The University of Western Australia Student Evaluation -- Dr David Rindos May 1991 Evaluation of Archaeology 120 based on judgements of 70 students where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 6 = Strongly Agree. Item Average [% added here] Range / # Responses Please rate your view of the lecturer 4.443 Lectures are well organised [67%] 1-6 70 4.757 There is continuity between lectures [79%] 2-8 70 4.000 The lecture uses visual aids appropriately [67%] 1-6 69 5.571 I feel confident in the lecturer's knowledge of the subject [93%] 1-9 70 4.426 I find the notes and other reading material provided by the lecturer helpful [67%] 1-9 68 5.575 The lecturer shows enthusiasm for teaching [96%] 1-9 70 4.857 The lecturer's preparation for each class is thorough [81%] 1-9 70 5.543 Students are encouraged to ask questions or to participate [92%] 3-6 70 5.443 The lecturer seems willing to help those with difficulties [91%] 1-6 70 [overall average 83%] Please rate your view of your own learning 4.621 I have learned to think critically [77%] 1-6 66 4.703 I have learned to think independently [78%] 1-6 64 4.343 I have gained a good understanding of the field [72%] 1-6 67 4.463 I have learned a lot in this subject [74%] 1-6 67 4.242 I have developed the ability to solve [71%] 1-6 66 problems in the field 4.791 I have developed an interest in this subject [80%] 1-6 67 [overall average 75%] Please answer the following questions about different aspects of the course. 4.700 Practicals were a useful learning experience [78%] 1-6 70 4.671 Practicals were an integral part of the course [78%] 1-6 70 4.217 Lecture and tutorial classes were well intergrated [71%] 1-6 69 4.571 The papers in the library reserve were useful [76%] 1-6 70 4.838 I have had a fair opportunity to be asssesed 1-6 68 on what I have learned [81%] 4.708 My assessment was a fair reflection of my learning in the course [78%] 1-6 65 [overall average 77%] Please rate your view of the course texts, lecturue, course and tutor, where. .. 1=Unable to Assess, 2=Very poor, 3=Poor, 4=Okay, 5=Very good, and 6=Excellent 4.420 Fagan: In the Beginning 1-6 69 4.000 Neslon and Jurmain: Introduction to 1-6 61 Physical Anthropology 4.377 Overall, how do you rate this lecturer? [73%] 2-6 69 4.529 Overall, how do you rate this course? [75%] 1-6 70 5.314 Overall, how do you rate your tutor? [88%] 2-6 70Archaeology 120 was the most challenging first year course I've taken since I started at UWA in 1989. The nature of the course itself and Dr Rindos' teaching promotes independent thinking and an appreciation of the complexities and ambiguities of archaeology as a science. I think that many people straight out of school become bewildered by Dave's teaching because he declines from using the "spoon fed" teaching methods may are accustomed to at secondary school level. The course has been difficult, yes, but we are here because we are intelligent enough (supposedly) to handle difficult concepts such as those in A120. It has been inspiring.
Note: Letter grading at UWA might be relevant to the interpreation of these results. These standards are: 80 - 100 = A+ 75 - 79 = A 70 - 74 = B+ 65 - 69 = B 60 - 64 = C+ 50 - 59 = C 45 - 49 = Conditional Pass 0 - 44 = F Raw mean of means = 82.9% [computed by taking the raw mean of all questions] = 82.9% Weighted mean of means = 78% [computed from the means of the three classes of questions, and treating these as having equal weight] According to the Staff Development Office at the University of Western Australia, under the current (1995) rating system of 1 - 5 (from strongly disagree to strongly agree as in this 1991 system), the informal "rule of thumb" for interpreting results, with percentiles computed as here, runs as follows: > 4.0 >80% excellent 3.5 - 4.0 70-80% good 3.0 - 3.5 60-70% better than average 2.5 - 3.0 50-60% satisfactory Hence, the results are at least roughly in keeping with the grading system used at the University. If we can project these results back to those received by Dr Rindos in 1991, his overall result would be largely in the good to excellent range with nothing below the upper part of the better than average range, and with certain ratings (in the mid to high 90% range) indicating exceedingly good performance.
The University of Western Australia Student Feedback [Archaeology 120: Dr D Rindos] May 1991 Summary of remarks
Second text unavailable to buy or find.
Interesting topic but far too much work. Most of the very many assignments were worth only .5 - 15% but took up many hours work. The space ship assignment was good but should have been worth more that 7.5%. In general, I spent more time on this unit than on both of my other units I do and these are second year units.
