就在前兩天，上學期我TA的氣候變遷課程的學生評鑑結果出來了，老師(Paul Wennberg)馬上把連結寄給我，感覺得出來他對學生的反應很高興，還說我的TA功不可沒。
一直到今天我才跑去看結果，雖然直接關於我的部份沒有很多，但是各項都有6分左右的水準（滿分7分），comments也都很正面，（分數最低的一項是enthusiasm，我想這是因為我太含蓄的緣故 XD）當然Paul自己備課、講課的功力才是好評的重要因素，但我也知道自己透過作業解答，幫他解釋澄清了許多課堂上很難細講的觀念，雖然是第一次合作，我們兩個對於教學、傳達概念的方式似乎有種無需言喻的默契，也是因為這樣，Paul才會覺得我很貼心，也放心把很多事（出題、改考卷）交給我來吧。
有兩三個學生都說，像這門課這樣清晰、又不會陷入艱深物理數學的課程，在Caltech非常稀少，其實這也是我這幾年修過各種課程之後的感受，也因此在幫忙設計題目、撰寫解答的時候，我都一直提醒自己要突顯這個特色，我發現自己在大氣板回答問題的經驗對TA的工作相當有幫助。很多時候在某些地方栽下的可能會在另一個地方收成，看見令人驚喜的果實真的很快樂。
看完結果之後心裡很暖，所以紀錄下來，希望自己能常常記得，這種努力之後得到豐美收穫的滿足、鼓舞和感動 :)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Caltech Teaching Quality Feedback Reports Online
First Term, 2006-07
ESE/Ge 148A: Global Environmental Science: Climate Change
-------------------------------------------------------------------
=== Course Overview Questions ===
What grade do you expect?
A 45%
B 30%
C 10%
Don't Know 10%
How many hours per week did you spend on this course?
Average 7.1
About what percentage of class sessions did you attend?
Average 86.6
What percentage of the homework did you complete?
Average 98.9
=== Course Material Questions (low=0 ~ high=7) ===
Challenge level of the course: 4.6
Interest of material: 5.6
Helpfulness of text or lab notes: 5.7
Was the homework or lab work helpful? 5.6
How predictable was the grading? 5.6
Have you learned something valuable? 5.8
Would you recommend this course? 5.8
=== Do you have any general comments on the material? What was good? What could use work? ===
Comments:
--The material was good, the class seemed to be chemistry focused, I'd appreciate a bit more physics orientation. but I managed to expand a little to accomidate the chemistry bits. I supposed I was tricked into taking it by thinking it was going to be a physics class and not chemistry. and then when it was more chem, I managed to be okay with that (when I'm notoriously bad at chemistry). So it wasn't impossible for chem novices. (which is good).
--The marerials are very good, and up to date. Interesting material, and give a nice broad view of the field The reading was quite painful but it is necessary. The lecture note is a bit abstract.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
=== Course Lecturer Questions rating Paul Wennberg ==
Organization: 6.4
Ability to convey concepts: 6.4
Rapport with the class: 6.4
Attitude toward questions in class: 6.7
Rapport with individual students: 6.3
Enthusiasm: 6.4
How highly would you recommend this lecturer? 6.4
=== Any general comments on the lecturer? What was great? What could be improved? ===
Comments:
--I really liked his lectures. They were really great. I'd say Paul is one of the best lecturers I've ever had.
--He really knew his stuff. the slides had a lot of material on them so I spent time reading them rather than listening to what he was saying, and I got lost when this happened. maybe if the slides highlighted what he was going to say, and he published notes online of what he wanted to make sure we knew.
--I liked the daily tickets.
--Paul is a very nice person and a good teacher too.
--Paul Wennberg is an awesome lecturer
--He sometimes assumes students know something, so he skips explaining some stuff in details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
=== Course TA Questions rating Wei-Ting Chen ===
Enthusiasm level: 5.9
How well-informed he or she was: 6.4
Proficiency with English: 6.1
Ability to convey concepts: 6.2
Would you recommend this TA? 6.4
=== Any general comments on this TA? What was great? What could be improved? ===
Comments:
--Anne was a good TA as well. She really helped me understand the problems when I needed help.
--Anne was great. unfortunately I didn't use her office hours enough, but that was my fault. She is responsible and active.
--Good TA. dedicated to students
--Her solution sets are very helpful.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
=== General Course Comments ===
Comments:
--I loved this course. I thought the book was great, I thought daily tickets were an excellent idea, i liked making an oral presentation, I liked writing the paper. I really expanded my interest in environmental science, and I will continue the series because of this class.
--the material was hard, but not so hard I was utterly lost, and it wasn't so easy it was trivial. I liked working on it and feeling like I was going somewhere, and when I was done I felt a sense of satisfaction. thank you for a great class!
--This is a great course, lectures are very well organized and presented. I would recommend this class highly.
--It is a good class, very informative, but not requiring in terms of math, physics and chemistry, especially suitable for non-atmosphere majors.
--Overall this is very nice course. I learned a lot, and it is a bit demanding because of assignments but it is not too bad. too many caltech science classes spiral quickly into math classes, but this course sticks with what is important. Paul Wennberg is not afraid to emphasize conceptual understanding of the material, and doesn't feel like it's necessary to fill our spare minutes with useless calculations that detract from the real meat of the course. this is a superb introductory climate change course.
--Thanks for an informative and organized course. Unfortunately classes like this are rare at Caltech. My major is applied physics and I took this course for fun, and I leaned a great deal without getting overly stressed out. I've been at Caltech for four years, and this is one of the best classes I've had.
