teaching portfolio

Daniel Tovar Teaching Portfolio TABLE OF CONTENTS Teaching Statement page 2 Summary of Student Evaluations pages 3-4 Syllabi pages 5-15 Appendix: Original Student Evaluations pages 16-41

Tovar, Teaching Portfolio,

TEACHING STATEMENT

My teaching follows a historical-philosophical pedagogy. It centers on the concepts presented in ancient texts with an emphasis on their historical nature and contemporary significance. The historical method encourages students to understand philosophical concepts in virtue of the original contexts in which they arose. In turn, the temporal distance of these historical concepts gives us a way of looking at ourselves from a perspective unburdened by many of our contemporary prejudices. In class, I achieve these two aims through a combination of student presentations, group debate, and symposia.

My teaching of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics exemplifies my historical approach. In presenting the historical roots of Aristotle’s virtue-based ethics, I ask the students to each share with the class features that they believe are necessary to leading an ethical life. We then compare these to Aristotle’s characterization of a good life, as he describes it in the Nicomachean Ethics. Sharing their lists, students present features that are typically outward looking, focusing on other-regarding ethical virtues, such as philanthropy, compassion, and honesty. Turning to Aristotle, the difference between these contemporary accounts and the ancient accounts is thrown in sharp relief. Whereas the students’ lists were outward looking, Aristotle’s ancient conception of morality is largely inward looking. His virtues are principally characterized by self-betterment, with an emphasis on character traits such as temperance, proper pride, and proper temper. By comparing their conception of an ethical life with Aristotle’s, students acquire a sharper view of the distinctive features of Aristotle’s Ethics and what a significant alternative it offers to contemporary understandings of ethics.

To analyze the contemporary philosophical significance of the text, I ask the students to evaluate a contemporary moral issue using an ancient text. My teaching of Plato’s Crito exemplifies this. I split the class into two groups and ask each to examine a contemporary moral issue, such as the ethics of Edward Snowden’s actions, in light of the ethical lessons learned from the Crito. I then bring the groups together so that we can debate as a class what the Crito teaches us about Snowden’s actions and whether these actions are morally justifiable given the Crito’s understanding of law and disobedience. Was it right for Snowden to flee jail? Or, does Socrates’ unwillingness to escape jail show that Snowden’s actions were wrong? This activity achieves two goals. First, small groups give students a chance to participate in more sustained philosophical discussion about the ancient text which is aided by a controversial but familiar ethical topic. Second, in debate, the students are able to engage with Plato as a philosopher. By investigating the morality of whistleblowing, students learn to see Socrates as presenting a relevant moral position rather than an irrelevant fictional story of only historical value. While they do not always agree with the theory that Socrates puts forth in the dialogue, my students always recognize that through the Crito, Plato gives us a fresh way of understanding the components of a moral question that we must still confront today.

In sum, my teaching aims at two complementary goals. Through student presentations, small group philosophical analyses, and class debates, I demonstrate how the concepts contained in ancient texts give us insight into the culture that produced them. This historical analysis provides the resources for a philosophical analysis. I show that these ancient concepts give us the ability to see our world in a novel way that is free from our contemporary social prejudices and philosophical presuppositions.


SUMMARY OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS

My teaching excellence is attested by my student evaluations. In my most recent teaching, students have been very enthusiastic about class discussion, the clarity of lecture, and my writing curriculum. Below is a verbatim sample of what they have reported from some of my most recent classes. Appended to the end of this document are my original student reviews for all courses for which they were available.

Fall 2013, ENGLISH1001 : First Year Seminar I, “Meaning of Life”

•! The teacher was knowledgeable and my favorite part were our class discussions which were very interesting and sometimes ran like a debate

•! [Daniel] was very engaging and sparked a lot of questions and offered us to answer them, then elaborated himself, which was a very interactive way to teach and engage our interest

•! What's useful is that the class does help you write better essays - a skill any college student needs for sure

•! comments on papers are in depth, honest, with good length and helpful suggestions, informative and very clear.

•! What I liked best is the new perspective you gain on life and morality. What I liked least is the minimum essay page requirement. I'm a succinct writer and forcing myself to write more than I feel I should adds a great mental burden.

•! Daniel is very inspiring and he gave us a lot of space to think by yourself and for yourself. I love the books he gave us to read and write about. Fall 2014, Humanity3704 : Hist Phil : Hegel to 20th Cen

•! This was a great course! We sampled some interesting texts and really broke them down and dissected main ideas

•! I appreciated [Daniel’s] emphasis in deconstructing more esoteric or convoluted texts into easily understood ideas.

•! I knew whenever I didn't understand a concept that I would understand it after class because [Daniel] does a great job of explaining dense philosophies in an accessible way

•! He gives you very in depth critical feedback, the most critical feedback I've ever gotten from an SAIC professor

•! Very accessible! Daniel made sure to reiterate that we could reach him through e-mail and set up a meeting if we were having any issues, and he always returned queries promptly and thoroughly. Philosophy 266-0-20 Philosophy of Religion

•! He really did a good job helping students understand and think further about the material. •! Daniel was an awesome TA. He is easygoing, engaging, and quite well-versed in the

material. He is also completely open to strange suggestions and going completely off


track in class as long as we are still talking about philosophy. It was quite a refreshing change from many of the other TAs. He is also a very kind, interesting individual.

•! Great discussion leader •! He's great about asking us challenging questions and clarifying things. •! Very enthusiastic and it rubs off also can answer questions well •! He was enthusiastic and extremely kind. He was also approachable when we had

questions and showed an interest in the subject.


SYLLABI School of the Art Institute of Chicago The Meaning of Life Beyond Ethics Fall 2013 / Thursday 1–4:00 PM Instructor: Daniel Tovar [email protected] Class Description We typically understand ourselves and others as acting for exactly two kinds of reasons, those that are self-interested and those that are moral. Further, it is thought that the most admirable and meaningful life is lived in accordance with moral reasons and at the expense of one’s self-interested concerns. For example, we praise Edward Snowden for doing what he thought to be morally right at the expense of living a more comfortable life with his friends and family. However, thinkers have long argued that there is a kind of life both admirable and meaningful that is neither moral nor self-interested. What exactly this life is has varied from author to author. In this class we will survey a selection of different proposals. We will begin with Kierkegaard and Plato who argue, respectively, that one ought to lead a life devoted to God and that one ought to lead the life of the mind. What is unique about these proposals is that they potentially exclude an ethical life. The Godly life and the life of the mind always take precedence over moral actions so that, e.g., if God commands one to murder, one must murder. Next, we will look at Susan Wolf (a contemporary philosopher) and Aristotle. Wolf and Aristotle argue that what ultimately gives one’s life meaning are one’s projects (for instance, the making of art or the study of philosophy). In contrast to Kierkegaard and Plato, these authors believe that these projects by-and-large include moral action. Finally, we look at existentialist authors Nietzsche and Camus who argue that we are free to choose what gives our life meaning and that the most admirable choice one can make is one that breaks with contemporary morality. Goals & Expectations The goal of this class is to familiarize the student with college level critical writing. This includes (but is not limited to) accurately reconstructing others’ arguments, criticizing others’ arguments, and structuring one’s own novel arguments. To this end, students will be expected to write three essays and a number of shorter writing assignments. The short writing assignments will give students the opportunity to sharply focus on a single aspect of essay writing, e.g. thesis statement, introduction, body paragraph, etc. The essays will give the students the opportunity to apply what they’ve learned in these shorter assignments to longer, more substantial pieces of writing.


