Table of Contentslinguistics.berkeley.edu/~azshen/Shen_Teaching_Portfolio.pdf · introduction to linguistics, phonetics, phonology, psycholinguistics, bilingualism, and language acquisition

Teaching portfolio

Alice Shen Ph.D. Candidate, University of California, Berkeley

Table of Contents

Teaching experience .................................................................................................. 2 Statement of teaching and mentoring ........................................................................ 3 Course syllabus and rationale .................................................................................... 5 Feedback on teaching .............................................................................................. 13

Summary of student feedback on teaching ........................................................... 13 Sample midterm feedback form ............................................................................ 15 End-of-semester teaching evaluations .................................................................. 16

Introduction to Linguistics, summer 2018 ........................................................ 16 Phonetics and Phonology, fall 2017 .................................................................. 36

Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education .................................... 57 List of professional development activities completed .......................................... 58

2 Shen, Alice – Teaching portfolio

2

Teaching Experience University of California, Berkeley

As Independent Instructor:

Introduction to Linguistic Science (LING100) – Summer 2018 • Intensive introduction to linguistic analysis, for majors and non-majors

Language and Linguistics (LING5) – Summer 2017 • General survey of the field of linguistics, for majors and non-majors

Responsibilities: I had full course responsibility, including designing the course syllabus, setting policy, selecting readings, and developing and grading all assignments and learning assessments, and assigning grades. These six-week, summer intensive courses included 8 hours of lecture, 2 hours of discussion, and 2 office hours per week.

As Head Graduate Student Instructor:

Introduction to Linguistic Science (LING100) – Spring 2017 • Intensive introduction to linguistic analysis, for majors and non-majors

Responsibilities: I managed course enrollment (e.g., waitlists, discussion section changes) and organized the student grade database. I taught 2 hours of discussion and held 2 office hours per week and graded assignments and exams.

As Graduate Student Instructor:

Language Acquisition (PSYCH C143 / LING C146) – Spring 2019 • Upper-level course cross-listed in Psychology and Linguistics departments

Introduction to Linguistic Science (LING100) – Spring 2018 • Intensive introduction to linguistic analysis, for majors and non-majors

Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology (LING110) Fall 2017 • Upper-level course for linguistics majors

Language and Linguistics (LING5) – Fall 2016 • General survey of the field of linguistics, for majors and non-majors

Responsibilities: I created lesson plans and taught 3 hours of discussion section each week, using the section as an active learning space in which students could apply what they learned in lecture and through their readings to activities and problems I had prepared for the section. I also held 2 office hours per week and was responsible for grading assignments and exams.


3

Statement of Teaching and Mentoring Students from a variety of disciplines enthusiastically register for linguistics classes; however, many of these students underestimate the abstract and analytical nature of linguistics. As a teacher, my primary goal is to help all students develop curiosity and confidence by teaching them how to think like a linguist, as they analyze and critically evaluate data.

Relating concepts to real life. To spark curiosity in my students, I relate lecture content to real life. For example, when I guest-taught a code-switching lecture for the spring 2018 Bilingualism course, I first asked students to contribute personal anecdotes about code-switching. Then, I reformulated their anecdotes, using technical terms to connect them to current code-switching research. Similarly, when I designed and taught Introduction to Linguistics in summer 2018, I started each class with a real-world example. For instance, I presented case studies of isolated children and had students discuss whether they presented sufficient evidence for language innatism. I then tied students’ insights into a lecture introducing innatist theories in language acquisition. Later, when tested on this content, students were able to differentiate among the theories by using examples from the case studies discussed in class.

Encouraging and challenging students. That spark of curiosity can be lost when students encounter difficult content but do not believe they are equipped to master it. I believe that curiosity can be maintained when students are simultaneously encouraged and challenged. To do this, I praise students’ effort and train of thought rather than the precision of their answers. Instead of directly correcting them, I shift their thinking by pointing out aspects of their response that were on the right track and asking them questions to direct them toward what they missed. I sometimes allow a classmate to respectfully add onto their ideas, and synthesize both contributions into a bigger picture statement. This style of discussion fosters comprehension and collaboration because students learn by building on each other’s ideas rather than relying on rote memorization or believing that learning must be a solitary activity.

