g., all 200-level course sections) in this college.

AVERAGE OF FIVE ADMINISTRATOR AGREE/DISAGREE QUESTIONS: 3.73 / 4.00
Scaled 0-4: Strongly Disagree=0; Strongly Agree=4. N/A is not in the average.

The standards the instructor set for students were... (Number of Responses 6)
0% Too Low	100% Appropriate	0% Too High

STUDENT UNIVERSITY-WIDE GROUP/COURSE ITEMS APPLIED TO ALL SECTION INSTRUCTORS
Questions for use by faculty/instructors and students
N/A responses have been excluded from the following calculations.

							MATH411	0101	COLLEGE COMPARISON*
	Number of Responses	% Strongly Disagree	% Disagree	% Neutral	% Agree	% Strongly Agree	Mean	Stdv.	Mean
Course guidelines were clearly described in the syllabus.	6	0	0	0	33	67	3.67	0.516	3.21

* Average rating for all similarly leveled course sections (e.g., all 200-level course sections) in this college.

Based on the quality of my work in this course, the grades I earned were... (Number of Responses 6)
0% Too Low	83% Appropriate	17% Too High
Given the course level and number of credits, the workload was... (Number of Responses 6)
0% Too Low	100% Appropriate	0% Too High
How much effort did you put into the course? (Number of Responses 6)
0% Little	17% Moderate	83% Considerable

STUDENT UNIVERSITY-WIDE INSTRUCTOR ITEMS:
Questions for use by faculty/instructors and students
N/A responses have been excluded from the following calculations.

Instructor: Wilson, E							MATH411	0101	COLLEGE COMPARISON*
	Number of Responses	% Strongly Disagree	% Disagree	% Neutral	% Agree	% Strongly Agree	Mean	Stdv.	Mean
The instructor was effective in communicating the content of the course.	6	0	0	0	33	67	3.67	0.516	3.15
The instructor was responsive to student concerns.	6	0	0	0	0	100	4.00	0.000	3.51
The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content.	6	0	0	0	0	100	4.00	0.000	3.18
* Average rating for all similarly leveled course sections (e.g., all 200-level course sections) in this college.

Grade distribution is current as of August 26, 2011 and includes students receiving a W for the course.
Course Evaluation Reports