C.

SMITH, 17F: SPAN 44 DIS 1C: LATIN AMERICAN CLTR

C. SMITH
Evaluation of Instruction Program Report
17F: SPAN 44 DIS 1C: LATIN AMERICAN CLTR
No. of responses = 22
Enrollment = 27
Response Rate = 81.48%

Survey Results

1. Background Information:

1.1)
Year in School:
Freshman 5 n=22

Sophomore 11

Junior 6

Senior 0

Graduate 0

Other 0

1.2)
UCLA GPA:
Below 2.0 1 n=21

2.0 - 2.49 1

2.5 - 2.99 1

3.0 - 3.49 7

3.5+ 3

Not Established 8

1.3)
Expected Grade:
A 13 n=22

B 6

C 0

D 0

F 0

P 0

NP 0

? 3

1.4)
What requirements does this course fulfill?
Major 6 n=20

Related Field 3

G.E. 11

None 0

05/12/2018 Class Climate Evaluation Page 1

 C. SMITH, 17F: SPAN 44 DIS 1C: LATIN AMERICAN CLTR

2. To What Extent Do You Feel That:

2.1)
Teaching Assistant Knowledge – The Very Low or 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 16 Very High or n=22
Never Always av.=8.59
T.A. was knowledgeable about the md=9
material. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 dev.=0.8

2.2)
Teaching Assistant Concern – The T. Very Low or 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 15 Very High or n=21
Never Always av.=8.57
A. was concerned about student md=9
learning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 dev.=0.81

2.3)
Organization – Section presentations Very Low or 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 16 Very High or n=22
Never Always av.=8.55
were well prepared and organized. md=9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 dev.=0.8

2.4)
Scope – The teaching assistant Very Low or 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 14 Very High or n=22
Never Always av.=8.45
expanded on course ideas. md=9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 dev.=0.8

2.5)
Interaction – Students felt welcome in Very Low or 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 14 Very High or n=22
Never Always av.=8.36
seeking help in or outside of the md=9
class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 dev.=1

2.6)
Communication Skills – The teaching Very Low or 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 15 Very High or n=22
Never Always av.=8.59
assistant had good communication md=9
skills. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 dev.=0.67

2.7)
Value – The overall value of the Very Low or 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 14 Very High or n=22
Never Always av.=8.23
sections justified your time and effort. md=9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 dev.=1.15

2.8)
Overall – What is your overall rating Very Low or 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 14 Very High or n=22
Never Always av.=8.5
of the teaching assistant? md=9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 dev.=0.8

3. Your View of Section Characteristics:

3.1)
Difficulty (relative to other courses) Low 4 18 0 High n=22
av.=1.82
md=2
1 2 3 dev.=0.39

3.2)
Workload/pace was Too Slow 0 22 0 Too Much n=22
av.=2
md=2
1 2 3 dev.=0

3.3)
Integration of section with course was Poor 0 4 18 Excellent n=22
av.=2.82
md=3
1 2 3 dev.=0.39

3.4)
Texts, required readings Poor 0 9 13 Excellent n=22
av.=2.59
md=3
1 2 3 dev.=0.5

3.5)
n=19
Homework assignments Poor 0 8 11 Excellent av.=2.58
md=3
dev.=0.51
1 2 3 ab.=3

05/12/2018 Class Climate Evaluation Page 2

 C. SMITH, 17F: SPAN 44 DIS 1C: LATIN AMERICAN CLTR

3.6)
Graded materials, examinations Poor 1 7 14 Excellent n=22
av.=2.59
md=3
1 2 3 dev.=0.59

3.7)
Lecture presentations Poor 0 7 15 Excellent n=22
av.=2.68
md=3
1 2 3 dev.=0.48

3.8)
Class discussions Poor 0 7 14 Excellent n=21
av.=2.67
md=3
1 2 3 dev.=0.48

05/12/2018 Class Climate Evaluation Page 3

 C. SMITH, 17F: SPAN 44 DIS 1C: LATIN AMERICAN CLTR

Profile
Subunit: SPAN
Name of the instructor: C. SMITH
Name of the course: 17F: SPAN 44 DIS 1C: LATIN AMERICAN CLTR
(Name of the survey)

Values used in the profile line: Mean

2. To What Extent Do You Feel That:

2.1) Teaching Assistant Knowledge – The T.A. was Very Low or Very High or
knowledgeable about the material. Never Always n=22 av.=8.59

2.2) Teaching Assistant Concern – The T.A. was Very Low or Very High or
concerned about student learning. Never Always n=21 av.=8.57

2.3) Organization – Section presentations were well Very Low or Very High or
prepared and organized. Never Always n=22 av.=8.55

2.4) Scope – The teaching assistant expanded on course Very Low or Very High or
ideas. Never Always n=22 av.=8.45