Students are expected to complete all readings and assignments in a timely manner, attend class meetings, and be prepared to discuss readings in class. Teaching)Method)Weekly meetings with a combination of writing workshops, lecture, and discussion. During each class meeting students will be expected to bring their completed writing assignments/essays. In class we will workshop this material (this includes the evaluation of students’ work in smaller groups or with the whole class and lecture on different aspects of writing). Additionally, class will include instruction on the philosophical material that the students will be expected to write on. This will involve a presentation of the reading material and class discussion. Late)Papers)and)Absences))Students are expected to turn in all assignments on time. All papers will be due at the beginning of class. Due dates of writing exercises will vary. Writing exercises that are late will not be accepted. Late essays will be penalized five percentage points for every 24 hour period that it is not turned in. The final essay cannot be turned in late. All students are expected to attend every class. If a student misses more than two classes, s/he will be required to write a fourth essay to make up for the material missed. If a student misses more than three classes, s/he will automatically fail the course. Evaluation)1. Section Attendance and Participation 5% 2. Weekly writing exercises 10% 3. First essay 5-6pp 25% 4. Second essay 5-6pp 25% 5. Third essay 9-10pp 35% Passing grades are C-range (70%) and higher. In order to pass this course students must receive a passing grade on the final paper. Writing)Exercises)&)Essays)Writing exercises will be emailed to you after class on Thursday or Friday. Due date & time will vary. If a writing workshop is planned, you will have to turn in your assignment on Wednesday at noon. This is to allow other students time to read your work. Paper topics will be handed out in class and should be handed in at the beginning of class on the day they are due (see reading the reading schedule for due dates). Papers are expected to be double-spaced, in the font style of Times New Roman. A 5–6pp. paper should be at least 5 full pages long. Papers should not exceed the maximum length indicated. These limits do not include the cover page.


Required)Texts)Kierkegaard, Fear & Trembling Plato, Symposium Susan Wolf, Meaning in Life Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Nietzsche, The Gay Science Camus, The Stranger Note: if you are not picking these up in the university bookstore, see me. Use)of)electronics!All electronic devices must be put away during class. This mean no phones, ipods, etc. The one exception that I will make is computers. If you prefer to take notes on a computer you may. However, the computer should only be used for notes and not for Facebook, etc. Furthermore, if you are using a computer, you must sit at the edge of the room. If people are misusing their computers, I reserve the right to prohibit them. Note)on)plagiarism!SAIC prohibits “dishonesty such as cheating, plagiarism, or knowingly furnishing false information to the School” (Students’ Rights and Responsibilities Handbook). Plagiarism is a form of intellectual theft. One plagiarizes when one presents another’s work as one’s own, even if one does not intend to. The penalty for plagiarizing may also result in some loss of some types of financial aid (e.g. a No Credit in a course can lead to a loss of the Presidential Scholarship) and repeat offenses can lead to expulsion from the school. To find out more about plagiarism and how to avoid it, use SAIC’s “Avoid Plagiarism” guide: saic.edu/lifeatsaic/academicadvising/ In addition to any penalties that come from the university, the student will automatically receive zero credit for the plagiarized assignment. If the final paper is plagiarized, the student will automatically fail the course. ! !


The Meaning of Life Beyond Ethics: Reading Schedule

Week 1 • August 29 ! Week 2 • September 5 !

Introductions!Class structure; class topic!Intro to Kierkegaard’s Fear & Trembling

! Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling: “Preamble from the Heart” & “Problema 1” (pgs 27-79).

!

Week 3 • September 12 ! Week 4 • September 19 !

Kierkegaard, Fear & Trembling: Problema 2 (80-97).

! Plato, Symposium: Phaedrus’, Pausanias’, & Aristophanes’ speeches (pgs 9-19, 25-31). *Hand out first paper topics

!

Week 5 • September 26 ! Week 6 • October 3 !

Plato, Symposium: Socrates’ and Alcibiades’ speeches (pgs 45-75)

! Wolf, Meaning in Life: Essay 1 *1st papers due

!

Week 7 • October 10 ! Week 8 • October 17 !

Wolf, Meaning in Life: Essay 2

! Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics: Book 1, 2 *Hand out 2nd paper topics

!

Week 9 • October 24 ! Week 10 • October 31 !

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics: Book 10

! Nietzsche, Gay Science: Intro pp 32-38 (intro, sections 1-4) Book One pp 73-76, 116 (1, 54) Book Two pp 121-122 (57, 58) Book Three pp 167-182, (108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125) *2nd paper due

!


Week 11 • November 7 ! Week 12 • November 14 !

Nietzsche, Gay Science: Book Four pp 223-232 (276, 283, 289) Book Five pp 232, 263, 273-5, (290, 335, 341, 342) pp 279-292, 296-304, 327-331, 334-337, 338-340, 346-348 (343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 353, 354, 355, 356, 370, 373, 374, 375, 377, 382, 383)

! Camus, Stranger: First half *Final paper topics

!

Week 13 • November 21 ! Week 14 • November 28 !

Camus, Stranger: Second half

! No Class (Thanksgiving Break) !

Week 15 • December 5 ! Week 16 • December 12 !

Final Paper Due Film: Drive

! Final paper comments !

