University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC ...
Transcript of University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC ...
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis
Report 2018 -2019
School of Historical
Studies
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Historical Studies
Department: Ancient History and Archaeology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. J. Soundararajan
Designation: Assistant Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.6
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.3
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.3
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.1
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.2
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.1
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.8
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.1
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.9
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.3
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.1
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.3
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.6
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.3
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.0
Total No of Forms Received: 39 Average Scoring: 2.9
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Historical Studies
Department: Ancient History and Archaeology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. G. Thirumoorthy
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.8
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.6
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.6
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.1
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.4
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.7
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.3
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.7
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.7
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.1
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.8
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.4
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.9
Total No of Forms Received: 27 Average Scoring: 3.0
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Historical Studies
Department: Indian History
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S.S. Sundaram
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.3
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.3
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.7
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.3
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.7
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.7
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.3
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.3
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.3
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 3.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 5.0
Total No of Forms Received: 3 Average Scoring: 3.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Historical Studies
Department: Indian History
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Kuppusamy
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.9
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.4
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.2
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.9
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.1
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
2.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
2.8
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.6
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 3.2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.8
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.3
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.8
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.6
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.4
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.7
Total No of Forms Received: 11 Average Scoring: 3.2
School of Social
Sciences
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Social Science
Department: Education
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A. Subramanian
Designation: Assistant Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.8
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.6
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.6
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.9
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.7
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.1
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.8
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.6
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.3
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.1
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.7
Total No of Forms Received: 11 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Social Science
Department: Education
Name of the Faculty: Mrs. M. Ugin Rositta
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.9
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.9
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.9
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.9
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.9
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.8
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.7
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.8
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.7
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.8
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.9
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.6
Total No of Forms Received: 10 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Social Science
Department: Education
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A. Shyamala Devi
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.8
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.7
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.6
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.9
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.3
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.9
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.8
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.2
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.8
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.3
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.3
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.1
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.7
Total No of Forms Received: 11 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Social Science
Department: Sociology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. M. Thamilarasan
Designation: Associate Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent
25. The level of question paper are very high
Total No of Forms Received: 11 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Social Science
Department: Sociology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. M. Thamilarasan
Designation: Associate Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.3
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.2
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.3
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.1
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.1
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.3
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.3
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.4
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.9
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.9
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.9
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.5
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.9
Total No of Forms Received: 17 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Social Science
Department: Sociology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S.T. Akilan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.8
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.2
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.6
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.1
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.3
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.9
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.9
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.4
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.7
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.6
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.6
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.1
Total No of Forms Received: 21 Average Scoring: 3.2
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Social Science
Department: Sociology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Thanikasaslam
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 2.8
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 2.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 2.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.8
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2.8
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 2.4
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.8
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.1
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.6
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
2.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.3
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.9
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.9
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.3
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 2.9
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.7
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.7
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.2
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.5
Total No of Forms Received: 24 Average Scoring: 2.7
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Social Science
Department: Women Studies
Name of the Faculty: Dr. V. Bharathi Harishankar
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.9
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.2
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.9
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.2
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.1
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.6
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.9
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.9
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.9
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.4
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.1
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.2
Total No of Forms Received: 8 Average Scoring: 3.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Social Science
Department: Anthropology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Sumathi
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.1
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.5
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.3
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.8
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.6
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.1
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.3
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.8
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.1
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.6
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.1
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.4
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.8
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.4
Total No of Forms Received: 14 Average Scoring: 3.1
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Social Science
Department: Anthropology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. M. P. Damodaran
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.8
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.2
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.1
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.8
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.8
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.5
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.6
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.1
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.6
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.1
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.1
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.3
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 2.6
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.6
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.4
Total No of Forms Received: 14 Average Scoring: 3.0
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Social Science
Department: Criminology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. M. Srinivasan
Designation: Professor & Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 4.5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.0 7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2.0 8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 2.0 9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
2.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.0 12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
2.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
2.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 0.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.0 17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 2.0 18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.0 19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 2.0 21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0 22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.0 24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.0 25. The level of question paper are very high 2.0
Total No of Forms Received: 2 Average Scoring: 2.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Social Science
Department: Counseling Psychology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Thenmozhi
Designation: Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.2
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.1
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.3
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.8
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.9
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.8
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.9
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.8
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.3
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.6
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.7
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.7
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.9
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.9
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.7
Total No of Forms Received: 49 Average Scoring: 3.1
School of Political and
International Studies
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Political and International Studies
Department: UGC – Centre for South and South East Asian Studies
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Manivasakan
Designation: Professor & Director
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 5.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 5.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 3.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 5.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 5.0
Total No of Forms Received: 2 Average Scoring: 4.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Political and International Studies
Department: UGC – Centre for South and South East Asian Studies
Name of the Faculty: Dr. Hiller Armstrong
Designation:Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 5.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 5.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 3.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 4.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 5.0
Total No of Forms Received: 2 Average Scoring: 4.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Political and International Studies
Department:Defence and Strategic Studies
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Utham Kumar Jamadhagni
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.8
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.9
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.8
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.7
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.6
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.6
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.3
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.4
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.3
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.2
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.6
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.8
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.6
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.5
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.9
Total No of Forms Received: 34 Average Scoring: 3.3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Political and International Studies
Department:Defence and Strategic Studies
Name of the Faculty: Dr. E. Prabakaran
Designation:Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.8
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.8
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.8
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.6
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.4
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.4
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.3
