STUDENTS’ EVALUATION OF FACULTY MEMBERS

REPORT ANALYSIS  (2022-2023)

INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURRANCE CELL (IQAC)

MOUNT EVEREST COLLEGE, SENAPATI, MANIPUR

Feedback is an essential part of our continuous endeavour to overcome challenges and achieve excellence in the teaching and learning process and to identify area for further improvement.

The IQAC, Mount Everest College, Senapati undertaking on Students’ Evaluation of Faculty member through online is designed to access percept student’s perception of His/Her teachers in terms of Quality of teaching, Course and Examination & Assessment. 71(Seventy-one) students participated and gave their Feedback to 22 (twenty two) faculty members for the academic year 2022-2023. The Average overall evaluation on Faculty Members by the students on a rating scale of Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor and very poor is found to be in the rating scale ‘Good’.

The analysed report of students evaluation on faculty member is submitted to the Principal and the concerned Faculty for further understanding the area in which they be improved.

Student’s Evaluation on Faculty Members

As per the Feedback received from the students through online in ‘Student’s Evaluation on Faculty Member’ on a rating scale of Very Good (VG), Good (G), Fair (F), Poor (P) and Very Poor (VP), the analysis reports are as given below:

  1. Faculty Name: K.R. Alen Chiru

Department : Political Science

Designation : Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 80 20 – – –
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 60 40
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 40 40
  1. Discipline in the class
 40 60
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 40 60
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 80 20 – – –
  1. Coverage
 80 20
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 80 20
  1. Timely access of material
 60 40
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 80 20 – – –
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 80 20

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty: His teaching is slow.

Best of faculty: His teaching is clear, with example and understandable. He is inspiration to us.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Tamar Gonmei

Department : Political Science

Designation : Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 50 33.33 0 16.66 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 16.66 83.33 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 16.66 33.33 16.66 16.66 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 16.66 66.64 16.66 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 16.66 83.33 0 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 16.66 66.64 16.66 0
  1. Coverage
 83.33 16.66 – 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 0 83.33 0 16.66 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 83.33 16.66 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 16.66 50 33.33 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : Too fast in teaching, not enthusiastic, stylish, very slow. She talks about his hometown too much in the class.

Best of faculty : Her teaching is clear and explains with good example. Play Educational game in the class. Do proper lesson plan and straight forward.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Jangminthang

Department: Sociology

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 33.33 66.66 0 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 33.33 66.66 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 33.33 66.66 0 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 0 66.66 33.33 0 0
  1. Coverage
 33.33 33.33 33.33 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 66.66 0 33.33 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 66.66 33.33 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 0 66.66 33.33 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 0 66.66 33.33 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : His teaching is slow. Not relate with book.

Best of faculty : His teaching is understandable.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Albert Rosounii

Department: Sociology

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 33.33 66.66 0 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 33.33 66.66 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 66.66 33.33 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Coverage
 33.33 66.66 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 0 66.66 33.33 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 66.66 33.33 0 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 33.33 66.66 0 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : Sometime fail to understand the students learning process.

Best of faculty : Try his best to let the students understand the subject.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Yenai

Department: Sociology

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 50 0 50 0 0
  1. Coverage
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 50 50 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 50 0 50 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 50 0 50 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : No comment

Best of faculty : Students understand the message she want to convey.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Khay Rong

Department: Zoology

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 0 75 25 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 75 25 0 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 25 75 0 0 0
  1. Coverage
 0 75 25 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 25 50 25 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 75 25 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 25 75 0 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 0 100 0 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : No comment

Best of faculty : Good in teaching

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Lungshila

Department: Zoology

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 33.33 66.66 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 0 33.33 33.33 33.33 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 0 33.33 33.33 33.33 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Coverage
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 0 66.66 33.33 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 66.66 33.33 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 33.33 33.33 33.33 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 0 66.66 33.33 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : She is not maintaining any respect for students.

Best of faculty : She is strict, good in teaching and understanding other.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Lishine

Department: Zoology

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 0 50 50 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 0 50 50 0 0
  1. Coverage
 0 50 50 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 50 50 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 0 100 0 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty :

Best of faculty :

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: W. Dutta Singh

Department: Botany

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Coverage
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 50 50 0 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : His handwriting is bad.

Best of faculty : His teaching is easy and understandable.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Dr. Surbala

Department: Botany

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 100 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 50 50 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Coverage
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 50 0 50 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 50 50 0 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : She is too kind.

Best of faculty : Her teaching is simple with good example and understandable.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Katine

Department: Botany

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 0 50 50 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Coverage
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 0 50 50 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 50 50 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 0 100 0 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : Need to explain with more examples and used visual method (PPT) on topic with practical and other topic relate.