)) )


School)of)the)Art)Institute)of)Chicago)Philosophy)from)Hegel)to)20th)Century,)Spring)2014/Thursday)1M4pm)Instructor:)Daniel)Tovar,)[email protected])!Class)Description)Should!science!serve!as!a!model!for!philosophical!knowledge!or!is!philosophy!an!expression!of!culture!that!is!closer,!as!a!model,!to!fiction!and!literary!criticism?!Is!philosophical!truth!to!be!found!in!our!beliefs!or!in!the!objects!of!those!beliefs?!Should!philosophy!study!ethical,!political!and!psychological!questions!as!embedded!within!a!social!and!historical!context?!!Or,!should!philosophy!study!these!questions!in!abstract,!distinct!from!their!social!and!historical!situation?!This!course!studies!the!philosophical!Continental!tradition!represented!by!Kierkegaard!and!Nietzsche,!among!others,!and!contrasts!it!with!the!contemporary!practice!of!AngloFAmerican!philosophy!represented!by!John!Stuart!Mill,!Ruth!Benedict,!and!Thomas!Nagel,!among!others.!!Goals)&)Expectations)The!goal!of!this!class!is!to!familiarize!the!student!with!reading!and!critically!analyzing!philosophical!material.!Analysis!will!take!the!form!of!in!class!discussion!and!three!critical!essays.!The!student!is!expected!to!complete!all!assigned!reading!and!submit!essays!in!a!timely!manner.!Additionally,!students!are!expected!to!come!to!class!prepared!to!discuss!the!assigned!readings.!This!includes!sharing!comments,!confusions!and!criticisms!with!the!class.!!Teaching)Method)Weekly!meetings!with!a!combination!of!lecture!and!discussion.!Class!will!include!a!lecture!on!the!philosophical!material!that!students!will!be!expected!to!write!on.!The!bulk!of!class!will!be!devoted!to!discussion.!Students!should!be!prepared!to!discuss!their!comments,!confusions,!and!criticisms!of!the!reading!material!in!class.!!!Late)Papers)and)Absences)Students!are!expected!to!turn!in!all!assignments!on!time.!All!papers!will!be!due!at!the!beginning!of!class!in!hard!copy.!Late!essays!will!be!penalized!one!full!grade!every!24!hour!period!that!it!is!not!turned!in.!The!final!essay!cannot!be!turned!in!late.!!!All!students!are!expected!to!attend!every!class.!If!a!student!misses!more!than!three!classes,!s/he!will!automatically!fail!the!course.!!!Evaluation)1.!Section!Attendance!and!Participation! 10%!2.!First!essay!5F6pp! ! ! ! 25%!3.!Second!essay!5F6pp!! ! ! 30%!4.!Third!essay!9F10pp! ! ! 35%!Passing!grades!are!CFrange!(70%)!and!higher.!In!order!to!pass!the!course!students!must!receive!a!passing!grade!on!the!final!paper.!


!Essays)Paper!topics!will!be!handed!out!in!class!and!should!be!handed!in!at!the!beginning!of!class!on!the!day!they!are!due!(see!reading!the!reading!schedule!for!due!dates).!Papers!are!expected!to!be!doubleFspaced!with!regular!margins!in!the!font!style!of!Times!New!Roman!(or!similar,!e.g.!Georgia!or!Cambria).!!A!5–6p.!paper!should!be!at!least!5!full!pages!long.!!Papers!should!not!exceed!the!maximum!length!indicated.!!Papers!that!do!not!meet!these!length!requirements!will!be!penalized.!These!limits!do!not!include!a!cover!page!if!you!provide!one.!!Required)Texts)Kierkegaard!F!Fear!&!Trembling!!(0140444491)!Camus!F!The!Stranger!!(0679720200)!Foucault!F!History!of!Sexuality!(0679724699)!John!Stuart!Mill!F!Utilitarianism!(087220605X)!!Scans!of!the!following!articles!will!be!posted!on!the!class!website:!Benedict,!“A!Defense!of!Cultural!Relativism”!Nagel,!“What!is!it!like!to!be!a!bat?”!Searle,!Chinese!Room!Jackson,!Mary’s!Room!!Use)of)electronics)All!electronic!devices!must!be!put!away!during!class.!This!mean!no!phones,!ipods,!etc.!The!one!exception!that!I!will!make!is!for!computers.!If!you!prefer!to!take!notes!on!a!computer!you!may.!However,!the!computer!should!only!be!used!for!notes!and!not!for!Facebook,!etc.!!Note)on)plagiarism)SAIC!prohibits!“dishonesty!such!as!cheating,!plagiarism,!or!knowingly!furnishing!false!information!to!the!School”!(Students’!Rights!and!Responsibilities!Handbook).!Plagiarism!is!a!form!of!intellectual!theft.!One!plagiarizes!when!one!presents!another’s!work!as!one’s!own,!even!if!one!does!not!intend!to.!The!penalty!for!plagiarizing!may!also!result!in!some!loss!of!some!types!of!financial!aid!(e.g.!a!No!Credit!in!a!course!can!lead!to!a!loss!of!the!Presidential!Scholarship)!and!repeat!offenses!can!lead!to!expulsion!from!the!school.!To!find!out!more!about!plagiarism!and!how!to!avoid!it,!use!SAIC’s!“Avoid!Plagiarism”!guide:!saic.edu/lifeatsaic/academicadvising/!!In!addition!to!any!penalties!that!come!from!the!university,!the!student!will!automatically!receive!zero!credit!for!the!plagiarized!assignment!with!the!possibility!of!failing!the!course.!!!! !


!!From Hegel to the 20th Century: Reading Schedule! ! !Week 1 • January 23 Week 2 • January 30

• Introductions • Class structure; class topic • Sartre’s Existentialism as Humanism

• Sartre, “Existentialism as Humanism” (handout) • Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling: “Preamble from the Heart” & “Problema 1”

Week 3 • February 6 Week 4 • February 13

Kierkegaard, Fear & Trembling: “Problema 2”

Nietzsche, handout *Hand out first paper topics

Week 5 • February 20 Week 6 • February 27

• Nietzsche, handout • Camus, The Stranger, part 1

Camus, The Stranger, part 2 *1st papers due

Week 7 • March 6 Week 8 • March 13

Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Parts one and two

Foucault, The History of Sexuality Parts two and three *Hand out 2nd paper topics

Week 9 • March 20 Week 10 • March 27

No Class

Cancelled Class *2nd paper due

Week 11 • April 3 Week 12 • April 10

JS Mill, Utilitarianism, chapters 1-3

JS Mill, Utilitarianism, chapters 4-5 and “Deontological Ethics.docx” on Canvas *Final paper topics


Week 13 • April 17 Week 14 • April 24

Select philosophy of mind articles, to be uploaded to canvas (Nagel, “What is it like to be a bat?” Searle, Chinese Room Jackson, Mary’s Room)

Finish discussion of philosophy of mind articles.