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.9
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.6
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.7
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.6
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.6
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.7
Total No of Forms Received: 35 Average Scoring: 3.3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Political and International Studies
Department:Defence and Strategic Studies
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A. Venkataraman
Designation:Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.7
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.8
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.4
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.1
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.4
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.5
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.3
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.9
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.3
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.4
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.1
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.6
Total No of Forms Received: 22 Average Scoring: 3.1
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Political and International Studies
Department:Legal Studies
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A. David Ambrose
Designation:Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.2
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.3
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.9
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.1
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.3
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2.8
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 2.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 2.4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 2.3
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 2.3
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.1
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 2.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.1
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 2.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.3
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 2.4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 2.4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.6
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.4
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.3
Total No of Forms Received: 9 Average Scoring: 2.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Political and International Studies
Department:Legal Studies
Name of the Faculty: Dr. B. Venugopal
Designation:Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.1
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.4
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.5
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.1
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 2.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 2.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 2.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.7
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 2.4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.6
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.9
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.1
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.6
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 2.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 2.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.1
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.7
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.6
Total No of Forms Received: 8 Average Scoring: 2.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Political and International Studies
Department:Legal Studies
Name of the Faculty: Dr. G. Rajasekar
Designation:Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.7
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.4
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.1
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 2.7
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 2.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 2.4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.1
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.9
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.1
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.6
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 2.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 2.9
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.1
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.6
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.6
Total No of Forms Received: 8 Average Scoring: 2.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Political and International Studies
Department:Politics and Public Administration
Name of the Faculty: Dr. R. Manivannan
Designation:Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.7
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.6
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.7
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.3
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.2
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.9
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.3
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.4
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.8
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.1
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.6
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.4
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.9
Total No of Forms Received: 33 Average Scoring: 2.9
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Political and International Studies
Department:Politics and Public Administration
Name of the Faculty: Dr. M. Kennedy Stephensan Vaseekaran
Designation:Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.9
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.8
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.7
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.9
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.9
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.9
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.3
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.6
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.9
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.1
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.7
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.2
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.8
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 1.9
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.8
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.9
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.9
Total No of Forms Received: 34 Average Scoring: 3.1
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Political and International Studies
Department:Politics and Public Administration
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Parthiban
Designation:Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.8
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.9
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.9
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.8
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.9
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.9
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.1
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.6
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.8
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.8
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.9
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.7
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.0
Total No of Forms Received: 41 Average Scoring: 3.2
School of Economics
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Economics
Department: Economics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Jothi Sivagnanam
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 2.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.1
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.9
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 2.8
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.5
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.6
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
2.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
2.9
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.4
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
2.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.7
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.2
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.2
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 1.9
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.3
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.7
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.6
Total No of Forms Received: 24 Average Scoring: 2.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Economics
Department: Economics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Chinnammai
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.4
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.2
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.2
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.2
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 2.9
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.3
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.4
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.8
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.2
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.3
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.3
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.1
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.1
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.2
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.9
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.3
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.6
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.4
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.7
Total No of Forms Received: 40 Average Scoring: 3.0
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Economics
Department: Economics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Malathi
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.9
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.8
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.6
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.9
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.9
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.9
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.9
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.8
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.3
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.2
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.9
Total No of Forms Received: 33 Average Scoring: 3.2
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Economics
Department: Economics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. V. Kokila
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 2.9
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 2.6
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 2.7
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.3
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 2.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2.9
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 2.9
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
2.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.8
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
2.4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
2.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.8
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.4
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.7
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.1
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.6
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.6
Total No of Forms Received: 30 Average Scoring: 2.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Economics
Department: Econometrics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. T. Lakshmanasamy
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 5.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
2.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 4.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.5
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.5
Total No of Forms Received: 2 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Economics
Department: Econometrics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. D. Sathiyavan
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 5.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
2.5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
2.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 3.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
1.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 5.0
Total No of Forms Received: 2 Average Scoring: 3.0
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Economics
Department: Econometrics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. P. Mahendra Varman
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 4.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 5.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.0
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Economics
Department: Econometrics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. R. Mariappan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 4.5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.5
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
2.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 5.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.0
Total No of Forms Received: 2 Average Scoring: 3.4
School of Information
and Communication
Studies
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Information and Communication Studies
Department: Library and Information Sciences
Name of the Faculty: Dr. V. Chandrakumar
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.5
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.6
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.7
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.6
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.9
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.9
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.6
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.1
Total No of Forms Received: 42 Average Scoring: 3.7
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Information and Communication Studies
Department: Library and Information Sciences
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A. Perumal
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.5
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.8
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.6
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.7
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.9
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.6
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.8
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.6
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.1
Total No of Forms Received: 44 Average Scoring: 3.7
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Information and Communication Studies
Department: Library and Information Sciences
Name of the Faculty: Dr. H. Fazlunnisa
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.5
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.8
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.6
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.7
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.9
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.6
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.8
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.6
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.1
Total No of Forms Received: 42 Average Scoring: 3.7
School of Philosophy
and Religious Thought
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Philosophy and Religious Thought
Department: Philosophy
Name of the Faculty: Dr. M. Venkatachalapathy
Designation: Assistant Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.7
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
1.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 1.7
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
5.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.2
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.2
Total No of Forms Received: 4 Average Scoring: 3.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Philosophy and Religious Thought
Department: Saiva Siddhantha
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Saravanan
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.9
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.6
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.8
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.8
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
5.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.9
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.9
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.9
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.5
Total No of Forms Received: 9 Average Scoring: 3.9
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Philosophy and Religious Thought
Department: Vaishnavism
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Dayanidhi
Designation: Assistant Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.4
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.8