Dr Rindos is perhaps the most inspiring of all university lecturers I have experienced, and like the tutors, was very approachable in regard to all aspects of university life -- not only Archaeology 120.
The lecturer takes dry and difficult to comprehend information and teaches it to us in an enjoyable, fun, but behind the scenes serious ways. i.e Rafa Rafa and the spaceship assignment which he clearly put a lot of effort into organise and or developing. Well done! Esmee and Louise are great tutors.
I find Dave and Louse and Esmee all very approachable and friendly and enthusiastic people. All of whom I would hate to lose. They have all allowed us access to their spare time and are always willing to help -- these people make a potentially dry course alive and extremely interesting. They clearly put a lot of effort to make this a fun learning subject in such assignments as Rafa Rafa and space ship.
The course is interesting in itself and at least Dave isn't boring. Once you're used to his style it's not too bad. The content is cool. I guess you have to learn concept before you do anything practical. Personally, upon reflection, it's my most enjoyable course.
Dr Rindos should maybe try to be more straightforward in what he says -- get to the point without beating around the bush. However, he is a highly charismatic lecturer and easy to approach.
The lectures were interesting and stimulating but there did not seem to be a clear sequence of material. It was very difficult to take notes in a sequence that made sense afterwards. The overhead only added to the confusion. It was only after reading the lecturer's own notes that the course and information made sense and showed structure.
Having come to University straight from high school, and being very unclear of what is expected with all the processes involved in independent learning, I found Dave's lectures very disorganised and haphazard. He was hard to follow. In terms of the whole department, I occasionally considered them rude and unhelpful. However it was/is and interesting course.
I think you are a great fun guy, Dave. Really. But I found your lectures disjointed, confusing, geared to a higher knowledge base. Your use of the overhead projector was bad since you kept tapping the sheet askew or else turning the damn thing off. No benefit to us. Wasn't able to purchase second text.
The only problem with David's lectures is that they are slightly unorganised. Student came out feeling confused. I understand that this might be due to the nature of Archaeology, but please could we have more structure -- the detailed overheads are good. By the way, the last few lectures were better than the first.
Slides would have been good, especially of skulls. Papers in library reserve sometimes hard to find. Overall lectures improved as time went on.
Because there is extensive use of overheads it is difficult if you miss a lecture and have to listen to it on tape. I think a printed outline for each lecture would be advisable, also for everyone to keep record of the general topics which are are covered and keep their note-taking to the point.
Could not afford second text. I feel left in the wake with some ambiguity concerning some of the application of certain principles of the discipline. A little over the top so to speak are the theories as they are thrashed out one after the other without any seeming obvious application.
I think the lecturer goes out of his way to make sure that everyone understands, and will continue to stress the point he's making until it is clear [On own learning: I have developed an interest in this subject -- especially human evolution].
David has definite strengths -- his passion to teach is apparent. He is a it disorganised in my opinion but he does sincerely care for his students. I sincerely wish him the best.
Even though David's style may be unusual and outlandish, once you have gotten used to his way of conveying information he is an excellent lecturer who not only enables you to learn but to understand as well.
The course seems to be most interesting, but I have had a few problems following the context, mainly of the lectures.
[On rating own view of learning: These questions are loaded. I consider I do think critically and independently but it has not improved in this course.] Dr Rindos is awkward to follow and set too much work that is not directly related to the course.
Very interesting course and an excellent lecturer. I will continue in second year.
[Visual aides: could be more legible]. Dr Rindos should be kept on next semester a view shared by the majority if not all Arch 120 students. Eradicate the politics and get on with the learning.
I hard to understand whether you are trying to cope with the logic of the archaeology or the logic of the lecturer.
I believe our current lecturer to be extremely competent and has the ability to make lectures interesting. He provides a number of alternative perspectives/ways of looking at vital concepts and his enthusiasm for the subject is catching. I am impressed at his willingness to alter the lecturing structure too when concepts need more emphasis and believe he should continue to do so.
Although I am not mad about David's teaching I think the way he was dismissed was disgusting.
An excellent course. Very well presented by the lecturer, who I might add, is at ease with this unit because of his vast knowledge of archaeology as his academic pursuits would indicate. David (Dr) Rindos should be complemented, rewarded (recognised) maybe.
Tutors were not organised early enough -- had no real concept on how D Rindos was to lecture and role they were to play in filling in the gaps as outlined in course outline.
Lecturer and tutor very helpful. Archaeology very interesting, even historical aspects.