Week 15 • May 1 Week 16 • May 8

Final Paper Due Film: Drive

Final paper comments


Northwestern)University)PHIL)219M0)Intro)to)Existentialism:)from)Kierkegaard)to)Beauvoir)Summer)2012)/)Mon/Wed)2M4:30pm,)University)Hill)218)Instructor:)Daniel)Tovar,)[email protected])Office)hours:)Mon/Wed)from)1M2pm)in)Kresge)4M305) CLASS DESCRIPTION: This class is an introduction to existentialism through a study of four of its principal philosophic sources: Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre and Beauvoir. In studying each of these authors we will be especially concerned with how their theories affect how we ought to live. We will be interested in questions such as “What is the status of moral claims?”, “What provides life with meaning?”, and “Is there a particular way that the author suggests that we live our lives?” In answering these questions, we will be able to appreciate just how radical these philosophers were and judge whether or not they offer a feasible alternative to the ethical life as it is traditionally understood. TEACHING METHOD: Bi-weekly meetings, split into lecture and discussion. Each class will begin with lecture, followed by a short break, followed by a discussion period. During this period students are expected to raise their own questions, confusions and insights. Attendance to every class meeting for the full meeting period is expected and mandatory. Note: There will be no class meeting on July 4. EVALUATION: Assessment is divided into five components. 1.) Section Attendance and Participation: 15% 2.) Writing exercise (due Jun 27): 5% 3.) First Paper (due July 9, 4-5pp): 30% 4.) Second paper (due July 25, 7-9pp): 35% 5.) Final exam (July 25): 15% PAPERS: Paper topics will be given in class. Papers are expected to be double-spaced, in the font style of Times New Roman. A 7-9pp. paper should be at least 7 full pages long. Papers should not exceed the maximum length indicated. These limits do not include the cover page. Extensions for papers are not available in this course except in extraordinary circumstances. Late papers are penalized 1/2 a grade for every 12 hour delay. No papers will be accepted that are more than 3 days late. This does not apply to the final paper. No late final papers will be accepted. Stapled hard copies of all papers should be submitted in class or enclosed in opaque envelopes and delivered to my mailbox in the Department of Philosophy, 1880 Campus Drive (Kresge Hall), 2-335. Electronic copies of every paper also need to be submitted to SafeAssign through the course blackboard site. There will be strict enforcement of NU’s guidelines for academically honest research (for details, see http://www.northwestern.edu/uacc/uniprin.html). REQUIRED TEXTS: The following texts are available in the bookstore. 1.! Existentialism, Basic Writings, Second Edition. Edited by Charles Guignon and Derek

Pereboom. Hackett (0872205967) 2.! The Ethics Of Ambiguity (Paperback), Simone de Beauvoir, Citadel (080650160X)


Introduction to Existentialism: Reading Schedule

Week 1 June 18 June 20

! “What is existentialism?”

Aristotle, The Function Argument Sartre, “Existentialism as Humanism”

Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling: “Preface,” “Preliminary Expectoration” & “Problem 1” (pgs 26-66).

Week 2 June 25 June 27

! Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling: Problem 2 (pgs 66-77).

Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death: (pgs 78-92).

Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy & The Gay Science: (pgs 119-144)

Week 3 July 2 July 4

! Writing Exercise Due

Nietzsche, The Gay Science: (pgs 144-171) (Possibly Genealogy of Morals)

No Class


! First paper due

Sartre, Being and Nothingness: Bad Faith sections (pgs 309-347)

Sartre, Being and Nothingness: “The Existence of Others” (pgs. 348-351) “The Look” See Handout (20 pgs)


! Sartre, Being And Nothingness: “Freedom and Responsibility,” “Existential Psychoanalysis,” “Ethical Implications” (pgs 352-359)

Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity Chapter 1

Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity: Chapter 2


! Film: The Seventh Seal, dir. Ingmar Bergman

Final Paper Due

Final Exam

!! !


APPENDIX:

ORIGINAL STUDENT EVALUATIONS


1 - How much money did you spend on supplies/materials?Return Rate 6/15 (40%)

- -

- $30-40

- $50 for books

- 40$ or so on books

- about $40

- None at all.

2 - How much time outside of class is required for this course? How useful are the outside projects/assignments/readings?Return Rate 6/15 (40%)

- -

- 10-20 hours. Very useful and inspiring.

- at least 3 hours each week, more when essays are afoot.

- Hours and hours. What's useful is that the class does help you write better essays - a skill any college student need for sure.

- just maybe like 2-3 hours.

- needed to set aside quite a few hours - say six hours for the essays but only three essays in total.the weekly readings were not too long

3 - Was this course structured in a manner that allowed for the open exchange of ideas?Return Rate 6/15 (40%)

- -

- Yes it is.

- yes very open - great discussions

- Yes we had discussions every day. After all it is philosophy.

- yes.

- Yes. Very open.

4 - How would you rate the studio critiques or comments on papers and exams (consider depth, honesty, length, informativeness, clarity, etc.)?Return Rate 6/15 (40%)

- -

- comments on papers are in depth, honest, with good length and helpful suggestions, informative and very clear.

- Comments on weekly writing practices as well as the 3 major essay assignments received thorough comments that were honest and helpful because sufficient examples were given on how to improve the subject.

- Great critiques.

- There weren't really critiques I would say. Just discussions of the topic.

- very thorough edits

1

School of the Art Institute of Chicago2013 Fall Course Evaluations

Instructor: Daniel R. Tovar *

Course: ENGLISH1001 : First Year Seminar I


5 - Evaluate the size of the class and the physical environment for the class (include its effect on teaching, etc.)Return Rate 6/15 (40%)

- -

- 15 students

- good size of class allowed for a good conversation

- maybe 16 students in my class. The tables kept changing arrangement it got confusing and seating was always different because of this. Teaching never was inhibited by this of course, but I always like to be arranged in a consistent way to develop a familiar group of people around me and a regulated work space.

- Personally I think the class would do better if it was smaller. People don't participate that much and I think it's because some people are shy. Perhaps fewer people will make the rest open up a bit more.

- size is good. but the classroom is too small. Often times late come-ins have to squeeze in or share a table with the instructor. And the room temperature in summer is too low.

6 - What is your overall evaluation of the course?Return Rate 6/15 (40%)

- -

- 10/10

- Good. Daniel knows what he's doing and talks very in depth about the topics.

- Great class. Not too easy, but not too hard either.

- I enjoyed the class very much. It's a good english class in which I learned good philosophy. It even gave me space to reflect my own philosophical questions.

- I recommend the course highly. The instructor was very wonderful in helping and devoting his time to his students. He really enjoys the topic and always has some great ideas. Its a decent class to take if you don't feel like talking much. There's so much to learn by just listening to him lead discussions. It's definitely not a lecture class, and involvement is encouraged, especially when there are frequent silent moments between the main speaking students.

