177
University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) Student Feedback Form Analysis Report 2018 -2019

University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    4

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

University of Madras

Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)

Student Feedback Form Analysis

Report 2018 -2019

Page 2: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Historical

Studies

Page 3: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 4: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 5: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 6: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 7: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Social

Sciences

Page 8: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 9: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 10: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 11: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 12: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 13: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 14: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 15: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 16: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 17: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 18: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 19: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 20: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Political and

International Studies

Page 21: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 22: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 23: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 24: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 25: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 26: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 27: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 28: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 29: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 30: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 31: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 32: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Economics

Page 33: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 34: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 35: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 36: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 37: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 38: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 39: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 40: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 41: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Information

and Communication

Studies

Page 42: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 43: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 44: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 45: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Philosophy

and Religious Thought

Page 46: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 47: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 48: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 49: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 50: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 51: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 52: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 53: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 54: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Fine and

Performing Arts

Page 55: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 56: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 57: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of English and

Foreign Languages

Page 58: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 59: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 60: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 61: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 62: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 63: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 64: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 65: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of

Mathematics, Statistics

and Computer Science

Page 66: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 67: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 68: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 69: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 70: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 71: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 72: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 73: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 74: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 75: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 76: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 77: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 78: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 79: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Tamil and

Other Dravidian

Languages

Page 80: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 81: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 82: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 83: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 84: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 85: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 86: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 87: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 88: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 89: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 90: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 91: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Sanskrit and

Other Indian

Languages

Page 92: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 93: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 94: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 95: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 96: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 97: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Earth and

Atmospheric Sciences

Page 98: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 99: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 100: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 101: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 102: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Chemical

Sciences

Page 103: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 104: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 105: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 106: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 107: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 108: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 109: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 110: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 111: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 112: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 113: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 114: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 115: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 116: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 117: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 118: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 119: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Physical

Sciences

Page 120: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 121: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 122: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 123: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 124: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 125: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 126: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 127: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 128: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 129: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 130: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 131: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Life

Sciences

Page 132: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 133: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 134: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 135: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 136: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 137: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 138: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 139: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 140: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 141: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 142: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 143: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 144: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 145: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 146: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 147: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 148: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 149: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 150: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 151: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Basic

Medical Sciences

Page 152: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 153: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 154: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 155: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 156: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 157: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 158: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 159: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 160: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 161: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 162: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 163: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 164: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 165: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 166: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 167: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 168: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 169: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 170: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

School of Nanoscience

and Photonics

Page 171: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 172: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 173: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 174: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 175: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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

Page 176: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

Department of

Physical Education and

Sports

Page 177: University of Madras Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC

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