A central goal of my teaching is to gradually challenge students beyond their level, so that they gain confidence as linguists and critical thinkers. For example, at the outset of Introduction to Linguistics in summer 2018, students admitted they found morphophonology daunting. To help them overcome this apprehension, I began with a simple problem set and gradually increased the difficulty level, while alternating between having students do group work with guidance, and working as a class to solve the problem step by step on the blackboard. At the end of class, I walked around the classroom to check their answers. Most groups had successfully solved a difficult problem that required determining the underlying forms of roots and suffixes, ordering two separate sets of rules, and figuring out a syllable-conditioned phonological rule. When students were informed of the actual difficulty level of the problem set, they were surprised and asked for more practice problems. My hope is that students realize they are capable of learning any topic, no matter how intimidating it might seem.

Teaching evidence-based argumentation. To help students move beyond ideas of “right” and “wrong” to a conceptual understanding of theory, I teach them how to use evidence to build arguments. To teach phonological analysis in Introduction to Linguistics, I first provide a subset of data for students to produce preliminary rules, then provide further data that requires students to possibly change their original rules in light of new evidence. This activity shows students that data is not always straightforward, and gives them the chance to work like fieldworkers, who often amass data over the course of several years, reformulating their hypotheses along the way.

How students learn. I have learned from three years of teaching at UC Berkeley that successful teaching draws on students’ interests and their varied approaches to classroom learning. I modify the amount of group work and discussion that takes place in each class section according to my observations of students, weekly solicitation for feedback, and students’ self-reported preferences expressed in mid-term course evaluations. When interacting with individual students seeking help in office hours, I try to think of


4

tailored analogies to explain concepts. Once, a student majoring in computer science was struggling with referential semantics, but instantly grasped the concept when I analogized it to array indices.

The big picture. Inviting students into the collaborative exploration of research questions fosters enthusiasm and cements learning by connecting concepts. For example, as a researcher interested in spoken language production and comprehension, my introductory courses center around the broad question: how do humans communicate to one another? I include seminal linguistics studies and ongoing departmental research in lectures and readings, to expose students to the current state of research and to inspire them with ideas for their own future research. Students come to my office hours to discuss majoring in linguistics and graduate school; I encourage them to pursue their interests and find it deeply rewarding to watch these students declare linguistics and cognitive science majors, contribute to research, attend graduate programs, and apply their knowledge to fields such as speech language pathology.

Mentoring. Teaching is not only confined to the classroom. As a mentor in the Linguistics Research Apprenticeship Practicum (LRAP) over the course of three years and multiple projects, I have taught ten undergraduate students to conduct phonetics research. LRAP mentors provide hands-on training and personalized mentoring to undergraduate students in the context of a research project. To prepare students to conduct their own original future research, I include them in all stages of the research process, from Institutional Review Board protocols, stimulus design and recording, equipment usage, running experiments, phonetic transcription, and data analysis. By the end of a project, my students are trained to segment spectrograms, annotate speech in Praat, and run articulatory, acoustic, or psycholinguistic studies using ultrasound and eye-tracking methodologies. My students have gone on to win scholarships, such as the Sawyer Scholarship in Applied Linguistics to extend our LRAP project, or pursue graduate degrees in Linguistics at Trinity College Dublin, The University of Sydney, and UC Berkeley.

I have also had the privilege of mentoring a student from start to finish in writing a capstone honors thesis and publishing it in the 2018 Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America. This included training the student to use an eye tracker, guiding them in designing a study to investigate how dialect and sound symbolism interact in size perception, and giving feedback on drafts. This student is now pursuing a Ph.D. in Cognitive Science at the University of California, San Diego.

Inclusive classroom. My teaching prioritizes students gaining fundamental analytical and research skills which can be applied to their future linguistic and non-linguistic pursuits, while fostering an inclusive, collaborative learning environment. My students’ feedback indicates that these strategies effectively nurture an inspiring and positive classroom (Linguistics 100 evaluations, Summer 2018):

“She made the material and herself extremely relatable, which I think are really important factors to having an inspiring learning environment.”