7 - What is the one thing you liked best about the course? Least? (and what suggestions for improvement would you give)?Return Rate 6/15 (40%)

- -

- Daniel is very inspiring and he gave us a lot of space to think by ourself and for ourself. I love the books he gave us to read and write about.

I know this is an English class, but I still wish we could focus more on our own opinions besides writing structure and technique. But Daniel did a very good job teaching how to write. I learned a lot.

I didn't like the group comment. I'm glad he changed it later.

- I liked listening to the instructor talk because he has a way about restating things that changes your perspective and brings new insight. It's really enjoyable. I least liked the first reading of Keirkegaard and Neitche because they were just so above my head literature wise, but the follow up discussions clarified the readings greatly and I was a fan that there were never comprehension quizzes, those tear me apart.

- The books.

- the teacher was knowledgeable and my favorite part were our class discussions which were very interesting and sometimes ran like a debate

- What I liked best is the new perspective you gain on life and morality. What I liked least is the minimum essay page requirement. I'm a succinct writer and forcing myself to write more than I feel I should adds a great mental burden.

2





8 - What suggestions do you have for this department?Return Rate 5/15 (33.33%)

- -

- Minimum essay page requirement. Nuff said.

- none.

- Nothing.

- Um... I hope there are more modern/contemporary philosophy classes.

9 - Evaluate the instructor’s attendance promptness, quality of critiques, time it took for assignments to be returned, etc.Daniel R. Tovar

Return Rate 6/15 (40%) - -

- Daniel comes on time everytime, gives good critiques, and always gives back the assignments every week. Unless he's sick, but that can't be helped.

- edits on papers were very good

- The class is always on time. The teacher came in class even after he just came out from hospital and still very sick. Good critique. Good assignment returning time.

- very prompt, very thorough comments on returned assignments, which were given back with in 2 weeks when big assignments and returned within the week for smaller ones.

- Was sick for one class, but still showed up to teach. DEDICATION.

10 - How accessible was the instructor?Daniel R. Tovar

Return Rate 5/15 (33.33%) - -

- He was very responsive through email within a couple days or less.

- Really accessible. If you ask him a question, he will reply to you in hours.

- Very accessible. He even left us his personal number so we can text him about any questions.

- Veyr accessible through e-mail.

11 - Did the instructor(s) have a syllabus, plan or planned daily agenda for the course?Daniel R. TovarResponse Option Weight Frequency Percentage Percent Responses MeansYes (1) 6 100%No (2) 0 0%

0 25 50 75 100 Question

Return Rate Mean STD Median6/15 (40%) 1.00 0.00 1.00

3





12 - Did the instructor(s) have individual critiques/meetings?Daniel R. TovarResponse Option Weight Frequency Percentage Percent Responses MeansYes (1) 3 50%No (2) 3 50%

0 25 50 75 100 Question


13 - Did the instructor(s) have class critiques/group discussions?Daniel R. TovarResponse Option Weight Frequency Percentage Percent Responses MeansYes (1) 5 83.33%No (2) 1 16.67%

0 25 50 75 100 Question


14 - How well did the instructor convey his/her knowledge of the subject matter and how well did they engage your interest?Daniel R. Tovar

Return Rate 6/15 (40%) - -

- Daniel knows a lot and knows how to make it interesting.

- Daniel Tovar always came well prepared and spoke on many matters about the topics we covered. He was very knowledgeable and translated it well for us to all understand. There were some rather slow times in his lectures when the point of the philosophy at that moment seemed to go in circles, but it was pretty bearable overall. I quite enjoyed the class because of Tovar's lectures.

- very knowledgeable

- Very well, very well.

- Very well. His ideas were clear and understandable.

15 - What is your overall evaluation of the instructor?Daniel R. Tovar

Return Rate 5/15 (33.33%) - 9/10

- GOOD. KEEP THIS ONE.

- He was very engaging and sparked a lot of questions and offered us to answer them, then elaborated himself, which was a very interactive way to teach and engage our interest.

- He's a great teacher.

- Very good.

4





16 - Evaluate your attendance and participation in the course.Return Rate 5/15 (33.33%)

- -

- 100%

- Have not missed a class. Love it too much to miss it.

- I did pretty well.

- I missed one class. I participant in class a lot.

17 - How does this course relate to your other courses and your area of specialization?Return Rate 5/15 (33.33%)

- -

- It gives me ideas on what kind of projects I want to make in the future.

- It helped me on some philosophical questions and critical thinkings for my painting class.

- I've never taken a philosophy class before, but i like to think and the writing definitely helped me in putting together lengthy essays and managing my time.

- Nothing. but very interesting subjects and ideas.

18 - What do you feel you have accomplished in this course?Return Rate 5/15 (33.33%)

- -

- Being able to write an argumentative essay.

- I'm better at managing my time for long assignments. I also have become more aware of my writing and clarity within it.

- I've expanded my perspective upon life and morality.

- read some good books, learned writing and philosophy.

19 - Is there anything you would like to address that wasn’t asked in this evaluation? 96 800x600 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONEReturn Rate 5/15 (33.33%)

- -

- I highly recommend this liberal arts course. It's very interesting and thought provoking.

- no. awesome.

- Nope.

- Nope.

5





1 - How much money did you spend on supplies/materials?Return Rate 2/20 (10%)

- I spent about, oh, 3 bucks total printing .PDFs. All of my other textbooks I rented from the library.

- none, i got all my books from the library or ishare

2 - How much time outside of class is required for this course? How useful are the outside projects/assignments/readings?Return Rate 2/20 (10%)

- a lot. there was a lot of very dense complex readings

- The class requires about 3 hours of outside reading per week. This time, for me, factors in the three papers we wrote. Considering that class time was used to discuss the readings, I'd say they were super important!

3 - Was this course structured in a manner that allowed for the open exchange of ideas?Return Rate 2/20 (10%)

- Definitely! It was mostly a lecture-style course, but there was ample opportunity to ask questions and engage in discussion.

- yes it was structured around open exchange

4 - How would you rate the studio critiques or comments on papers and exams (consider depth, honesty, length, informativeness, clarity, etc.)?Return Rate 2/20 (10%)

- Great! Daniel made sure to both copy-edit our work and provide us with helpful, productive feedback and an honest grade.

- he gives you very in depth critical feedback, the most critical feedback I've ever gotten from an saic professor

5 - Evaluate the size of the class and the physical environment for the class (include its effect on teaching, etc.)Return Rate 2/20 (10%)

- it was fairly big for a humanities class which worked nicely

- The class size was a little big for real discussions, but then again, since it was mostly lecture-based, size doesn't play in as much.

