Botany 498
Conservation in the Mekong
Spring 2009
Kim Bridges, Will McClatchey
Han Lau, Nat Bletter
Course Evaluation - Discussion
· I expected to discuss the ethnobotany and conservation of the Mekong area and to meet with people working in the field. I was glad to have my expectations met, and found myself truly enjoying this course and all it offered. I wish I could have made more of the lunches, but such is life. I'm finding a semester time schedule to be harder to deal with than a quarter schedule because burn out usually starts shortly after week ten, which is usually when a quarter ends.
· Learn more about this region – very generally and specifically. These expectations were met and exceeded.
· I want to know more botanical knowledge and biology in SE Asia. This class provided what I need. I think this class is helpful for me.
· When I signed up, I assumed it would be about ethnobotany specifically, but I was happy that it was more interdisciplinary and holistic.
· I want to know the overview of Mekong plant and people to understand more about it in archaeology and I really appreciated the course.
· I expected more emphasis on current issues and what can be done to help.
· I wanted to know more about the relationship of plants and people in the Mekong area. Although I've been to Thailand several times and was once technical secretary for the meeting of the Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission [I will confess that my interest was more directed towards the Pacific, which I'm sure you will understand], my knowledge of the Mekong area was rather superficial. As a result of attending the classes and reading some of the papers, my knowledge has increased (which is what I wanted). In this respect, the course met my expectations - I learned!
· My objectives were to gain general knowledge of an area about which I previously knew little, and that was accomplished well.
· I felt like I learned a lot and it was very useful to start from ground zero with the physical geography and how the region came to be. I felt like this course touched on everything and I was grateful for it.
· Ethnobotanical methods for research, what is currently being done in the region. Learned about plants of the region, and differences along the Mekong in climate, culture, and topography.
· I learned a lot of biogeography which I’m not good at. I’m very interested on GPS and how to draw maps and to locate some areas in SE Asia.
· We whipped through everything so fast – I’d hate to add more.
· Without basic knowledge, I would suggest 1 or 2 main textbooks that described about main characteristics and important issues before we start.
· I would have liked to see more comparisons to Hawai’I.
· My knowledge of the area has greatly expanded, although by no means would I consider myself to be thoroughly cognizant of all aspects. The details of the background of the area (physical geography, history, and anthropology) were relatively new to me. I learned more about the dishes as a result of our going out (hopefully they were reasonably authentic!).
· Content has been good.
· The assignments for this course were very valuable and I liked the format that we did them in. I liked having to find my own article rather than depending on one supplied by the instructor. I think the assignments were all equally valuable and I have enjoyed doing all of them.
· Most valuable – article reviews, collaborative aspect to the class. Least valuable – the final exam.
· Determination of some concepts, to use GPS and Google Earth, and discussions with instructors and classmates are helpful and valuable for me. I think this class has good goals, there is nothing to complain.
· Yes – but we are all busy and it is hard for us to meet regulatory as a class outside of class time.
· The assignment is helpful and helps students to move faster with clearer concepts.
· I think most were valuable in gaining knowledge about the area, but the article reviews and searching for the articles was more time consuming than necessary.
· As an auditor, I just took advantage of the research and work you folks did, which was very good. I think that looking up recent literature were good exercises because I have difficulty keeping up with the journals.
· The process of going to to the literature is good. The literature is, after all, where the rubber meets the road in science.
· Good. Less money to put out and less constraints with trying to stay within the scope of the text book.
· Good! Would have been nice to have 1 or 2 assigned readings covering the topic broadly and then us finding more on top of that.
· It’s a good thing.
· I think a textbook would have been a burden – but I wonder is some overview articles/readings could be selected for us – I appreciate the volume of finding articles on our own, but often we learned about specific details of someone’s’ research rather than an overview of the important themes or debates on a topic. Perhaps a combination would have been better.
· It is good because you need to research more but after all discussions, you should suggest the important book for the topic. This will check that the students are on the right way to fulfill their goal and course requirement.
· Lack of textbooks are almost always good, gives more opportunity for diverse knowledge and a broader spectrum.
· It would have been helpful to have had a textbook which provided at least basic data for the area - if nothing else, summaries and statistics which could be used as a "handy reference."
· Lack of text book, excellent. Lack of any overall summarized information, not as good. I would suggest having one good review article or book chapter for each week, as that would get everybody up to speed on the basics of the topic under discussion.
· I found this learning environment to be stronger and in truth, I would be happy to see all my future classes taught in such a format.
· Stronger.