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.8
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.8
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.6
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
2.1
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.9
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.1
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.1
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.5
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.0
Total No of Forms Received: 14 Average Scoring: 3.3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Philosophy and Religious Thought
Department: Jainology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. Priyadarshana Jain
Designation: Assistant Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.8
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.7
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.6
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.6
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.4
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.6
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.7
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.8
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.8
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.5
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.3
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.3
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.6
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.7
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.2
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.4
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.6
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.6
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.2
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.5
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.3
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.5
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.4
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.6
50. The level of question paper are very high 2.5
Total No of Forms Received: 22 Average Scoring: 2.9
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Philosophy and Religious Thought
Department: Christian Studies
Name of the Faculty: Dr. G. Patrick
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 0.9
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 0.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 0.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.3
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.1
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.1
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.8
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.3
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.8
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.5
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.5
Total No of Forms Received: 15 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Philosophy and Religious Thought
Department: Christian Studies
Name of the Faculty: Dr. James Ponniah
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 0.9
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 0.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 0.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.3
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.3
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.8
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.3
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.8
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.5
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.4
Total No of Forms Received: 15 Average Scoring: 3.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Philosophy and Religious Thought
Department: Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed Centre for Islamic Studies
Name of the Faculty: Mr. P. K. Abdul Rahiman
Designation: Assistant Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 2.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 2.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 2.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 2.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.5
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 1.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 2.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
2.5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
2.5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 3.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 1.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 2.5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 2.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
4.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.5
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.0
Total No of Forms Received: 2 Average Scoring: 2.7
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Philosophy and Religious Thought
Department: Buddhism
Name of the Faculty: Dr. M. Venkatachalapathy
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.8
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.8
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.7
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.1
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.1
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.7
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.7
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.8
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.2
Total No of Forms Received: 8 Average Scoring: 3.7
School of Fine and
Performing Arts
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Fine and Performing Arts
Department: Indian Music
Name of the Faculty: Dr. Rajashri Sripathy
Designation: Assistant Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.9
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.8
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.3
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.6
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 2.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 2.4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.1
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.4
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.9
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.3
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.8
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 3.3
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.2
Total No of Forms Received: 9 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Fine and Performing Arts
Department: Indian Music
Name of the Faculty: Dr. R. Hemalatha
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.1
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.1
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.2
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.9
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.6
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.9
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.3
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.2
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.4
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.6
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.8
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 3.3
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.6
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.2
Total No of Forms Received: 10 Average Scoring: 3.5
School of English and
Foreign Languages
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of English and Foreign Languages
Department: English
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Armstrong
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.3
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.2
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.3
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.8
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.3
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.2
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.3
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.2
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.3
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.9
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.7
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.7
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.2
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.2
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.7
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.4
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.4
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.7
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4.0
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.1
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.8
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.5
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.0
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.1
50. The level of question paper are very high 3.2
Total No of Forms Received: 33 Average Scoring: 3.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of English and Foreign Languages
Department: English
Name of the Faculty: Dr. R. Azhzgarasan
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.1
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.1
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.3
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.9
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.3
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.2
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.2
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.3
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.7
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.2
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.7
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.9
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.2
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.8
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.9
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.1
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.1
Total No of Forms Received: 36 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of English and Foreign Languages
Department: English
Name of the Faculty: Dr. D. Venkataramanan
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.4
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.3
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.4
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.7
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.8
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.9
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.2
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.1
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.9
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.1
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.9
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.7
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.4
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.4
Total No of Forms Received: 31 Average Scoring: 3.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of English and Foreign Languages
Department: English
Name of the Faculty: Ms. Supala Pandiarajan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.2
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.3
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.3
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.8
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.2
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.3
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.1
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.1
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.6
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.2
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.7
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.2
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.6
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.8
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.6
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.2
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.2
Total No of Forms Received: 34 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of English and Foreign Languages
Department: French and other Foreign Languages
Name of the Faculty: Dr. N.C. Mirakamal
Designation: Assistant Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.7
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2.8
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 2.9
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 2.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 2.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.6
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 2.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.6
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 2.9
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.8
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 2.6
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 2.8
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.6
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 1.6
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.7
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.8
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.5
Total No of Forms Received: 15 Average Scoring: 2.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of English and Foreign Languages
Department: French and other Foreign Languages
Name of the Faculty: Ms. K. Srunika
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.3
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.3
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.3
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.2
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 2.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 2.1
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 2.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 2.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.7
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 2.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.9
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.3
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 2.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.6
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 2.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 2.6
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.7
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 1.7
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.9
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.5
Total No of Forms Received: 15 Average Scoring: 2.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of English and Foreign Languages
Department: French and other Foreign Languages
Name of the Faculty: Ms. S. Ramya
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.4
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.7
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 2.9
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 2.1
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.7
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 2.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.6
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 2.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.7
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 2.9
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.9
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 2.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 2.8
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.6
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 1.7
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.9
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.8
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.5
Total No of Forms Received: 15 Average Scoring: 2.5
School of
Mathematics, Statistics
and Computer Science
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
Department: RIAS in Mathematics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. N. Agarwal Sushama
Designation: Professor and Director
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.1
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.1
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.3
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.8
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.9
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.9
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.3
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.8
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.0
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.2
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.8
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.7
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.6
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.3
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.1
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.9
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.2
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.7
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 3.0
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.9
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
50. The level of question paper are very high 4.1
Total No of Forms Received: 43 Average Scoring: 3.7
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
Department: RIAS in Mathematics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. M. Pitchaimani
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.6
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.8
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.6
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.7
