Student comments from EPID160 Spring 2006
|
______________________________
|
“The labs are difficult to prepare for because we're expected
to answer questions on topics for which we haven't yet been
taught. Students would likely get more out of labs if they
tested concepts learned during the prior week's lecture.”
|
|
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/14)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I really appreciate the set up of the course, ie all of the
opportunities to provide input and the study aides- unfortunately,
only if this were the only class I were taking could I put
forward enough time to get through everything!”
|
|
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/17)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I like the pre-recitation lecture. it helps a lot. maybe since
we've been ending a lot earlier than 6pm, maybe the lecture
should be extended to get as much time as possible.”
|
|
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/17)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I think epid 160 is a great class. This is the first class
that I've taken in this type of field since I'm a sophomore
(undergraduate). I enjoy learning the new concepts in class
and the labs we have afterward. I also think that Chris is
a great TA and I enjoy coming every Tuesday.”
|
|
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/15)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I think group 4 is wonderful. We work well together and efficiently.
Everyone comes to class ready to participate and has as many
of the questions answered as they can. It makes going through
the questions less painful and we can work as a group to only
go over areas not well understood, which I believe is a good
use of time.”
|
|
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/17)
|
|
______________________________
|
“Thanks for making this a class that is teaching me a lot.”
|
|
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/19)
|
|
______________________________
|
“These were difficult to do because the parameters or scale
was a little difficult. For example, in the "supporting other
group members," it is difficult to ascertain the difference
between 4 and 5. Also, for the facilitation question, I assume
that all students met with the TA but their facilitation skills
might be different and there's no way to evaluate their facilitation
skills. An N/A would be good for some as well because I personally
didn't go to one of the sections and thus cannot honestly evaluate
the facillitator for that week, so I gave her a 4 because (again)
I assume she met with the TA and prepared.”
|
|
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/19)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I think our recitation group works well together, and I look
forward to the rest of the semester.”
|
|
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/13)
|
|
______________________________
|
“The students in my small group are great - we all participate
about equally, everyone makes good contributions, everyone
is prepared, we move through the material efficiently, and
no one dominates the discussion.”
|
|
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/15)
|
|
______________________________
|
“It would be beneficial to group moral if we could leave the
discussion period after completing and discussing all questions.”
|
|
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/15)
|
|
______________________________
|
“The lectures and handouts are very comprehensive and useful.
Marcel is very responsive to his students in answering to their
questions and requests. Thank you for your kind support.”
|
|
Aiko,
MPH student,
MHCH,
TA: Marcel
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/17)
|
|
______________________________
|
“There is a lot of material to learn, but it seems very interesting
so far!”
|
|
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/15)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I really enjoy the small group recitations. Discussing the
information with others has been extremely helpful in understanding
the material.”
|
|
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/12)
|
|
______________________________
|
“this was tough to do so early because i don't know everyone
that well. I feel that we should have done it right at the
end or beginning of class. I have tried to take the time to
get to know everyone by name, but I guess I'm short a person
or two... I think the lectures are great. don't let the HPA's
get ya down. I think May is doing a great job, she could take
more slowly and with more confidence. Also I think she could
try the recitation without the microphone, at least, to see
how it goes.”
|
|
Josh,
MPH student,
HBHE,
TA: May
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/13)
|
|
______________________________
|
“Sometimes I think that the lecture given in section is repeats
a lot of the same information as the lecture given to the large
group. I think the time would be better spent working through
example problems at the beginning of section or for the TA
to answer questions about the case study at the end of section.”
|
|
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/12)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I have enjoyed the case studies and lecture so far and I am
looking forward to the insightful semester left ahead.”
|
|
Cody,
BSPH student,
BIOS,
TA: May
(1st peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/02/13)
|
|
______________________________
|
“all is good”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/24)
|
|
______________________________
|
“comments are on the class evaluation. Have a great summer.
I had a blast with yall!”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/05/02)
|
|
______________________________
|
“In general I learned a lot from this class, especially by working
through the case studies. I gained a lot of practical article
critiquing skills.”
|
|
Christine,
MSPH student,
MHCH,
TA: Brooke
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/24)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I enjoyed discussing our answers with my group during lab.”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/24)
|
|
______________________________
|
“This was a great class! Dr. Vic makes you want to stand up
and cheer for Epidemiology!”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/27)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I feel that our section had a really easy rapport with each
other. There were no dominating individuals or any contentions.