“I especially appreciated how willing Alice was to help us in anything that we needed if we reached out to her. She never treated any questions as though [they] were dumb but was always willing to clarify [material] in a way that was coherent.”

I look forward to future opportunities to engage with students through classes and research mentoring. My background has prepared me to teach a wide range of undergraduate and graduate courses, including introduction to linguistics, phonetics, phonology, psycholinguistics, bilingualism, and language acquisition. For example, in a Bilingual Phonetics and Phonology seminar, we would explore how cross-language activation affects phonetic gradience and phonological categoricity in perception and production in the first and second language, in the context of bilingual and second language theories. Other specialized topics include experimental phonetics, code-switching, and speech perception and production.


5

Course syllabus and rationale

This is a syllabus that I designed and taught as Instructor of Introduction to Linguistic Science in Summer 2018. I have woven in comments and rationale to demonstrate my thought process in structuring the course as I have; these comments are italicized. The syllabus is also followed by a breakdown of concepts covered each week.

---

Linguistics 100: Introduction to Linguistic Science Summer Session D (July 2 – August 10, 2018)

Barrows 110: M-F 12-2pm

Instructor: Alice Shen Email: [email protected] Office: 1307 Dwinelle Office Hours: M 3-4, Th and by appointment Mailbox: 1203 Dwinelle

Course description

Welcome to Linguistics 100! This course is an introduction to the various subfields of linguistics, including phonetics and phonology (speech sounds and patterns), morphology and syntax (word and sentence structure), semantics and pragmatics (compositional and contextual meaning), sociolinguistics and historical linguistics (synchronic and diachronic language variation). Throughout each of these topics, we will weave discussions of how the brain processes language and how each aspect of language is learned and developed, while learning the methods linguists use in research of these topics. By the end of this course, students will have learned how to use linguistic tools and methodology to observe, describe, and analyze linguistic patterns from data with precise and concise logical argumentation.

Textbook

Title: Language Files: Materials for an introduction to language and linguistics, 12th edition Author: Dawson, Hope (Editor) & Phelan, Michael (Editor) ISBN: 0814252702; 9780814252703 Available at Cal Student Store (New/Rental/Rental New/Used), or online Copies have been made available at Moffitt Library through Course Reserves

Readings

PDFs of additional readings can be found on BCourses > Files > Readings.

Grading and requirements

Homework assignments (5 total, 10% each) 50% In-class quizzes (5 total, 3% each) 15% Final exam (in class: Thu. Aug. 9) 25%


6

Participation and attendance 10%

Homework

Homework is due before class begins on Tuesday at 12 PM. Please list any collaborators at the top of each assignment in the given space. (If no collaborators, write “None.”) Your assignments are to be submitted in PDF format to Gradescope using a given template (which will be uploaded to bCourses). Your responses are to be typed or written clearly in the provided space. Responses not written in the given space may not be graded.

Regrade requests for a particular assignment/quiz can be submitted up to exactly a week after grades are released. Please limit these to potential grader mistakes. Regrade requests for rubric changes will not be accommodated.

Late policy

Homework: No late homework will be accepted. If you are experiencing an extenuating circumstance and anticipate not being able to turn in your assignment by the due date, please come speak to me or email me at least 2 days prior to the due date. Otherwise, no extensions will be given. Quizzes: Quizzes will be administered in class, once weekly, and cannot be made up. Unexcused lateness resulting in a missed quiz will result in a 0 for that quiz.

Participation and attendance

Your participation and attendance grade will consist of your presence in lecture and section, and your attention and contributions to in-class discussions and group work. If you must be late or absent, email me at least 2 hours before class begins, with an explanation. Attendance will be taken every class, and lateness will factor into your participation grade.

Final exam

The final exam will take place in class on Thursday August 9, 2018. The exam will be cumulative, covering topics from Language Files, lecture slides, required readings, and any other materials covered in class. The last day of class, August 10, will be review and open office hours for any lingering questions.