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.4
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.7
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.1
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.8
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.6
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.2
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.9
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.7
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.9
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.6
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.1
Total No of Forms Received: 32 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
Department: RIAS in Mathematics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. C. Uma Maheswari
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.4
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.2
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.8
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.1
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.2
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.4
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.1
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.3
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.7
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.6
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.9
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.4
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.3
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.6
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 3.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.8
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.0
Total No of Forms Received: 56 Average Scoring: 3.7
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
Department: RIAS in Mathematics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. J. Jeganathan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.1
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.2
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.2
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.1
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.9
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.2
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.8
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.3
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.9
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.6
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.2
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.8
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.8
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.9
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.0
Total No of Forms Received: 3.7 Average Scoring: 58
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
Department: RIAS in Mathematics
Name of the Faculty: Ms. R. Ezhilarasi
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.1
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.9
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.1
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.9
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.8
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.9
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.7
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.8
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.1
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.3
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.3
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.9
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.2
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 3.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.8
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.6
Total No of Forms Received: 66 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
Department: RIAS in Mathematics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A. Tamilselvi
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.1
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.8
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.2
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.9
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.8
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.9
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.1
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.2
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.2
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.6
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.8
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.4
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.1
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.1
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.7
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.9
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.9
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.1
Total No of Forms Received:47 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
Department: RIAS in Mathematics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Kaliraj
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.9
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.9
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.8
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.8
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.9
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.6
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.1
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.1
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.6
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.6
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.9
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.9
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.6
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.1
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.7
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.9
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.9
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.0
Total No of Forms Received: 49 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
Department: RIAS in Mathematics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. R. Parthasarathy
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.6
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.1
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.6
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.9
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.9
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.6
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 2.9
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.5
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.9
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.4
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.4
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.9
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.3
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.7
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.1
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.5
Total No of Forms Received: 22 Average Scoring: 3.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
Department: Computer Science
Name of the Faculty: Dr. P. Thangavel
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.1
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.4
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.3
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.6
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 4.1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.3
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.8
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.6
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.3
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.9
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4.3
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.6
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.6
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 3.1
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.9
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.1
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.1
Total No of Forms Received: 9 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
Department: Computer Science
Name of the Faculty: Dr. P.L. Chitra
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.8
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.6
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.7
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.6
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 4.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.2
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.9
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.3
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.9
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.6
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.1
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4.2
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.3
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 3.2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.2
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.8
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.3
Total No of Forms Received: 9 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
Department: Computer Science
Name of the Faculty: Dr. M. Sornam
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.2
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 2.8
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.2
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.2
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.6
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2.8
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.4
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.4
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.8
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.2
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.4
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.4
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.8
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.8
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4.4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.8
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 4.4
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 4.2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 4.2
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.4
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.2
Total No of Forms Received: 5 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
Department: Computer Science
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Gopinathan
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.8
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.8
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 4.8
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.6
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 4.5
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 4.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 3.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.3
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.3
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.3
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4.8
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.3
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 4.8
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 4.3
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 4.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.5
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.5
Total No of Forms Received: 5 Average Scoring: 4.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science
Department: Computer Science
Name of the Faculty: Dr. B. Lavanya
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.8
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.3
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 4.5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.3
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.3
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.8
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.3
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 5.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 4.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.8
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.8
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 4.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.8
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.3
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.0
Total No of Forms Received: 4 Average Scoring: 4.1
School of Tamil and
Other Dravidian
Languages
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Tamil and Other Dravidian Languages
Department: Tamil Literature
Name of the Faculty: Dr. G. Palani
Designation: Associate Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.9
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.2
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.5
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.7
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.2
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
1.0
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.6
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 1.0
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.7
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.5
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.5
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.4
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.7
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.4
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.0
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.6
50. The level of question paper are very high 4.5
Total No of Forms Received: 46 Average Scoring: 3.3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Tamil and Other Dravidian Languages
Department: Tamil Literature
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A. Ekambaram
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.9
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.2
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.2
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
1.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 1.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.6
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.5
Total No of Forms Received: 46 Average Scoring: 3.3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Tamil and Other Dravidian Languages
Department: Tamil Language
Name of the Faculty: Dr.Y. Manikandan
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.1
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.9
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.8
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
1.3
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
5.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.1
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.1
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
5.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.9
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.1
Total No of Forms Received: 38 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Tamil and Other Dravidian Languages
Department: Tamil Language
Name of the Faculty: Dr. Vani Arivaalan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.1
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.2
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.9
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.6
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
1.4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.9
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
5.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.2
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.9
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.2
Total No of Forms Received: 38 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Tamil and Other Dravidian Languages
Department: Tamil Language
Name of the Faculty: Dr. V. Nirmalar Selvi
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.1
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.2
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.9
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
1.4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.1
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.9
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
5.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.2
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.9
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.2
Total No of Forms Received: 38 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Tamil and Other Dravidian Languages
Department: Kannada
Name of the Faculty: Dr. Tamil Selvi
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.0
Total No of Forms Received: 4 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Tamil and Other Dravidian Languages
Department: Kannada
Name of the Faculty: Dr. M. Rangaswamy
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.0
Total No of Forms Received: 4 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Tamil and Other Dravidian Languages
Department: Malayalam
Name of the Faculty: Dr. P.M. Girish
Designation: Associate Professor and Headi/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.6
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.7
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.1
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.3
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.7
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.6
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.0
