ENGL505: Rhetoric of Science and Technology
Fall 2011 | Section 000 (16632) | M 6:30-9:10 | Course Materials | Eastern Michigan University
   
Instructor and COURSE EVALUATION

Enrollment: 10
Forms Completed: 7 (70%)

Core Items (A: Much Above Average, B: Above Average, C: Average, D: Below Average, E: Much Below Average)

  A B C D >E RESP
  N/% N/% N/% N/% N/% N
Overall Rating of the Teaching Effectiveness of this Instructor 4/80 1/20 0/0 0/0 0/0 5
Overall Rating of this Course 2/40 3/60 0/0 0/0 0/0 5

Additional Items (SA: Strongly Agree, A: Agree, U: Undecided, D: Disagree, SD: Strongly Disagree)

  A B C D >E RESP
  N/% N/% N/% N/% N/% N
My instructor seems well-prepared for class 4/57 3/43 0/0 0/0 0/0 7
My instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations 4/57 2/29 1/14 0/0 0/0 7
The instructor is reasonably accessible outside the classroom 5/71 2/29 1/14 0/0 0/0 7
The instructor has stimulated my thinking 4/57 2/29 1/14 0/0 0/0 7
The goals of the course are clearly stated and consistently pursued 4/57 2/29 1/14 0/0 0/0 7
My instructor respects students regardless of sex, age or race 5/71 2/29 0/0 0/0 0/0 7

Comments

What did you like most about this instructor and course?

  1. Class discussion and Projects 1 and 2.
  2. I liked my classmates and the class discussions.
  3. I generally liked the content most, but as far as how the course went I liked the discussion format. It was open and intelligent and very stimulating.
  4. I enjoyed Derek's way of teaching. I liked the fact that he tried to incorporate new methods of teaching as well as relate his experiences as a student to us.
  5. Prof. Mueller was well-prepared and a great instructor. Expecations were clear. Discussion was intellectually stimulating.
  6. Ability to try out ideas and work with instructor support and guidance.
  7. We read from a broad range of authors so we got to think about rhet of scitech from a number of angles. Discussion good.

What did you dislike most about this instructor and course?

  1. The online notes were difficult at first, but it got easier over the weeks and I can see how useful they are now.
  2. The texts are extremely outdated. I liked the first 2 books alright but the last one was nuts. No one understood it.

    3. Comment (April 2012)

    There was some disagreement in the class about whether the readings were out of date or whether, instead, they provided historical context for contemporary rhetorical principles. All of the requires books were published since 1980 and are freqently cited, which informed the decision to use them.

  3. The pace, I got lost in some of the material and a lot of it blurs together because we tried to cover so much, oh and exam? Really the final project and presentation weren't enough?
  4. I really found some of the books difficult to relate to. They were a bit outdated.
  5. NA
  6. I would have liked more weaving together of the readings (cohesiveness).
  7. We read from a broad range of authors so it was sometimes hard to tie it all together.

What constructive suggestions do you have for this instructor or course?

  1. Possibly have reading choices for some weeks and have students form reading groups based on interests or on Project 2 topics. Keep Project #1 as is because working collaboratively was a great experience.
  2. Think about the diversity, the possible backgrounds, and try to meet people halfway. Other than that, I'm glad I had this experience, but I am also very happy to not have another class w/ him. He's better w/ students than the other Faculty in this program.

    3. Comment (April 2012)

    We read a handful of articles to introduce a variety of rhetorical frameworks (dramatisms, stases, rhetorical situation, rhetorical ecologies) and then turned to three book-length works. I'm receptive to the idea of having students bring forward recommendations for reading, and yet it is difficult to do this well from week to week because of the research time it demands. -DM

  3. Incorporate more review and linking of the different theories. I feel a lot liks this was laundry list and I'm missing connections and need more instruction on how to apply these frameworks. I get what they are (mostly) but I don't really know how to use them.
  4. Maybe finding articles taht related the books to the rhetorical frameworks. This could act as a guide to see the relationship between technology and rhetoric.
  5. Class could be made more accessible to students in the professional writing track (rather than the technical). The subject matter was a bit out of my realm of experience, but Prof. Mueller did a good job making it understandable for students who don't come from a science background.
  6. More interaction with reading notes and peer blogs.
  7. I'm sort of undecided about the reading obviously but overall I really did like it. Discussion based on blogged questions were also helpful although it was sometimes hard to keep them on topic. Also really liked the occassional collaborative group bits where we found out what our classmates were working on. I liked the sort of practical approach of the class, e.g., blog in a class because you probably haven't before or make a poster and present it because you prob haven't. Never had a provessor have those concerns before.

Additional Comments

  1. -
  2. -
  3. -
  4. -
  5. -
  6. -
  7. -