Email policy

Please never hesitate to email me, although try to reserve email for general clarification questions and emergencies. Content-related questions are best asked during class and office hours, as many questions are best answered with examples written up on a board. I will generally respond to emails within 24 hours on weekdays, but feel free to send a reminder if I have not responded within this timeframe.

Technology policy

Use of technology is not permitted in class. (The only exception is for students with accommodations; please come see me.)


7

Academic integrity

Academic dishonesty will not be tolerated and will be reported to The Center of Student Conduct. Collaboration is encouraged in this class, but cheating will result in a zero. Each student is to write up their own assignment, in their own words, while naming collaborators.

Important dates -- http://summer.berkeley.edu/registration/schedule

July 8 – Withdraw or drop class with refund July 13 – Withdraw or drop class without refund July 27 – Change grading option

Course outline (subject to minor changes by instructor)

Week 1: Units of language (Introduction, Morphology, and Phonetics)

Day Date Subject Reading Assignment Monday July 2 Introduction LF 1.0-1.5 Tuesday July 3 Morphology I

Words, processes, structure

LF 4.0-4.2, 4.4

Wednesday July 4 Holiday – No class Thursday July 5 Phonetics I

Sounds of English LF 2.0-2.3

Friday July 6 Phonetics II Sounds of English

Quiz 1

Rationale:

I choose to start with morphology rather than phonetics in introductory linguistics courses. When first learning about the various aspects of language, words might be a more obvious unit of language than individual sounds. Yet there are aspects of morphological analysis that depend heavily on phonology, so I start with simple morphology (e.g., prefixes, suffixes, compounds and simple morphological trees), transition into phonetics (units of sound), then phonology (the way those sounds fit together), and then return to morphology (units of words) in Week 3.

Learning phonetics requires mastering the International Phonetic Alphabet, which can be overwhelming since it requires memorizing symbols and matching them to articulatory gestures, which students are likely not used to doing. Therefore, we begin with the sounds of English, since it is familiar and only a subset of the IPA.

Week 2: Sound patterns (Phonology)

Day Date Subject Reading Assignment Monday July 9 Phonetics III

World sounds Acoustics

LF 2.4-2.6

Tuesday July 10 Phonology I LF 3.0-3.2 Hw 1 Due


8

Phonemes & allophones

Wednesday July 11 Phonology II Rules

LF 3.3, 3.5

Thursday July 12 Phonology III Rule ordering

Friday July 13 Phonology IV Acquisition

Werker & Tees (1984)

Quiz 2

Rationale:

After discussing non-English IPA symbols, and listening to sound clips from other languages, we use the phonetic concepts we just learned to understand phonology, or how sounds pattern together in a given language.

At the end of a topic/subfield, I like to include a lecture on acquisition so that we are constantly tying things back to the big picture of how language is acquired and processed. Since linguistics is very formal, students might lose perspective of the bigger picture, such as how humans come to acquire (the different aspects of) language and how we process language in the brain.

Week 3: Grammatical structure (Morphology & Syntax)

Day Date Subject Reading Assignment Monday July 16 Morphology II

Typology Analysis

LF 4.3, 4.5

Tuesday July 17 Morphology III Acquisition

Berko (1958)

Wednesday July 18 Syntax I Syntactic categories Constituency

LF 5.0, 5.1, 5.3

Thursday July 19 Syntax II Phrase structure Trees

LF 5.5

Friday July 20 Syntax III Ambiguity Sentence processing

LF 9.6 Quiz 3

Rationale:

We return to morphology to learn morphological and morphophonological analysis. Many morphological processes depend on phonological changes and rules must be written in IPA or features, so students will be able to build on the tools they learned from phonology.

We then transition into syntax from morphology to learn about larger linguistic units, and students can more easily understand syntax trees, having studied hierarchical structures through multimorphemic words and morphological analysis involving ambiguity. The syntax section ends


9

with ambiguity in syntax and sentence processing, so students think about how the mind comprehends sentence meaning.