Total No of Forms Received: 7 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Tamil and Other Dravidian Languages
Department: Malayalam
Name of the Faculty: Dr. O.K. Santhosh
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.3
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.6
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.1
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.3
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.7
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.3
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.8
Total No of Forms Received: 7 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Tamil and Other Dravidian Languages
Department: Telugu
Name of the Faculty: Dr.M. Sampath Kumar
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5.0
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.0
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.0
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.1
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.0
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
50. The level of question paper are very high 3.0
Total No of Forms Received: 16 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Tamil and Other Dravidian Languages
Department: Telugu
Name of the Faculty: Dr. N. Vistali Sanakara Rao
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.1
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.0
Total No of Forms Received: 16 Average Scoring: 3.6
School of Sanskrit and
Other Indian
Languages
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Sanskrit and Other Indian Languages
Department: Sanskrit
Name of the Faculty: Dr. P. Narasimhan
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.4
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.2
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.2
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.7
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.4
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.1
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.4
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.4
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.7
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.4
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.7
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.0
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.6
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.6
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.1
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.4
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.1
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.6
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.5
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.6
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.1
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.6
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.2
50. The level of question paper are very high 3.0
Total No of Forms Received: 8 Average Scoring: 3.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Sanskrit and Other Indian Languages
Department: Sanskrit
Name of the Faculty: Dr. C. Murugan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.1
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.1
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.8
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.3
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.3
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.3
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.3
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.6
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.3
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.6
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.6
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.7
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.7
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.3
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.3
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.7
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.3
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.7
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.1
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.4
Total No of Forms Received: 8 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Sanskrit and Other Indian Languages
Department: Arabic, Persian and Urdu
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Habeeb Ahmed
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.8
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.8
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.8
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.8
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.3
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.8
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.8
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.8
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.8
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.8
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.2
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.7
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.8
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.8
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.8
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.0
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.8
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.1
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.8
50. The level of question paper are very high 4.1
Total No of Forms Received: 9 Average Scoring: 3.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Sanskrit and Other Indian Languages
Department: Arabic, Persian and Urdu
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A. Jahir Hussain
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.6
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.8
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.8
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.3
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.8
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.8
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.3
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.8
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.7
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.1
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.8
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.1
Total No of Forms Received: 9 Average Scoring: 3.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Sanskrit and Other Indian Languages
Department: Arabic, Persian and Urdu
Name of the Faculty: Dr. Amanulla.M.B.
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
5.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 1.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
5.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
5.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 1.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
5.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 5.0
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.6
School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Department: Applied Geology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. R.R. Krishnamurthy
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.6
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.7
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.6
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.4
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.3
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.6
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.4
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.2
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.2
Total No of Forms Received: 28 Average Scoring: 3.9
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Department: Applied Geology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S.G.D. Sridhar
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.6
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.3
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.6
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.2
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.8
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.1
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.4
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.1
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.2
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.1
Total No of Forms Received: 28 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Department: Applied Geology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. M. Jayaprakash
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.6
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.3
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.6
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.1
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.1
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.4
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.7
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.6
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.3
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 3.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.2
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.6
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.3
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.6
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.8
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.8
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.3
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.4
Total No of Forms Received: 14 Average Scoring: 3.9
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Department: Applied Geology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. N. Rajeshwara Rao
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.6
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.7
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.6
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.3
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.6
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.8
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.6
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.4
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.2
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.2
Total No of Forms Received: 28 Average Scoring: 3.9
School of Chemical
Sciences
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Analytical Chemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. T.M. Sridhar
Designation: Assistant Professor& Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.6
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.0
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.4
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.5
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.0
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.5
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.3
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.2
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.7
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.9
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.0
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.9
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.2
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.5
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.7
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.8
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.9
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.8
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.0
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.7
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.7
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.2
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.3
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.5
50. The level of question paper are very high 3.7
Total No of Forms Received: 12 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Analytical Chemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. Deepa P. Nambiar
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.8
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.4
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.6
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.8
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.8
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.2
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.8
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.8
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.8
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.6
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.8
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.8
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.6
Total No of Forms Received: 5 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Analytical Chemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Venkatachalam
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.0
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.0
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.0
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
5.0
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.0
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
2.0
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 4.0
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
2.0
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.0
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.0
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.0
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.0
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.0
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.0
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
50. The level of question paper are very high 2.0
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Inorganic Chemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Pandian
Designation: Professor (COE)
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 4.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
2.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 4.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
5.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 1.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.0
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.7
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Inorganic Chemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A. Murugadoss
Designation: Assistant Professorand Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.9
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.4
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.2
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.8
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.8
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.7
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.9
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.9
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.9
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.9
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
4.1
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.3
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.2
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.9
Total No of Forms Received: 12 Average Scoring: 4.3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Organic Chemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A.K. Mohanakrishnan
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.4
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.3
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.9
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.9
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.3
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.1
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.3
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.6
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.8
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.8
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.9
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.4
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.4
Total No of Forms Received: 24 Average Scoring: 3.1
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Organic Chemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Parthasarathy
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.1
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.8
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.8
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.3
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.3
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.3
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.3
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.1
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.2
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.4
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.6
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.3
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.3
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.7
Total No of Forms Received: 17 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Organic Chemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. R. Anandan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.9
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.8
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.6
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.7
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.3
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.3
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.3
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.1
