ms159_evaluations

Summary

Instructor Contribution:

2020: Students appreciated the helpful lectures, video materials, and Goodwin's ability to answer questions concisely, highlighting his knowledgeable and engaging teaching style.
2022: Goodwin was again praised for his passion and depth of knowledge, his willingness to assist with outside projects, and his hands-on teaching approach.
2023: The positive sentiment continued, with students noting his clear explanations and ability to create an inclusive and engaging class environment.

Class Activities and Discussions:

2020: Students found the debates and extensive labs valuable for deepening their understanding of photographic techniques and critical thinking.
2022: Hands-on activities and collaborative projects were highlighted as effective, allowing students to learn by doing and fostering a productive, mistake-friendly learning environment.
2023: Students valued the hands-on labs and projects, although some noted a disconnect between readings and practical activities.

Feedback:

2020: Feedback was provided through Slack and Canvas, with students finding it constructive, particularly for debates.
2022: Goodwin was available for feedback and enthusiastic about helping students brainstorm and develop personalized projects.
2023: Feedback was mainly provided in-class during hands-on sessions, with students appreciating the consistent guidance during projects.

Office Hours:

2020: There was low attendance for office hours, with students communicating primarily via Slack.
2022 & 2023: Office hours were rarely utilized, as most students found class time sufficient for asking questions and receiving support.

Most/Least Useful Aspects:

2020: Labs and debates were seen as most useful, while some students struggled with lab complexities.
2022: The practical work and collaborative projects were most valued, though some students found end-of-semester readings less directly relevant.
2023: Labs and camera-building projects were praised, while reading discussions and certain repetitive labs were seen as less useful.

Workload and Time Commitment:

2020: Students spent 3-10 hours per week, with the workload managed primarily in class.
2022: Reported 2-4 hours per week, with a low outside workload; class time was highly productive.
2023: Similar 2-6 hours per week, with the workload viewed as moderate and less than other courses.

Intellectual Development:

2020: The course broadened perspectives on historical and technical aspects of photography.
2022: Students reported enhanced understanding of photography mechanics and were encouraged to explore personal interests in the subject.
2023: The course stimulated critical thinking about photography and encouraged creative exploration.

Overall Impressions:

Across all three years, students consistently experienced a positive, relaxed class climate and appreciated Professor Goodwin’s supportive and approachable teaching style. His classes were described as enriching and enjoyable.

Student Respondent Demographics:

2020: Primarily juniors from Harvey Mudd and Scripps, taking the course as an elective or for general education.
2022: Mostly sophomores and seniors from Scripps and Pomona, with most taking the course as a general education requirement.
2023: Primarily juniors from Scripps, taking the course as an elective or for personal interest.