We seemed to work well as a group and had a fairly enjoyable
time learning in the process.”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/26)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I also just wanted to say that I think our lab session group
was the best one in the class. Our TA Chris was the greatest
and really made our lab sessions enjoyable and not torturous.”
|
|
Becky,
MSPH student,
HPAA,
TA: Chris
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/24)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I really enjoyed this class, thanks!”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/24)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I would just like to say that my test scores do not reflect
the knowledge I have gained in Epid 160. I have thoroughly
enjoyed this class and feel like I have acquired a vast amount
of knowledge about epidemiology and its place in public health
and in society in general. This was a great introductory course,
and Vic does an excellent job explaining the different concepts
while covering as much material as possible. Aside from the
difficulty of a few of the statistical concepts, I enjoyed
all of our case studies and lectures and found them very interesting.
More importantly, I learned to appreciate the importance and
relevance of epidemiology in public health and to understand
main ideas and strategies that I know will be useful to me
in the future.”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/26)
|
|
______________________________
|
“Greet course. I really enjoyed the labs where I could discuss
and understand dificult concepts from lectures and readings.”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/27)
|
|
______________________________
|
“Marcel, I really appreciate all of the hard work you have put
into helping teach this course. I feel that you have taken
the feedback given during mid-semester evaluations and made
positive changes. Your presentation-style is much-improved,
more engaging, and effective. Additionally, your commitment
to this course has been evidenced by your flexibility in meeting
with students outside of class, along with your thorough explinations.”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/25)
|
|
______________________________
|
“The beginning started off a bit rough, but by the end, our
group really seemed to work well. Thank you Marcel for helping
us to understand the concepts and making the experience a pleasant
one. When I read articles, I have a much better sense of the
research design and implications, and what the results really
mean. Thanks!”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/05/01)
|
|
______________________________
|
“Everyone in my group was great - we all contributed equally,
did the case study questions, and got along well. No complaints
at all!”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/23)
|
|
______________________________
|
“Thank you both for an exciting semester. The most creative
and useful class I have taken at Carolina.”
|
|
Brendan,
AB student,
BIOA,
TA: Marcel
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/27)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I enjoyed having Marcel as a TA. I think that he did the best
he could to take into consideration comments about his accent
from the first evaluation because I was able to understand
him much better during the second half of the semester. He
took his time to thoroughly explain concepts and asked questions
of the class to make sure we were thinking about those concepts.
I think he was a great TA.”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/28)
|
|
______________________________
|
“Vic always showed great passion in teaching us, which we greatly
appreciate. Marcel devoted himself to prepare and give the
lectures. We, students, benefit a lot from his in-depth knowledge
and passion. Thank you.”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/28)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I really enjoyed this class!!!”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/25)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I think that this peer review system is inappropriate and unfair.
I think it favors students who are naturally outgoing and talkative,
which I am not. I do not like fighting other students to participate
or to have my voice heard, and I feel like this system forces
this kind of participation in class. Rather than rewarding
those students who answered most often or talked the most in
class (because what other criteria can I use - there is no
way for me to know how much time people put in before class),
I gave everyone the same score. I feel like everyone in my
group worked hard and all deserved good grades, but I do not
think that this system should be used.”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/29)
|
|
______________________________
|
“We had a great group, very friendly, supportive to each other,
and expeditious. Everyone was able to bring something to the
table with all of our unique strengths. I actually had fun
in Epi lab because of these folks (and learned as well!)”
|
|
Rich,
MPH student,
HPAA,
TA: May
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/24)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I loved my small group this semester, they were all great to
work with!”
|
|
Jessica,
MHA student,
HCAD,
TA: May
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/26)
|
|
______________________________
|
“Same as last evaluation - I feel May needs to be more confident
in herself and open more discussion during recitation”
|
|
Josh,
MPH student,
HBHE,
TA: May
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/27)
|
|
______________________________
|
“Vic is passionate about Epi.”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/26)
|
|
______________________________
|
“Our TA has been very helpful in guiding us through our recitation
session of the course. I really enjoyed her as my TA in Epidemiology.”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/24)
|
|
______________________________
|
“I don't think we should be expected to "regularly read additional
scholarly or scientific material relevant to the topic" to
prepare for lab sessions.”
|
|
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/26)
|
|
______________________________
|
“Epi 160 is an extremely useful class for understanding the
technical writing of public health; it is comprehensive enough
to provide students with a general understanding of epidemiology
and deep enough to make the class worth taking. I learned so
much more than I expected from an introductory class :)”
|
|
Duy,
MPH student,
HBHE,
TA: May
(2nd peer evaluation,
Classroom course,
2006/04/30)
|
(An additional 14 comments were received but the students did not
authorize their dissemination.)
2006a,
compiled 05/16/2006 |