1. Faculty Member: LIM PEK KHING ANDRE
Department: COMPUTING & ENGINEERING Academic Year: 2015/2016
Faculty:
JOINT MULTI-DISCIPLINARY
PROGRAMMES
Semester: 1
Module: PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY - CS1010E
Activity Type: LABORATORY
Class Size/Response Size/Response Rate : 39 / 20 / 51.28%
Contact Session/Teaching Hour : 11 / 22
Qn Items Evaluated
Fac. Member
Avg Score
Fac. Member
Avg Score Std.
Dev
Dept Avg
Score
Fac. Avg
Score
(a) (b) (c) (d)
1 The teacher has
enhanced my
thinking ability.
4.300 0.128 4.112 ( 4.131) 4.112 ( 4.131)
2 The teacher has
increased my
interest in the
subject.
4.300 0.164 3.999 ( 4.007) 3.999 ( 4.007)
3 The teacher
provided timely
and useful
feedback.
4.350 0.182 4.223 ( 4.250) 4.223 ( 4.250)
4 The teacher has
enhanced my
ability to
communicate the
subject material.
4.300 0.147 4.053 ( 4.064) NA (NA)
5 The teacher's
attitude and
approach
encouraged me
to think and work
in a creative and
independent
way.
4.250 0.143 4.059 ( 4.079) NA (NA)
6 The teacher
cares about
student
development
and learning.
4.500 0.136 4.147 ( 4.172) NA (NA)
Average Q1 to
Q6
4.333 0.134 4.099 ( 4.117) NA (NA)
Computed
Overall
Effectiveness of
4.367 0.132 4.160 ( 4.178) 4.160 ( 4.178)

2. the Teacher.
Notes:
1. A 5-point scale is used for the scores. The higher the score, the better the rating.
2. Fac. Member Avg Score: The mean of all the scores for each question for the faculty member.
3. Fac. Member Avg Score Std. Dev: A measure of the range of variability. It measures the extent to
which a faculty member's Average Score differs from all the scores in the faculty member's
evaluation. The smaller the standard deviation, the greater the robustness of the number given as
average.
4. Dept Avg Score :
(a) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory) within the department.
(b) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory), at the same module level ( level 1000 )
within the department.
5. Fac. Avg Score :
(c) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory) within the faculty.
(d) the mean score of same activity type (Laboratory), at the same module level ( level 1000 )
within the faculty.
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ON TEACHER
Faculty Member: LIM PEK KHING ANDRE
Department: COMPUTING & ENGINEERING Academic Year: 2015/2016
Faculty:
JOINT MULTI-DISCIPLINARY
PROGRAMMES
Semester: 1
Module: PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY - CS1010E
Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 1: The teacher has enhanced my thinking ability.)
Nos. of Respondents(% of
Respondents)
|
ITEMSCORE | 5 4 3 2 1
|
Self | 7 (35.00%) 12 (60.00%) 1 (5.00%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%)
Teachers
teaching all
Modules of the
Same Activity
Type
(Laboratory), at
the same level
within
Department
| 385 (33.80%) 553 (48.55%) 175 (15.36%) 17 (1.49%) 9 (.79%)
Teachers
teaching all
Modules of the
Same Activity
Type
| 385 (33.80%) 553 (48.55%) 175 (15.36%) 17 (1.49%) 9 (.79%)

3. (Laboratory), at
the same level
within Faculty
Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 2: The teacher has increased my interest in the
subject.)
Nos. of Respondents(% of
Respondents)
|
ITEMSCORE | 5 4 3 2 1
|
Self | 9 (45.00%) 8 (40.00%) 3 (15.00%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%)
Teachers
teaching all
Modules of the
Same Activity
Type
(Laboratory), at
the same level
within
Department
| 342 (30.08%) 503 (44.24%) 257 (22.60%) 28 (2.46%) 7 (.62%)
Teachers
teaching all
Modules of the
Same Activity
Type
(Laboratory), at
the same level
within Faculty
| 342 (30.08%) 503 (44.24%) 257 (22.60%) 28 (2.46%) 7 (.62%)
Frequency Distribution of responses (Qn 3: The teacher provided timely and useful feedback.)
Nos. of Respondents(% of
Respondents)
|
ITEMSCORE | 5 4 3 2 1
|
Self | 11 (55.00%) 5 (25.00%) 4 (20.00%) 0 (.00%) 0 (.00%)
Teachers
teaching all
Modules of the
Same Activity
Type
(Laboratory), at
the same level
within
Department
| 489 (43.01%) 472 (41.51%) 155 (13.63%) 13 (1.14%) 8 (.70%)
Teachers | 489 (43.01%) 472 (41.51%) 155 (13.63%) 13 (1.14%) 8 (.70%)

4. teaching all
Modules of the
Same Activity
Type
(Laboratory), at
the same level
within Faculty
STUDENTS' COMMENTS ON TEACHER
Faculty Member: LIM PEK KHING ANDRE
Department: COMPUTING & ENGINEERING Academic Year: 2015/2016
Faculty:
JOINT MULTI-DISCIPLINARY
PROGRAMMES
Semester: 1
Module: PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY - CS1010E
Activity Type: LABORATORY
What are the teacher's strengths? (9 comments)
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.5 for the
computed overall effectiveness of the teacher
1. Caring :)
2. Helpful and approachable
3. Really helpful and helps to augment improvements to codes.
4. clear and responsible
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.0 and less
than 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher
1. Set time limit so that students are trained to complete lab within a certain time limit and at the same
time prevent students from being stuck at certain levels for too long.
2. draws diagrams to help students understand
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 3.5 and less
than 4.0 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher
1. -
2. Nice and friendly person :)
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 3.0 and less
than 3.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher
1. nil
What improvements would you suggest to the teacher? (7 comments)
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 3.0 and less

5. than 3.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher
1. nil
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 3.5 and less
than 4.0 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher
1. -
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.0 and less
than 4.5 for the computed overall effectiveness of the teacher
1. NIL
Comments from students who gave an average score greater than or equal to 4.5 for the
computed overall effectiveness of the teacher
1. Maybe do a summary during labs?
2. NA
3. more instructions to public rather than individuals thus can save time
4. nil