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.1
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.3
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.8
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.9
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.3
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.3
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.9
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.1
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.6
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.8
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.6
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.9
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.5
Total No of Forms Received: 14 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Physical Chemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. E. Murugan
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.9
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
5.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
5.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.1
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 5.0
Total No of Forms Received: 31 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Physical Chemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. R. Sasikumar
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
5.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
5.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 5.0
Total No of Forms Received: 11 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Physical Chemistry
Name of the Faculty: Mr. S. Nehru
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
5.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
5.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 5.0
Total No of Forms Received: 8 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Physical Chemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. P. Prabhu
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
5.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
5.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 5.0
Total No of Forms Received: 14 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Polymer Science
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A. Sultan Nasar
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.1
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.2
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.6
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.2
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.8
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.5
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.7
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.8
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.1
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.2
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.4
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.0
Total No of Forms Received: 13 Average Scoring: 3.3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Polymer Science
Name of the Faculty: Dr. G. Harichandran
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.8
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.2
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.4
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.8
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.2
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.5
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.2
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.4
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.9
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.3
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.4
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.8
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.6
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.2
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.6
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.8
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.7
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.5
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.7
Total No of Forms Received: 25 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Polymer Science
Name of the Faculty: Dr. N. Rajendiran
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.6
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.4
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.4
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.2
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.8
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.6
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.4
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.9
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.6
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.9
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.4
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.6
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.9
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.8
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.8
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.6
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.8
Total No of Forms Received: 25 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Chemical Science
Department: Polymer Science
Name of the Faculty: Dr. G. Sankar
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.2
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.3
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.3
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.4
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.7
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.1
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.3
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.7
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.7
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.2
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.5
Total No of Forms Received: 12 Average Scoring: 3.5
School of Physical
Sciences
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Physical Science
Department: CAS in Crystallography and Biophysics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Gunasekaran
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.7
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.5
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.7
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.2
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.5
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.2
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.2
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.7
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.5
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.7
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.2
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.0
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 0.7
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.7
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.7
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.0
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.7
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.7
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.0
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.7
50. The level of question paper are very high 2.5
Total No of Forms Received: 4 Average Scoring: 2.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Physical Science
Department: CAS in Crystallography and Biophysics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. V. Rajakannan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 2.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 2.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 4.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 3.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
5.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 2.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 4.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.0
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.1
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Physical Science
Department: CAS in Crystallography and Biophysics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. D. Gayathri
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.7
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 0.7
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 0.7
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.2
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 0.7
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.7
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 0.7
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.7
Total No of Forms Received: 4 Average Scoring: 2.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Physical Science
Department: CAS in Crystallography and Biophysics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. Preethi Ragunathan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 0.7
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 0.7
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.7
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 0.7
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.0
Total No of Forms Received: 4 Average Scoring: 2.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Physical Science
Department: Nuclear Physics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. C. Venkateswaran
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.8
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 0.8
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.2
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.6
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.2
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.6
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
2.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.6
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
2.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.6
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.6
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.6
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 0.8
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
0.8
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.6
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.6
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.4
Total No of Forms Received: 4 Average Scoring: 2.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Physical Science
Department: Nuclear Physics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. G. Anbalagan
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.1
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.2
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.1
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.3
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.8
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.7
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.3
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.7
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.1
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.6
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.1
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.8
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.3
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.8
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.8
Total No of Forms Received: 12 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Physical Science
Department: Nuclear Physics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A. Stephen
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.9
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.9
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.9
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.4
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.6
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.6
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.6
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.9
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.6
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.9
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
3.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.7
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.2
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.6
Total No of Forms Received: 8 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Physical Science
Department: Nuclear Physics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Sivaji
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.2
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.3
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.7
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.3
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.9
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.3
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.8
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
1.6
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.7
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.8
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.7
Total No of Forms Received: 12 Average Scoring: 3.3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Physical Science
Department: Nuclear Physics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Ravichandran
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 2.8
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.4
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.1
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.1
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.1
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.7
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
2.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.6
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.8
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.1
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.1
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
2.8
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.7
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.7
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.7
Total No of Forms Received: 7 Average Scoring: 2.9
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Physical Science
Department: Nuclear Physics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. J. Senthil Selvan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.9
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.9
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.4
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.6
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.3
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.6
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.9
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.3
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.3
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.3
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.3
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.2
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.4
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.8
Total No of Forms Received: 19 Average Scoring: 3.3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Physical Science
Department: Central Instrumentation and Service Laboratory
Name of the Faculty: Dr. D. Nedumaran
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out of
5
26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.0
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5.0
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
5.0
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.0
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
5.0
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.0
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.0
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
5.0
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
50. The level of question paper are very high 5.0
Total No of Forms Received: 3 Average Scoring: 3.9
School of Life
Sciences
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department:Zoology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Janarthanan
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.6
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.6
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.3
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.6
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.8
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.9
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.9
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.2
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.9
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.9
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.8
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.9
Total No of Forms Received: 38 Average Scoring: 3.1
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Zoology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. C. Arulvasu
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.8
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.7
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.6
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.6
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.9
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.9
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.6
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.6
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.9
Total No of Forms Received: 67 Average Scoring: 3.1
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Zoology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. R. Manikandan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.9
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.7
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.7