Week 4: Meaning (Semantics & Pragmatics)

Day Date Subject Reading Assignment Monday July 23 Syntax IV

Syntactic typology AAE

WALS 81, 102, 98 Green (2004)

Tuesday July 24 Semantics Logic Compositional

semantics

LF 6.0, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4

Hw 3 Due

Wednesday July 25 Semantics Grice’s maxims Implicature

LF 7.0-7.3

Thursday July 26 Pragmatics Speech acts Presupposition EEG/ERP

LF 7.4-7.5

Friday July 27 Sociolinguistics Social factors and

language

LF 10.4-10.5 Fischer (1958) Labov (1972)

Quiz 4

Rationale:

The syntax section ends with syntactic typology, which is a survey of the different syntactic structures of the world’s languages, so students see crosslinguistic diversity. We also discuss African American English and its different syntactic and phonological features for students to see different dialects of English and use linguistics to challenge stereotypes.

After covering larger and larger linguistic units from sounds to morphemes to constituents and sentences, we discuss both formal and social meaning in semantics and pragmatics, and then synthesize the week’s content in an introduction to sociolinguistics.

Week 5: Language Variation (Sociolinguistics & Historical linguistics)

Day Date Subject Reading Assignment Monday July 30 Sociolinguistics

Identity and language

Podesva (2011)

Tuesday July 31 Historical linguistics Genetic

relationships

LF 13.2 Crowley & Bowern (2010)

Hw 4 Due

Wednesday August 1 Historical linguistics Language change

LF 13.3, 13.7

Thursday August 2 Language contact, creoles, multilingualism

LF 12.1-12.7

Friday August 3 Language and power LF 11.2, 11.3 Quiz 5


10

Rickford & King (2016)

Rationale:

In sociolinguistics, we discuss how different sounds or word choices can index identity. And then transition from discussing change or variation at a single point in time to change/variation across time. From there we come to understand what happens when language communities come into contact, and how multilingualism can develop in a community. We then bring in current events to understand how language can be used as a mode of power, and to understand the social responsibility that linguists have.

Week 6: Language acquisition and bilingualism

Day Date Subject Reading Assignment Monday August 6 Language acquisition LF 8.0-8.4 Hw 5 Due Tuesday August 7 Bilingualism and cognition LF 8.5

Grosjean (1989)

Wednesday August 8 Review, applications LF 17.0-17.6 Thursday August 9 - - Final exam Friday August 10 Optional post-exam review/

open office hours

Rationale:

The course ends with language acquisition and bilingualism, to summarize the course through understanding how a baby acquiring language(s) needs to master all the components we covered. Finally, we discuss applications for linguistics in speech pathology, the legal system, etc. so that students can connect what they learned to real world problems and be inspired to apply their knowledge.

Campus resources

The Student Learning Center (https://slc.berkeley.edu/) provides resources to help students with coursework, time management, and many other things.

If you are struggling for personal reasons, please know that you can contact Counseling and Psychological Services (https://uhs.berkeley.edu/counseling) for a free and timely consultation during business hours at (510) 642-9494 or after hours at (855) 817-5667.

Confidential advocates are available for survivors of gendered violence at the PATH to Care Center (http://sa.berkeley.edu/dean/confidential-care-advocate), which can be reached at (510) 642-1988.

I would be very happy to help direct you to any of these resources. Just note that professors and GSIs are considered “responsible employees” of the university. If a student divulges any specific incident of sexual harassment or violence to them, they are obliged to notify campus authorities.

https://slc.berkeley.edu/

http://sa.berkeley.edu/dean/confidential-care-advocate


11

Breakdown of concepts covered each week:

Week 1: Introduction, Units of Language (Morphology & Phonetics)

• Introduction • Morphology I

o Derivation and inflection o Simple morphological processes (prefixation, compounding, etc.) and trees

• Phonetics o IPA o Sounds of English o Articulatory methods in research (e.g. ultrasound)

Week 2: Sounds (Phonetics & Phonology)

• Phonetics o World sounds o Suprasegmental features

• Phonology o Minimal pairs o Allophony o Syllables o Phonological rules and ordering o Phonological acquisition

Week 3: Structure (Morphology, Syntax)

• Morphology II o Typology o Morphological analysis and morphophonology o Morphological acquisition