Best of faculty : She is good in teaching, clear in explanation.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Donkaolung Malangmei

Department: English

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 33.33 33.33 0 33.33 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 33.33 33.33 33.33 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 33.33 33.33 0 33.33 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 33.33 66.66 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 33.33 33.33 33.33 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 66.66 0 0 33.33 0
  1. Coverage
 33.33 33.33 0 33.33 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 66.66 0 0 33.33 0
  1. Timely access of material
 33.33 33.33 0 33.33 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 33.33 33.33 33.33 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 33.33 33.33 33.33 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : Slow in Teaching. His pronunciation was not understandable. Often distract the class till he got the answer and change the topic frequently.

Best of faculty : More interactive with students.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Koko

Department: English

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 0 0 100 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 0 0 100 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 0 0 100 0 0
  1. Coverage
 0 0 0 100 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 0 0 0 100 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 0 100 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 0 0 100 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : Her explanation and lecture are not satisfactory.

Best of faculty : Her lecture is interesting. Her vocabulary and pronunciation are clear. She is enthusiastic.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Veikhine

Department: English

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Coverage
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 0 100 0 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty :

Best of faculty :

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Vashti Kho

Department: Anthropology/RD&ES

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 0 66.66 33.33 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 0 33.33 33.33 33.33 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 0 33.33 33.33 33.33 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 33.33 33.33 0 33.33 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 66.66 33.33 0 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 0 66.66 33.33 0
  1. Coverage
 0 66.66 33.33 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 0 33.33 33.33 33.33 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 33.33 33.33 33.33 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 0 33.33 66.66 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 0 66.66 33.33 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : Too strict. No interest with the students. She never smiles and come always frowning face. Half of her class are spent on lecturing and complaining about the students. Her explanations are not satisfactory. Need to prepare well.

Best of faculty : Her lecture is interesting. Her vocabulary and pronunciation are clear. She is enthusiastic.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Daikho

Department: Commerce

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 25 50 25 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 25 50 25 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 25 50 25 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 50 25 25 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 50 0 50 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 25 25 50 0 0
  1. Coverage
 0 75 25 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 25 75 0 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 25 50 25 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 25 50 25 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 25 50 25 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : Lack of quality teaching. Taking too less time for teaching.

Best of faculty : Good self-discipline, Friendly and good in explaining.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Naresh

Department: Commerce

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 0 0 0 100 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 0 0 100 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 0 0 100 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 0 0 100 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 0 0 0 100 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 0 0 100 0 0
  1. Coverage
 0 0 100 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 0 0 0 100 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 0 0 100 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 0 0 100 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 0 0 100 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty :

Best of faculty :

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Kalo

Department: Commerce

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 50 50
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 50 50
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 50 50
  1. Discipline in the class
 50 50
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 50 50
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 50 50
  1. Coverage
 50 50
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 50 50
  1. Timely access of material
 50 50
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 50 50
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 50 50

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : Not strict enough with the daily lesson

Best of faculty : good Interaction with students and give good advice to be a better student.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Charushilla Devi

Department: History

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Coverage
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 100 0 0 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : Need to improved vocabulary/pronunciation.

Best of faculty : Well verse in the subject.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Dr. Holkhongam Haokip

Department: History

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Coverage
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 100 0 0 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 100 0 0 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : Need to improved vocabulary/pronunciation.

Best of faculty : Well verse in the subject.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Jaojian Riamei

Department: History

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Coverage
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 50 50 0 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 50 50 0 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : Need to improved vocabulary/pronunciation.

Best of faculty : Good teaching, learning was not that difficult on his teaching.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

  1. Faculty Name: Thiyam Lakhibai Devi

Department: Physics

Designation: Assistant Professor

  1. Quality of Teaching (in percentage %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Communication
 40 40 20 0 0
  1. Faculty Knowledge of the Subjects
 60 40 0 0 0
  1. Response of faculty to the question.
 20 60 20 0 0
  1. Discipline in the class
 40 60 0 0 0
  1. Punctuality of the Faculty Member.
 20 80 0 0 0
  1. Courses (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Clarity of Course Contents
 40 20 40 0 0
  1. Coverage
 40 60 0 0
  1. Guidance to relevant resources and technology.
 0 100 0 0 0
  1. Timely access of material
 40 40 20 0 0
  1. Examination and Assessment (in %)
Rank of the Description V.Good Good Fair Poor V. Poor
  1. Fairness in marking
 60 20 20 0 0
  1. Timely feedback on assessments
 40 0 60 0 0

Students Feedback to the faculty:

Weakness of faculty : Need to improved vocabulary/pronunciation.

Best of faculty : Experience in teaching physics. She has skill.

Overall Evaluation on Faculty:

Google Form filled by the students