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.9
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.7
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.8
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.1
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.9
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.2
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.1
Total No of Forms Received: 61 Average Scoring: 3.2
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Zoology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. M. Jayakumar
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.4
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.9
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.7
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.9
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.3
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.1
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.3
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.9
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.8
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.9
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 1.9
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.8
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.3
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.7
Total No of Forms Received: 42 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Zoology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. R. Shanthi
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.2
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.9
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.9
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.8
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.4
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.8
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.6
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.8
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.9
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.3
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.1
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.3
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.1
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.3
Total No of Forms Received: 42 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Centre for Advanced Studies in Botany
Name of the Faculty: Dr. N. Mathivannan
Designation: Professor & Director
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 5.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 1.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 1.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 1.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
5.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
5.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 5.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 1.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 5.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 1.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
1.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 5.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
5.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 1.0
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Centre for Advanced Studies in Botany
Name of the Faculty: Dr. P. Palani
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 4.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 4.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 4.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 4.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 4.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 4.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.5
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.0
Total No of Forms Received: 2 Average Scoring: 3.9
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Centre for Advanced Studies in Botany
Name of the Faculty: Dr. N. Radhakrishnan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 4.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 5.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 4.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 4.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 4.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 4.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.5
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.0
Total No of Forms Received: 2 Average Scoring: 4.2
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Centre for Advanced Studies in Botany
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Nagaraj
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 2.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 2.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 2.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 4.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 2.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 4.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 4.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 2.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 3.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.5
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.5
Total No of Forms Received: 2 Average Scoring: 3.3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Centre for Advanced Studies in Botany
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Malarvizhi
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.5
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 4.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 3.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 4.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 2.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 4.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.5
Total No of Forms Received: 2 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Centre for Advanced Studies in Botany
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K.R. Jayappriyan
Designation:Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 5.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 5.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 5.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 5.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 5.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 5.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 1.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 5.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 5.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 5.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 5.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 5.0
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 4.7
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Biochemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. Elangovan Vellaichamy
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.0
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Biochemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Subramanian
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.0
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.5
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.5
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3.0
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.5
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.5
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.5
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.0
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.5
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.5
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.5
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.5
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.5
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.5
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.5
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.5
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.0
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.0
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.0
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.5
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.0
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
50. The level of question paper are very high 3.5
Total No of Forms Received: 2 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Biochemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A. J. Vanisree
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.0
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Biochemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. G. Sudhandiran
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.0
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.0
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.0
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.0
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.0
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.0
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.0
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.0
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.0
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4.0
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.0
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.0
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.0
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.0
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.0
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.0
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 4.0
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.4
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Biotechnology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Elumalai
Designation:Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.6
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.8
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.2
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.9
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.4
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.9
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.1
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
4.2
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.3
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.1
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.8
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.8
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.8
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.4
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.7
Total No of Forms Received: 21 Average Scoring: 3.2
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Biotechnology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Uma Maheswari
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 2.4
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 2.6
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 2.9
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.3
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.8
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.2
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
2.9
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.2
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.0
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
3.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.3
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.4
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.6
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 2.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.3
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.1
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.6
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.6
Total No of Forms Received: 20 Average Scoring: 2.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Biotechnology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. G. Vijayan Siva
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.2
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.4
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.9
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.1
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.6
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.3
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.3
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
4.1
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.9
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.0
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.9
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.9
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.1
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.1
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
4.0
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.9
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.3
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.0
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.0
Total No of Forms Received: 19 Average Scoring: 3.2
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Life Science
Department: Biotechnology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. K. Kathiravan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.4
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.2
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.8
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.0
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.0
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class
3.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student)
3.7
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other)
4.1
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations
3.6
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.1
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.9
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.7
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other)
3.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.0
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams
2.2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.0
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.8
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.8
Total No of Forms Received: 19 Average Scoring: 3.0
School of Basic
Medical Sciences
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Anatomy
Name of the Faculty: Dr. V. Sankar
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.7
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.2
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4.2
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.2
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.7
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.7
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 5
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.5
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.7
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.2
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.7
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.5
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4
50. The level of question paper are very high 2.7
Total No of Forms Received: 4 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Anatomy
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Prakash
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.2
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.2
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.2
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.7
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 1
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4
25. The level of question paper are very high 2
Total No of Forms Received: 4 Average Scoring: 3.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Anatomy
Name of the Faculty: Dr. R. Ramesh Kumar
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.7
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4.7
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.5
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.5
Total No of Forms Received: 4 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Genetics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. A. K. Munirajan
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.2
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.2
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.2
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.1
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.4
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.2
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.2
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4.2
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.2
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.2
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.7
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.2
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.9
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.1
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.1
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.1
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1.8
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.9
Total No of Forms Received: 16 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Genetics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. B. Anandan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.6
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.6
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.8
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.8
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.3
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.9
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4.1
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.4
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.9