· I think this type of learning environment is stronger than normal classes because it doesn’t make learners feel stress.
· Stronger in general, though more of an overview of topics would have been better.
· This type of class is very strong and valuable than normal classes because it encourages students to discuss and participate.
· Much stronger. Everyone has a different learning type and this allows each to strive in their stronger area. We live in a modern world, why not embrace what is available to us? Lectures are good only for a few things ;)
· Participatory learning is much better (and reinforcing) since it forces the student to do his/her homework on time rather than relying on the lecturer to do all the work. The instructor(s) have to also keep "on the ball" because they may be fielding viewpoints and aspects which they may not have considered (or don't have to if they're only lecturing).
· This format promotes collaboration in a small, specialized class, and collaboration necessarily advances science. In this respect it is stronger than many traditional formats. However, this format is less efficient for the presentation of large quantities of general information, which is a potential weakness. Which is preferable would depend on the specific rational for a specific class. For the present class, the format worked extremely well.
· Nearer the end I felt like it was a little much, but that's merely because of my personal workload elsewhere. I would like to have the option of submitting late assignments for half credit instead of no credit. I still insist on doing them and it would be nice to at least get something for them.
· Too much, just slightly, at the beginning with finding articles, making charts and doing group projects of Google Earth, etc. Too little when the guest speakers were here.
· Its okay. I wonder the one thing, I spend too much time to find articles. Its so hard!
· Uneven – we were extremely busy in the weeks just before the poster was due, about right in the first weeks of class and more relaxed after spring break.
· It is ok.
· Bit overwhelming in the beginning.
· N/A since I was an auditor, but perhaps it was too much
· The work load was OK, but more would be too much. It did slow down some of my other responsibilities, but did not prevent them.
· It was a little bit of an overwhelming thought at first, but in the end, I like it because we are not all hounding one instructor for his time and fighting to get attention paid to us.
· A bit weird with Nat coming in late. The tempo was set with 3 instructors then it had to be re-set when Nat came in. General concept was fine (the 2:1 ratio) but timing was weird.
· Its interesting! I never had before and I like it.
· Yes – I appreciated all of your inputs. Sometimes with regard to course requirements, you all should get your stories straight.
· There is something about miscommunication but it is ok.
· Took awhile to get used to, but very interesting to learn what each has to offer.
· Great!
· Having 4 teachers is another aspect of this format which promotes collaboration, a good thing.
· It was kind of confusing at first, but I think we managed all right and often their input was valuable.
· A little weird because it left the question out there of who to collaborate with for group assignments, “outside observer” status would have been better.
· I don’t know what to say in this question!
· I was fun having Al – Pete kind of disappeared…
· We have less comment from the one who have lots of experience and knowledge to share. But it is still good to learn on what we have and observing the way they think.
· Wish they would have shared some of their expertise, but was an honor to have on a side note.
· That's me. Pete (sic - it's spelled Piet who only came a couple of times) and I (who missed about a month because of a leg injury) didn't participate as much for two reasons: (1) we're auditors (free for seniors), and (2) I felt that you folks were paying for the class and doing all the work.
· This did not affect my experience, and it did not seem to hurt the level of discussion.
· Great. And Han deserves a big pat on the back for taking care of the guest speakers, leading many of the class discussions, arranging the symposium, and handling the interactive website. And you for taking the lead in group work! Mahalo nui loa to Will and Kim for the course organization and layout, and Nat for the luncheons.
a.Guest speakers
· Loved having them and being able to talk to them.
· Fantastic component. Really valuable information and hang out time.
· It’s a good thing. I can learn more from their work and experiments.
· All were great and there was a nice variety of topics and speaking styles. Unfortunately few of us had much time do hang out with speakers outside class – I preferred the lunches/field trips organized by Nat.
· Great!
· Wonderful to see and hear from those that are actively in the field. Very valuable.
· Good. The diversity of speakers should have presented something of interest for everybody.
· Useful in expanding our knowledge base and since everybody has a different background it made the discussion more colorful.
· A little disjointed with articles all ranging and not connected, but the interaction was good and made sure we read.
· Very good strategy.
· Great.
· My favorite!!
· Discussions are always a great way to see and understand concepts from different perspectives.
· Good. Since there were students from so many backgrounds, I think everybods made significant contributions.
· A good opportunity to work together and present something you probably wouldn't have come up with on your own.
· Mostly good. Getting together itself was valuable, trying to figure out WHEN and WHERE was hard.
· Sometimes it doesn’t work well.
· In-class work was fun, sometimes we didn’t have material to work with that could synthesize our understanding of topics. Group assignments for homework were difficult to organize and not worth it.