6 - What is your overall evaluation of the course?Return Rate 2/20 (10%)

- it was okay. i was not super interested in it, it was a required course for my degree. i was hoping it would have been more interesting and relevant toward what i research and study but thats okay because i did learn a lot regardless.

- This was a great course! We sampled some interesting texts and really broke them down and dissected main ideas.

1

School of the Art Institute of Chicago2014 Spring Course Evaluations


Course: HUMANITY3704 : Hist Phil : Hegel to 20th Cen


7 - What is the one thing you liked best about the course? Least? (and what suggestions for improvement would you give)?Return Rate 2/20 (10%)

- best, the class. least, some of the readings were so dry and we had to meet during crit week to watch a movie which seems like a waste of time.

- Best: Daniel was a very engaging lecturer, and gave great feedback on our papers.

Least: I really have no complaints.

8 - What suggestions do you have for this department?Return Rate 2/20 (10%)

- none

- None! The course was everything I expected, and given that it's required , I actually wound up enjoying it more than I thought I would!


Return Rate 2/20 (10%) - Daniel was great on all fronts. No complaints here.

- he was great, incredibly smart and charming but i was just not interested in this course. he is insanely smart, i would take a class with him again in the future if it was on a topic i was actually into. i knew whenever i didn't understand a concept that i would understand it after class because he does a great job of explaining dense philosophies in an accessible way. he is also very critical.


Return Rate 2/20 (10%) - very

- Very accessible! Daniel made sure to reiterate that we could reach him through e-mail and set up a meeting if we were having any issues, and he always returned queries promptly and thoroughly.


0 25 50 75 100 Question


2






0 25 50 75 100 Question


13 - Did the instructor(s) have class critiques/group discussions?Daniel R. TovarResponse Option Weight Frequency Percentage Percent Responses MeansYes (1) 2 100%No (2) 0 0%

0 25 50 75 100 Question


14 - How well did the instructor convey his/her/their knowledge of the subject matter and how well did they engage your interest?Daniel R. Tovar

Return Rate 2/20 (10%) - Daniel is obviously very passionate about philosophy, and this showed through in his lectures! He really knew what he was talking about, and I appreciated his emphasis in deconstructing more esoteric or convoluted texts into easily understood ideas.

- he is an expert in his field there is no denying that. he was naturally engaging especially since i was not interested in most of what he was teaching us to be honest. but that shows how engaging he was because i was kind of mentally checked out yet i was always learning and listening.


Return Rate 2/20 (10%) - Awesome! Daniel is very professional, engaging, approachable and has a good sense of humor.

- he is very smart but too harsh of a grader.

16 - Evaluate your attendance and participation in the course.Return Rate 2/20 (10%)

- i was absent once

- My attendance was perfect, I read all the materials, and completed all of the work on time. I didn't speak up much, but am a bit of a wallflower.

17 - How does this course relate to your other courses and your area of specialization?Return Rate 2/20 (10%)

- I'm a VCS student, so it's required for me.

- im in vcs and it was required so it relates directly

3





18 - What do you feel you have accomplished in this course?Return Rate 2/20 (10%)

- I am not a huge philosophy buff, so almost all of the material (sans Foucault) was new for me. Also, now I know how to write a philosophy paper (or at least, am working on it).

- i learned about philosophies i would never have researched on my own, it forced me to branch out.

19 - Is there anything you would like to address that wasn’t asked in this evaluation? 96 800x600 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONEReturn Rate 2/20 (10%)

- N/A

- nope

4





1 - How much money did you spend on supplies/materials?Return Rate 2/14 (14.29%)

- 50

- Books cost a bit but its okay. Around 70-100 dollars.

2 - How much time outside of class is required for this course? How useful are the outside projects/assignments/readings?Return Rate 1/14 (7.14%)

- A lot if you are a foreigner.

3 - Was this course structured in a manner that allowed for the open exchange of ideas?Return Rate 2/14 (14.29%)

- yes

- yes.

4 - How would you rate the studio critiques or comments on papers and exams (consider depth, honesty, length, informativeness, clarity, etc.)?Return Rate 2/14 (14.29%)

- 8/10

- good.

5 - Evaluate the size of the class and the physical environment for the class (include its effect on teaching, etc.)Return Rate 2/14 (14.29%)

- 7/10

- Size is good.

6 - What is your overall evaluation of the course?Return Rate 2/14 (14.29%)

- 8/10

- very good.

7 - What is the one thing you liked best about the course? Least? (and what suggestions for improvement would you give)?Return Rate 1/14 (7.14%)

- the topic.

1



Course: ENGLISH1005 : First Year Seminar II


8 - What suggestions do you have for this department?Return Rate 1/14 (7.14%)

- -


Return Rate 2/14 (14.29%) - 8/10

- Very prompt, good critiques. Took not much time to be assignments to be returned.


Return Rate 2/14 (14.29%) - 7/10

- very.


0 25 50 75 100 Question

Return Rate Mean STD Median2/14 (14.29%) 1.00 0.00 1.00


0 25 50 75 100 Question


13 - Did the instructor(s) have class critiques/group discussions?Daniel R. TovarResponse Option Weight Frequency Percentage Percent Responses MeansYes (1) 2 100%No (2) 0 0%

0 25 50 75 100 Question


2





14 - How well did the instructor convey his/her/their knowledge of the subject matter and how well did they engage your interest?Daniel R. Tovar

Return Rate 2/14 (14.29%) - 7/10

- Very engaging.


Return Rate 2/14 (14.29%) - 8/10

- Very good.

16 - Evaluate your attendance and participation in the course.Return Rate 2/14 (14.29%)

- 7/10

- Did not miss any class.

17 - How does this course relate to your other courses and your area of specialization?Return Rate 1/14 (7.14%)

- I don't know.

18 - What do you feel you have accomplished in this course?Return Rate 1/14 (7.14%)

- More knowledge.