• Syntax o Grammaticality and word order o Constituency o Syntactic categories o Phrase structure rules and trees o Deep and surface structure o Ambiguity

• More typology o Noun classes and adjective systems o Ergative-absolutive systems

Week 4: Meaning (Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, Sociolinguistics)

• Syntax o Sentence processing o Corpus and computational linguistics

• Semantics o Logic o Compositional semantics


12

o Truth conditions o Entailment and presupposition

• Pragmatics o Grice’s maxims o Implicature o Speech acts

• Sociolinguistics o Indexation o Identity and stereotypes

Week 5: Language Variation (Sociolinguistics & Historical Linguistics)

• Sociolinguistics o Gender, class, race

• Historical linguistics o Language contact o Language families o Language change

Week 6: Language Processing & Development (Psycholinguistics & Multilingualism)

• Psycholinguistics o Speech perception, language comprehension o Aphasia

• Multilingualism o L2 acquisition and L1 attrition o Cognitive consequences and executive function o Heritage languages and revitalization


13

Summary of student feedback on teaching Successful teaching draws on students’ interests and their variety of approaches to classroom learning. Therefore, I employ various course feedback tools throughout the semester in order to maximize learning for the distinct configurations of students in each of my classes. In addition to written mid-semester and end-of-semester evaluations, I regularly solicit student suggestions after activities and assignments.

My teaching style has consistently been described as approachable, engaging, and enthusiastic. One student described me as “passionate, knowledgeable, and with a really good sense of how well the class was understanding the material.” Students enjoyed learning about applications for linguistics: “She made the material and herself extremely relatable, which I think are really important factors to having an inspiring learning environment.”

I practice inclusion by encouraging and advising students. I make a point to listen to not just their academic concerns but also their personal concerns, because success in learning is not determined solely by understanding course material. Students have indicated that my classroom and office foster a safe and respectful environment that is conducive to student success:

“Alice creates a very safe environment to ask questions and attend office hours, and did a particularly good job making sure I never felt panicked about this course, despite my tendency to [be overwhelmed].”

“I think Alice's sections are really helpful in that her sections always have a clear intention and prepared contents to help us review the course materials. She's also always down to answer any questions and sometimes talk me through some life problems as well. Her explanations for questions are really clear and I'm grateful to have her as my GSI.”

Based on my observations of students, as well as their self-reported preferences from mid-semester course evaluations, one adjustment I have made throughout teaching a course is modifying the amount of group work and discussion that takes place in each class section. While some students might work better sharing ideas aloud with the whole class, others might benefit more from having time to think about concepts within a smaller group first. I use feedback opportunities to gauge student preferences after trying a new activity of discussion style. Students in my six-week summer Introduction to Linguistics course appreciated the feedback-based adjustments that I made to the course:

“I especially appreciate how open the GSI/instructor is open to student feedback and almost immediately reforms lesson plans according to it. I feel more comfortable participating and sharing my questions and concerns.”

“A strength of the class was an emphasis on class participation and discussion, which made the class quite lively and engaging.”

Creating this feedback loop helps me understand where to make adjustments to enhance learning. In Introduction to Linguistics, I learned from students’ responses to mid-semester feedback and individual feedback in office hours that the lecture pace was too quick. Summer courses are intensive, and students need to master linguistic concepts in half the time as in a semester course. Taking anonymous student feedback, I consciously slowed down my speaking rate and paused more


14

often between slides to take questions and clarify concepts. I noticed that students often did ask clarification questions during these breaks between slides or topics. End-of-semester feedback suggests that the course was improved from incorporating student comments:

“I love how Alice stops when she knows she's going too fast and is constantly asking for feedback and clarifying concepts that seem confusing.”

In addition, I learned from students the importance of transparency in grading assignments. For example, students were disappointed to be penalized on assignments and quizzes for small errors in phonological rule notation. Yet these notational errors can result in a completely different or inaccurate analysis of a dataset; in other words, seemingly inconsequential mistakes actually have implications for the outcome of students’ linguistic thinking. Therefore, I resolved in future courses to describe the point distribution while assigning homework, which can help students understand the logical thinking in the problem and be more careful with notation. Moreover, I learned that providing more feedback with smaller grade penalties and more points for effort could be more encouraging for learning.