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.9
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.9
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.4
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 2.7
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.7
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1.7
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 1.6
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4.7
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.1
Total No of Forms Received: 11 Average Scoring: 3.7
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Genetics
Name of the Faculty: Dr. V. Aravindhan
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 4
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 4
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4
25. The level of question paper are very high 5
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 4.2
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Medical Biochemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. V. Bhuvarahamurthy
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 3
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 3
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4
25. The level of question paper are very high 4
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Medical Biochemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. P. Kalaiselvi
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 3
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.5
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 4.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.5
25. The level of question paper are very high 4
Total No of Forms Received: 3 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Medical Biochemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. T. Sumathi
Designation: Associate Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 2.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 2
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 4
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3.5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 2
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3.5
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 2.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 3.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 2
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.5
Total No of Forms Received: 3 Average Scoring: 3.1
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Medical Biochemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Yamini Sudhalakshmi
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3.5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 2.5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 3
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 2
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 4
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 2.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 2.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 2.5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 4.5
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 2.5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 4
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 4
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.5
Total No of Forms Received: 3 Average Scoring: 3.1
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Medical Biochemistry
Name of the Faculty: Dr. T.M. Vijayalakshmi
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 2
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 2.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 2
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 2.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 2.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 2.5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 2
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 3
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 2.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 3.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 4
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.5
Total No of Forms Received: 3 Average Scoring: 2.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Microbiology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. Elanchezian Manickam
Designation: Professor and Head
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.8
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.3
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.7
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.2
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.4
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3.8
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 2
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.8
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 4
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 2.4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.8
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 1.8
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.6
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 2.2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.6
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 3.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 2.2
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.8
Total No of Forms Received: 9 Average Scoring: 3.3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Microbiology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. D. Prabhu
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.7
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.3
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.7
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.3
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1.8
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.8
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.3
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4.3
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1.8
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3.2
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.7
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 2.5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.3
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2.3
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4
25. The level of question paper are very high 3
Total No of Forms Received: 9 Average Scoring: 3.5
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Microbiology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. B. Rayvathi
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.9
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.4
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 3.2
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 2.7
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4.6
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.3
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 2.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.2
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.8
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.8
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 2.8
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.7
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.3
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.4
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 2
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.3
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 3.3
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 3.4
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.6
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.4
Total No of Forms Received: 11 Average Scoring: 3.3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Microbiology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. P. Suganthi
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 2.3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3.1
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 2.7
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 2.4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 4
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 2.7
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 2.5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.7
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 2.8
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 2.8
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3.7
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 3
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 2.7
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.5
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 2.5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 3.8
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4.2
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.2
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.2
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2.2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 3
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.2
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.2
25. The level of question paper are very high 2.3
Total No of Forms Received: 10 Average Scoring: 3
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Pharmacology and Environmental Toxicology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. V. Sankar
Designation: Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 26. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5
27. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5
28. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5
29. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1
30. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5
31. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1
32. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5
33. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5
34. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4
35. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 5
36. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4
37. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 5
38. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1
39. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 5
40. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1
41. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5
42. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5
43. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 1
44. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 5
45. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5
46. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1
47. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 1
48. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1
49. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5
50. The level of question paper are very high 4
Total No of Forms Received: 4 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Physiology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. R. Ravindran
Designation: Associate Professor and Head i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 1
25. The level of question paper are very high 5
Total No of Forms Received: 5 Average Scoring: 3.9
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Basic Medical Sciences
Department: Physiology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. G. Sathya Narayanana
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 5
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 1
25. The level of question paper are very high 5
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.9
School of Nanoscience
and Photonics
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Nanoscience and Photonics
Department: National Centre for Ultrafast Process
Name of the Faculty: Dr. C. Selvaraju
Designation: Assistant Professor & Director i/c
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 2.3
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 5
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 5
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 1
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 5
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 1
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 5
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 5
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 1
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 1
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 1
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 5
25. The level of question paper are very high 3
Total No of Forms Received: 3 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Nanoscience and Photonics
Department: National Centre for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. S. Balakumar
Designation: Professor & Director
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 5
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 2
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4
25. The level of question paper are very high 3
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Nanoscience and Photonics
Department: National Centre for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. T. Prakash
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 5
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 4
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 5
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 3
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 5
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4
25. The level of question paper are very high 3
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.8
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Nanoscience and Photonics
Department: National Centre for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. Amutha Santhanam
Designation: Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 5
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 5
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 5
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 5
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 4
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 4
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4
25. The level of question paper are very high 3
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.6
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: School of Nanoscience and Photonics
Department: National Centre for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
Name of the Faculty: Dr. M. Jayaraj
Designation: Assistant Professor
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 3
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 3
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 3
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 5
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 3
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 3
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 5
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 3
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 4
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 3
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 5
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 5
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 4
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 2
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 4
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 4
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 4
25. The level of question paper are very high 4
Total No of Forms Received: 1 Average Scoring: 3.4
Department of
Physical Education and
Sports
University of Madras
Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
Student Feedback Form Analysis Report
School: Department of Physical Education and Sports
Department: Department of Physical Education and Sports
Name of the Faculty: Dr. V. Mahadevan
Designation: Director
Semester:
S.No. Feedback Indicator Score
out
of 5 1. The teacher covers the entire syllabus 4.4
2. The teacher discusses topics in detail 4.3
3. The teacher possesses deep knowledge of the subject taught 4.4
4. The teacher does not communicate clearly 1.2
5. The teacher inspires me by his/her knowledge in the subject 4.3
6. The teacher is rarely punctual to the class 3.1
7. The teacher engages the class for the full duration and completes the course in time 4
8. The teacher comes fully prepared for the class 4.1
9. The teacher occasionally provides guidance counselling in academic and non-academic
matters in/outside the class 3.6
10. The teacher encourages participation and discussion in class (Teacher-Student, Student-
Student) 4.2
11. The teacher encourages and values disagreement 3.9
12. The teacher uses modern teaching aids/gadgets, handouts, suggestion of references, PPT,
web-resources (Any other) 4
13. The teacher does not pay attention to academically weaker students 2.2
14. The teacher provides additional information and relate the course material with real
worlds situations 4.1
15. The teacher’s attitude towards students is not friendly and helpful 2.4
16. Teacher discusses the evaluation procedure in the beginning of the semester 4
17. Periodical assessment tests (Sessional I & II) were conducted as per schedule 4.3
18. The teacher returned back the semester test papers and discussed the answers 3.6
19. The teacher used non-traditional methods of evaluation like Quiz, Seminars,
Assignments, Classroom presentation/participation (Any other) 3.6
20. The question paper covered all units of the syllabus 4.1
21. The teacher was unfair and biased in the evaluation process 2
22. The teacher is hesitant to discuss the individual performance of students in tests and
exams 2.9
23. The teacher does not give convincing answer for the marks awarded 3.3
24. According to my view, the examination is fair and transparent 3.9
25. The level of question paper are very high 3.6
Total No of Forms Received: 23 Average Scoring: 3.6