19 - Is there anything you would like to address that wasn’t asked in this evaluation? 96 800x600 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONEReturn Rate 0/14 (0%)

3





of 2

Department: PHIL PhilosophyCourse: 266-0-20 Philosophy of ReligionQuarter: Spring 2013

CTEC Online TA Report For Daniel Tovar

Teaching Assistant Questions

Number 6 5 4 3 2 1 AverageWording of Statement of (high) (low)

responses

15. The TA was able to answer the students' questions adequately. 40 11 18 7 4 0 0 4.916. The TA was well prepared for each session. 40 14 15 6 4 1 0 4.9317. The TA communicated ideas in a clear manner. 40 12 12 13 2 1 0 4.818. The TA showed strong interest in teaching the course. 40 15 13 10 2 0 0 5.03

Comments: Daniel was great. Absolutely no complaints./Daniel was a wonderful TA; he did a great job explaining the material and answering student questions./Daniel was very nice and willing to help you but sometimes his answers to questions that students had could be confusing./Discussions got confusing, but it is philosophy, I guess.../Focused too much on things unrelated to lecture. Too many outside analogies and discussions. I would've liked it if he had stuck to the class format. He was very approachable though./he is an incredibly hard grader./Daniel was great! He was always prepared for discussion. This is one of the only discussions I have ever had that I actually enjoyed going too because I found it incredibly helpful./Daniel is incredibly beautiful but also pretty knowledgable about philosophy too/very into it, but a bit wishy-washy/He really did a good job helping students understand and think further about the material./Daniel was an awesome TA. He is easygoing, engaging, and quite well-versed in the material. He isalso completely open to strange suggestions and going completely off track in class as long as we are still talking about philosophy. It was quite a refreshing change from many of the other TAs. He is also a very kind, interesting individual. Occasionally, we spent


of 2

too much time talking about very specific things in discussion and didn't get to other material./Great discussion leader/He's great about asking us challenging questions and clarifying things. He's a hard grader/Very enthusiastic and it rubs off also can answer questions well/He was enthusiastic and extremely kind. He was also approachable when we had questions and showed an interest in the subject./Daniel was really into helping and teacher and very easy to talk to, only weakness was sometimes in explanation but notfor lack of trying. Overall great TA./Daniel is a great TA who is always open to answer questions and created a very welcoming environment during discussion./Daniel was very prepared and helpful. He facilitated discussion very well. The only weakness I can think of was sometimes he lost track of time and we would only talk about one topic for an extended period of time. I attribute this more to the class' collective interest in the discussion, though, than any fault in Daniel./Great access, wonderful help/He always seemed prepared for discussion./Strength - knew what he was talking aboutWeakness - Discussion sections were not very lively: questions thus did not go far past the basics


of 2

Department: CLASSICS Classics - Readings in EnglishCourse: 245-0-20 Classics and the CinemaQuarter: Fall 2012




responses


Comments: He's a philosophy grad who did this class, so it wasn't that natural for him./He seemed interested, but he did not know how to get us to speak. His questions were often phrased to vaguely and were often did not know what answer he expected./Open-minded. Good discussion leader. Clear instruction./Not accommodating/He's smart and is wiling to help you. He points out a lot of interesting ideas from lecture and comes up with his own unique ones. He's very engaging./He was friendly and relaxed and tried to facilitate discussion. However, sections tended to be on the boring side./Seems very smart and knowledgeable on the topic, but also sort of indirectly dismisses students' opinions in discussion when they are in disagreement with his own (that he is trying to teach)/Daniel was always very prepared for discussion and gave very good feedback on our exams that he graded. He was very interested in helping us improve our writing. He also made me consider some ideas about our readings/movies that I had not thought of./most of the time he was prepared but didn't connect with the students well. He asked questions and such, but the discussion always felt forced and never just flowed, possibly because the questions weren't really good discussion questions./He was nice and knew a lot


of 2

about the material./He is enthusiastic and knowledgeable/Very organized and served excellently as an intermediary between students and professor, but wasn't always accurate on the topics (but was about 98% of the time)


of 2

Department: PHIL PhilosophyCourse: 268-0-20 Ethics and the EnvironmentQuarter: Winter 2011




responses


Comments: he denotes philosophical syllogism very clearly and effectively/I felt that my TA was very excited about teaching us. I was always very engaged in the conversation, but was more interested in listening to different ideas rather than stating my own./Daniel was verygood, we had an interesting discussion section! I liked that he questioned our statements/Daniel really needs to be better at answering emails./He knew his material pretty well in discussion and thus could led a fluid discussion in class. However, compared to other TAs, I felt he did not put in as much effort into our discussion section./Strengths: He was prepared for discussion and gave us advanced notice of what we were going to be looking at.Weaknesses: Most of the time he ended up lecturing rather than us discussing. We could have had small group discussions so more people could participate or something of that sort./He talked too much during discussion and didn't let us really have good, in-depth dicussions./Daniel Tovar knew all of the material and helped me understand some of the harder views of the philosophers covered. He also helped me in the structure and style to write my paper./The TA was not always the best at focusing on the topic and often


of 2

went of on irrelevant tangents which left little time to discuss the major points./Strengths: interested in subject, helpful when discussing essay, teaches the discussion section wellWeaknesses: tend to explain things slowly/Got off topic in discussion very easily and spent too much time on the topics that were not relevant.


of 1

Department: PHIL PhilosophyCourse: 260-0-20 Introduction to Moral PhilosophyQuarter: Spring 2011




responses

15. The TA was able to answer the students' questions adequately. 9 2 3 3 0 1 0 4.5616. The TA was well prepared for each session. 9 3 4 1 0 1 0 4.8917. The TA communicated ideas in a clear manner. 9 2 6 0 0 1 0 4.8918. The TA showed strong interest in teaching the course. 9 3 5 0 0 1 0 5

Comments: Very well-prepared./Daniel was a great TA! He did an exceptional job breaking down some of the more complex ideas we discussed in class in order to make sure everyone really had a firm grasp of the material. I really appreciated how open he was to ourquestions and helpful he was in answering them. Thanks so much Daniel!/Daniel was helpful at times, but often came across as being rude./Was always very prepared for class and knows all the information/theory, but didn't really stimulate open discussion. Adhered too much to the lecture material.