· Umm…we have to do this in real life? It is ok.
· In class group work is helpful, but outside is difficult for many as many have other work loads.
· Difficult. [Adam, you need to know for this one] The one most difficult about going to class via computer was the group work. In a noisy room, the ability to discriminate between mindful syntax and white noise was lacking, as were the normal non-verbal cues that general guide conversation. This was not much of a problem in normal class, but due to the slight time delay it was sometimes difficult to know when to jump in and add something, so I hereby extend a blanked apology to everybody I interrupted over the course of the semester. :-)
· Somewhat frustrating in that just when everyone is beginning to feel a little burned out we have yet more work to do, but less work I suppose than the definition searches.
· Helpful to think critically about the info, helpful to have the evaluation rubric.
· Its required too much time for finding and reviewing articles sometimes it felt hard to find a good article.
· This seemed rather pointless and directionless at the end.
· It is good to do some writing.
· Interesting to read what is currently published, but it is extremely time consuming and at times very difficult to find.
· A good type of assignment, it forces a different type of thought what is normal when you simply read an assignment.
· Very useful and very appreciated. It was a new experience and I liked it. :)
· Most people did not find speakers or find the building, etc. so it wasn’t as much a group effort as just something to show up to.
· Its great!
· This was fund and instructive. I think we started research/prep of posters too late and it was due too early – many of our posters were rushed.
· Great!!!
· Wonderful to gain experience.
· Excellent. [Adam again] I was presently surprised by the quality of the transition. I had no problems understanding what was being said. In short, this was a highly successful experiment, and a viable way to share conference proceedings.
· A wonderful idea since we could still do work at any time of day or night and submit it at one in the morning or just before class if we so choose.
· Loved it. Submitting online was way better, and all those resources are still there to refer back to. A site with a larger capacity to hold ALL of the info is preferable.
· Very good to interact.
· This was ok when we learned it.
· Super!!! This is the best way and sustainability issue involve here.
· Wonderful! Save paper, allow interactions and share knowledge and resources.
· Good, made communication easy.
· I didn't really feel like the content was very limited by the diversity in the student's backgrounds. I felt as though the diversity added more than it limited.
· Liked the diversity. Didn’t feel it was a hindrance.
· I’m not good at botany field, so I feel uncomfortable sometimes to express my ideas, but later, I feel good and confident. Thus, I think its good if everyone has a little background about biology and botany.
· I think this was a strength of the course – it allowed people from different fields to learn more about ethnobotany topics. Some quick tutorials of ethnobotanical filed methods and issues would have been valuable.
· You should have some special assignment for non-Botany students.
· Maybe have a brief crash course or explanation of each involved so there can be a unified glimpse of understanding to each. Some know nothing about the others and takes time away from main topic at times, creates confusion at times.
· I would suggest for non-scientists two "crash sessions" of about three hours (lectures, examples, power point, handouts). (a) plant morphology, anatomy, some common families (one semester of Botany 101, plus other courses in three hours). (b) ethnobotany principles (one semester of Botany 105 in three hours).
· In the end I think this was more a benefit than a detriment, it allowed for a lot of discussion.
· I haven't a clue.
· Wouldn’t want to increase the number too much. Maybe word of mouth through other professors who are advising their students about which courses they will take.
· Before I registered this course, I saw some required courses I need to take if I want to learn this course. I think the reason why there is a limited number of registrants.
· Not sure – I will suggest to my friends for next time!
· Increase the number of participant will reduce the teachers awareness of individual and less effective discussions.
· If not needed, I think smaller classes are more valuable as they allow better group discussions and participation. Larger groups get distracted.
· ???
· No suggestion for publicizing the class, but I think that the small size aided the execution of the experimental format. I would not recommend this format for a large class; many aspects would become cumbersome if there were many more students.
· Keeping in mind that there is a lot asked for and we do, most of us, have other classes and commitments, I would like to see late assignments given half credit, but that's just me. :)
· n/a
· In my opinion, this course was very good, so I don’t have any recommendations.
· I would have us start thinking/researching for poster earlier, and assign us perhaps one common/overview reading per topic in addition to an article we find ourselves. I’m not sure how valuable it was for us to find definitions earlier.
· Please put some main textbook and weekly teachers class evaluation.
· On the right path, but maybe a way to get all participants on a similar page if mixing disciplines. Basic concepts to the disciplines, but overall wonderful experience.
· Having missed about a month due to my leg injury, I really can't say.
· Not beyond what has already been mentioned.