2.5) Interaction – Students felt welcome in seeking help in Very Low or Very High or
or outside of the class. Never Always n=22 av.=8.36

2.6) Communication Skills – The teaching assistant had Very Low or Very High or
good communication skills. Never Always n=22 av.=8.59

2.7) Value – The overall value of the sections justified Very Low or Very High or
your time and effort. Never Always n=22 av.=8.23

2.8) Overall – What is your overall rating of the teaching Very Low or Very High or
assistant? Never Always n=22 av.=8.50

3. Your View of Section Characteristics:

3.1) Difficulty (relative to other courses) Low High

n=22 av.=1.82

3.2) Workload/pace was Too Slow Too Much

n=22 av.=2.00

3.3) Integration of section with course was Poor Excellent

n=22 av.=2.82

3.4) Texts, required readings Poor Excellent

n=22 av.=2.59

3.5) Homework assignments Poor Excellent

n=19 av.=2.58

3.6) Graded materials, examinations Poor Excellent

n=22 av.=2.59

3.7) Lecture presentations Poor Excellent

n=22 av.=2.68

3.8) Class discussions Poor Excellent

n=21 av.=2.67

05/12/2018 Class Climate Evaluation Page 4

 C. SMITH, 17F: SPAN 44 DIS 1C: LATIN AMERICAN CLTR

Comments Report

4. Comments:

4.1)
Please identify what you perceive to be the real strengths and weaknesses of this teaching assistant
and course.

Chelsea did a fantastic job going over all the material we needed to know. I loved that she always
managed to relate content material to today’s world. Her discussion sections were very predictable and
organized, which was much more helpful compared to other discussions I’ve had. At this moment, I
don’t perceive Chelsea to have any weaknesses. She’s truly engaging and prepares her students well.
Chelsea is genuinely very nice and takes the time to go in depth with topics that were covered during
lectures. She supplements the lectures with extra information to help foster understanding. The class as
a whole is very information-filled, but she does a good job at covering it.
Chelsey was always very prepared for section, was thoughtful and thorough with her presentations, and
cared about student learning. Discussion helped to emphasize important ideas from lecture and helped
me to understand the material. She was always kind and fair and really wanted her students to
succeed.
Her strength include her organizational skills and openness towards students. She is very approachable
and helpful.
I absolutely enjoyed having Smith as a TA. She had always made sure to answer any of our concerns.
Our sections were so well organized too! She gave the right amount of time for discussion among
classmates and presentations. I do feel as though the quizzes were a bit difficult and I was a person
who read every single reading thoroughly. Perhaps a change in the way quiz questions are formatted?
Although I did well on the midterm, I wish there was more explanation behind her corrections on it!
Other than that, Chelsea was absolutely fantastic! Never disliked any of her sections!
I appreciated how in depth she went over topics to provide a supplement to the lecture.
I have only good things to say about Smith, she is thorough with the material and clearly knows what
she is talking about, she explains things clearly and keeps us engaged.

My teaching assistant was very involved and enthusiastic about the course material. Discussions often
contained pop quizzes, but these were never unfair for the students. However, some reading materials
were very dense and/or difficult to understand. Overall, I enjoyed my discussion and recommend the
course as a whole.
N/A
Overall Chelsea was a good instructor, knew what she was talking about. During discussion she tried to
make sure that we understood key points of the lectures. Helped prepare for midterm right. Only thing
was discussion would get a bit dry or boring but overall she did try her best to make it work.
She was very approachable and expanded on ideas talked about in lecture very well. The discussion
section was very interactive and helpful.
She was very knowledgable about the subject and was very good about explaining things and
discussing as well as analyzing texts with the entire class in a way where everyone was participating.
The TA always reviewed what we learned in lecture so the class could ask questions about anything
they did not understand. She also expanded on the lecture material and readings. She made sure

05/12/2018 Class Climate Evaluation Page 5

 C. SMITH, 17F: SPAN 44 DIS 1C: LATIN AMERICAN CLTR

everyone was doing the required readings by giving mini quizzes. The exam reviews were helpful. I
would recommend that the entire class creates a Google doc study guide in future sections.
The TA is very knowledgeable about the material and very approachable. I always felt encouraged to
speak up in discussion and was never afraid to ask questions. There are not a lot of weaknesses on her
part. She is always willing to help.
This TA is very organized and keeps the discussion focused on helpful review of topics that actually
matter for upcoming tests.
This TA was always extremely prepared and helpful towards everyone in the class. I always felt
welcome to come to her discussion. The strength of this TA was her knowledge of the material and her
teaching methods. Her slides and presentation were very clear and precise. She did not seem to have
any weaknesses.
Very eager to engaging students with material, helpful answering questions. Feedback on midterm
would have been appreciated

05/12/2018 Class Climate Evaluation Page 6