of 2

Department: PHIL PhilosophyCourse: 269-0-20 BioethicsQuarter: Fall 2010




responses


Comments: He was always prepared for the sessions. But a lot of times, I felt uncomfortable sharing my opinion during discussion because everyone had very strong opinions, and the discussion would oftentimes become almost heated./He seemed knowledgeableThat being said, he appeared to have little concern for his students. I felt rushed during office hours, ignored during class, and had my well-written papers torn to shreds by his subjective high-brow philosophy grad grading style./Wants to help.Fun/useful examples (ie: Battlestar Galatica!)/Daniel was knowledgeable but somewhat slow with responding to emails/The TA wasgood overall, but sometimes we spent too long on a certain topic and got sidetracked. It might be better to simplify and abbreviate discussions when they got off topic like this./Daniel really makes discussion helpful for you, whether it be practicing reasoning techniques that will be useful for exams or going over how to write a philosophy paper. He's policy about emails is a little off-putting however, and makes him seem less approachable./Daniel is really nice and easy to talkto. I did not think that discussion was well run and some of his analogies were too extreme and distracting. He also seemed to


of 2

respond more favorably to certain people in discussion. Additionally he talked a lot during discussion and so in a discussion section of over 30 people it was sometimes difficult to even get a word in./really organized, stimulated discussion/Dan was great at helping me out and facilitating discussion. We had some students who clearly dominated discussion, but Dan managed it very well./Really helped to explained class concepts that either went unexplained or were quickly brushed over during lecture. Helpful and really allowed me to understand more challenging course material./Well prepared for every session, but did not use the text as much as I expected/Tovar is definitely a good TA-- very willing to help with questions, and he runs a concise and coherent section./I was scared to give my opinion in the discussions because he would shoot people down often. He's very unfriendly and unapproachable. Idreaded going to discussion with Tovar every week./Daniel was really great at facilitating discussion abotu different issues in Bioethics. He seemed like he could have been more prepared sometimes though/He was very knowledgable but his grading is prettyhard and humanities classes are not normalized like science classes are so students who dont work as hard but have an easier TA arebetter off./Daniel was very nice, but I slightly suspected that he had pre-decided opinions on some of the assignments and may have been biased toward some arguments./daniel tovar was a good facilitator of discussion, but i wish he was more approachable for students. i never felt very comfortable approaching him. but his discussions were organized well and i appreciated the fact that he wrote out essay tips after our first essay, but i wish there was more instruction before our first essay./daniel gave me really helpful feedback on my essay outline for the 2nd assignment and his comments in general were thorough.


of 2

Department: PHIL PhilosophyCourse: 210-1-20 History of Philosophy - Ancient AncientQuarter: Fall 2009




responses


Comments: Daniel was good at answering questions and clarifying the texts. His comments on essays were fantastic, with a lot of constructive criticism. The only thing I'd say is he does not ever respond to emails./Daniel was a decent TA. He made himself available sufficiently and answered questions adequately. I obviously disagree with his grading, for reasons discussed above, but I blame that bit of unfairness primarily on the professor./Kind of help explain problems/Daniel was very helpful/available for papers and general questions. Also, he did an excellent job managing discussion section, by asking engaging questions and helping us to better understand the material. My only suggestion is more discussion of the Aristotle readings (especially comparing/tying different chapters together)./Daniel was a great TA, no real weaknesses. Explained things well, posed good questions for discussion. He was a hard grader, though, for our papers...although I guess this strict grading is necessary when evaluating philosophy papers. It was still disappointing to work very hard on a paper and only get a B/TA was well prepared, and answered all questions./Friendly, but sometimes wasn't very good at answering questions. The illustrations on the board were really helpful./Daniel was very enthusiastic


of 2

and made sure we all were too. He knew his stuff, and got us talking./He was a great TA! We didn't have a large attendance in class so he could have encouraged participation from all of the students a little bit more but otherwise he covered necessary topics and questions each week and made himself available to students./Primary strength was knowledge of philosophy and the subject matter. Weakness was enthusiasm and preparation for section./He is helpful during office hours. During discussion he is not as helpful and seems to be confused himself. Also, he did not communicate ideas well or answer questions well during discussion./He understands the material well, but it takes him a long time to explain it./Daniel took plenty of time to make sure that all my questions were answered and helped me clear up any confusion in our readings./Daniel has good intentions but it seemed that some of the classes he was not very interesting and had trouble capturing the class./He's very knowledgeable about the topic, but needs to communicate better with the class and be more eloquent with his words./Daniel is very willing to help, but can be somewhat disorganized./He has a very open mind and is always willing to explain himself. He doesn't always answer questions directly and sometimes dismisses answers he doesn't agree with as opposed to telling us why they are incorrect./The TA was very nice and grades papers carefully. He, like the teacher, is also a little unclear in his instruction, often wanders off and doesn't seem to develop a clear pattern of his teaching./Daniel Tovar was good at answering our questions and getting us to focus on the important parts of the argument./Good knowledge, but uncertain teaching style/He was nice and helpful but didn't facilitate conversation very well. Being at 9am didn't help the discussion either./He's clear and passionate.


of 2

Department: PHIL PhilosophyCourse: 110-0-20 Introduction to PhilosophyQuarter: Fall 2008




responses

15. The TA was able to answer the students' questions adequately. 27 5 10 8 2 2 0 4.5216. The TA was well prepared for each session. 27 6 7 9 3 2 0 4.4417. The TA communicated ideas in a clear manner. 27 4 8 11 2 1 1 4.3318. The TA showed strong interest in teaching the course. 26 4 6 8 5 0 3 4

Comments: He is very knowledgeable, but didn't really seem to want to be there./He seemed like a decent TA./The teaching assistant was very helpful in letting us know what was expected from us performance wise as students in the class and was always willing to help. Hisoffice hours were limited, however./Daniel was a good TA in most respects. However, he needs to post grades more often!!!!/He is very clear in getting the main points accross and does a better job of explaining things/Daniel (TA) was sometimes not supportive ofus students, as he once said in discussion, "With every paper you start out with a 100, and every word you write brings it down." That was kind of demoralizing, but it didn't personally affect my grade or effort. Otherwise, he relates well to the students and madediscussions fun./Daniel is awesome - always there when needed and always willing to further explain arguments / or whatever is expected of us in a paper/Daniel did not seem very interested in teaching the class. He did not seem to have a plan for section, and consequently the circular arguments that happen in lecture happen in section too./Strengths - Well prepared for classWeaknesses - doesn't know how to grade an intro course. He was grading like we were grad students and it was frustrating because


of 2

the other ta was SUCH an easy grader. I'm not sure how I got stuck in the harder of the two discussion sections./Danile can be vaugeat times, but does lead good discusions./Daniel Tovar was a helpful TA who held good discussion sections and was more than willing to discuss topics outside of class. More office hours would have been useful, especially for an engineer who often has morning classes./Solid/He was knowledgeable, but not enthusiastic or well-prepared/He is fairly knowledgable about the topics, andopen to student questions. He was a little slow though in returning our piles of work./Normally prepared, improved a lot as the quarter went on, initially had trouble keeping own opinions from dictating discussion, did not answer questions clearly/He is well informed and willing to help. Somtimes I felt he graded too hard though./Daniel did not seem interested in this course at all. At times he seemed to mock the material or act as if he was superior to it. I saw him a few times regarding my essays and he gave me very little direction regarding what he was looking for in a paper or how i could improve my previous papers.


teaching portfolio

Documents