At the end of every term, students evaluate my effectiveness as a teacher on a scale from 1-7, where 7 represents ‘Extremely Effective.’ My teaching effectiveness has generally been rated highly, with an average of 6.11 over all 8 courses I have taught, and an average of 6.37 on courses where I was the instructor of record.

Attached to this statement are a sample mid-term feedback form and two full sets of end-of-semester course evaluations. One set of evaluations comes from an independently taught summer Introduction to Linguistics course (LING 100), and the other set from serving as graduate student instructor for Professor Susan Lin in an upper-level phonetics and phonology course (LING 110). Other evaluations are also available upon request.


15

LING100 Mid-term feedback form Instructions: This survey is designed to assess how this course is going and how it can be improved. Please be thoughtful and candid in your responses so as to maximize the value of feedback. Your responses will be anonymous.

A. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree, please answer the following questions (and feel free to write comments on the side):

1. Class prepares me for the homework.

1 2 3 4 5

2. The instructor is clear in explaining concepts and the steps in solving a problem.

1 2 3 4 5

3. I feel comfortable participating.

1 2 3 4 5

4. I feel comfortable asking the instructor questions in office hours and/or over email.

1 2 3 4 5

B. Please answer the following short response questions, taking into account your learning style and what you would like me to know so I provide you with the best instruction I can:

1. What would you like the instructor to continue to do? 2. What would you like the instructor to do differently? 3. Do you prefer working on practice problems in partners, groups, as a class, or a combination or those? 4. How could the instructor help you feel more comfortable participating in class? 5. What would you like the instructor to know that you think she might be unaware of? 6. What more can you do to be responsible for your own learning? Other comments?


16

Subject Details

Name LINGUIS 100 LEC 002 INTRO LING SCI DEPT_NAME LINGUIS DEPT_FORM LINGUIS EVALUATION_TYPE F First Name Alice

Last Name Shen

Project Title : Project Audience : Responses Received : Response Ratio :

Shen, Alice (LINGUIS 100 LEC 002 INTRO LING SCI) - Su 2018 ( Instructor Version )

Summer 2018 Evaluations 39

29 74.36 %

Creation Date : Tue, Aug 28, 2018


17

FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Please note that "Department Average" for each rating question is calculated using all sections in your department. This may include both Faculty and GSIs depending on whether the department has selected a question item to be used for both.

RATING QUESTIONS (QUANTITATIVE) UNIVERSITY WIDE QUESTIONS: The quantitative items in this section are asked across all courses at Berkeley.

Considering both the limitations and possibilities of the subject matter and the course, how would you rate the overall effectiveness of this instructor?

Options Count Percentage

1-Not at all Effective 0 0.00%

2 0 0.00%

3 1 3.57%

4-Moderately Effective 0 0.00%

5 1 3.57%

6 14 50.00%

7-Extremely Effective 12 42.86% Statistics Value

Response Count 28

Mean 6.29

Median 6.00

Standard Deviation 0.85

Considering both the limitations and possibilities of the subject matter and the course, how would you rate the overall effectiveness of this course?


18



2 1 3.57%

3 1 3.57%


5 8 28.57%

6 10 35.71%


Response Count 28

Mean 5.64

Median 6.00


DEPARTMENT PROVIDED RATING QUESTIONS: Questions in this section were selected by your department for inclusion on this evaluation.

Focusing now on the course content, how worthwhile was this course in comparison with others you have taken at this university?


Much less worthwhile (1) 0 0.00%

(2) 0 0.00%

(3) 2 7.14%


19

Equally worthwhile (4) 7 25.00%

(5) 5 17.86%

(6) 8 28.57%

Much more worthwhile (7) 6 21.43% Statistics Value

Response Count 28

Mean 5.32

Median 5.50


Grad/Undergrad: Options Count Percentage

GRAD 1 3.45%

UNDERGRAD 28 96.55% INSTRUCTOR PROVIDED QUESTIONS (CUSTOM): If any rating questions appear in this section, they were created by you. If blank, you did not add any custom items to your evaluation. These are viewable only by you and not accessible by other report viewers in your department.


1-Not at all 0 0.00%

2 1 3.45%

3 0 0.00%

4-Somewhat 3 10.34%

5 5 17.24%

6 10 34.48%

7-Very 10 34.48% Statistics Value

Class prepared me for homework assignments.


20

Response Count 29

Mean 5.83

Median 6.00


The instructor was clear in explaining concepts and the steps in solving a problem.



2 1 3.45%

3 0 0.00%

4-Somewhat 2 6.90%

5 2 6.90%

6 11 37.93%


Response Count 29

Mean 6.10

Median 6.00


I felt comfortable participating in class.




21

2 0 0.00%

3 1 3.45%

4-Somewhat 3 10.34%

5 6 20.69%

6 8 27.59%


Response Count 29

Mean 5.86

Median 6.00


I felt comfortable asking the instructor questions in office hours and/or over email.



2 0 0.00%

3 0 0.00%

4-Somewhat 5 17.24%

5 2 6.90%

6 11 37.93%


Response Count 29

Mean 5.97

Median 6.00



22

OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS (QUALITATIVE) DEPARTMENT PROVIDED QUESTIONS: Questions in this section were selected by your department for inclusion on this evaluation.

Please use this space to identify what you perceive as the real strengths and weakness of the course and the instructor's teaching. What improvements would you suggest?

Comments Overall, very good at teaching the material. Although it was a very short session, I felt as though I did learn a great deal during this class. Improvements could deal with maybe reviewing a bit more often, but overall nothing other than that.

I think it's hard to get everyone in the class to participate, but Alice tries to make herself available and easy to talk to.

The hard thing about a survey course is condensing all of the necessary information in order to understand not only what Lx is, but also to understand what current research is being done in the field. I really enjoy having spent the first couple weeks being introduced to each subfield then to be thrown into more current work that builds off the foundation we have learned. But I really was confused as to why we learned about linguistic relativity, even though it was interesting to be taught by someone who was not my CogSci professor. I felt like having the fun linguistic smattering could have easily been integrated into some other day that was not as confusingly dense as what we had covered at that time. The instructor is doing a great job of keeping the lecture as informal as possible, understanding that we all have other things to do and must keep our interest to understand Lx. I would definitely consider integrating other media and forms of active learning as we have done.

It's not easy to teach a course as broad as Lx100 in six weeks. I feel for Alice. The pace is necessarily brutal because there is so much material. Overall, my opinion is Alice has navigated these demands really well. She's also approachable and relatable. Homework and quiz feedback is thorough, and she's open in office hours and on eg quick breaks, after class. The strength is having a great overview of the field of linguistics and all its attendant subdisciplines.

I think that this course as a summer course loses much of its effectiveness. I have learned quite a bit, but we also do not have the time to dive into each of the subfields of linguistics. We skim the surface and dive slightly into the subjects. I have not taken the course during the regular semester sessions, but I assume that the course is much more in depth with each subfield. I think Alice is doing an amazing job for the limitations she has.

Instructor is very responsive to student feedback and forms the course around the students. As such, I feel comfortable asking questions and giving feedback and my understanding of the concepts presented in the course is much better because of it.

Alice has been a wonderful teacher! My only concern is that we moved very, very quickly through some of the material but I understand that there is a lot to get through in a very short time. Alice always makes it clear that she is available for office hours as well as for privately scheduled, one–on–one meetings if that better suits our schedule. Overall, the material is fascinating and Alice is supportive and enthusiastic. Thanks!

Most of the information provided in class during lectures was memorization. The homework and quizzes required a much deeper understanding of the material and linguistics specific problem solving skills that were not sufficiently covered in class. In my opinion, memorization should be left for out of class work to save time for the deeper understanding required to solve linguistics problems and to interpret data sets. I would also liked to have had more daily practice in class and as smaller, more digestible homework assignments that could be completed daily.

Comments


23

Making sure the homework problems are not too much more complicated than what we have practiced in class.

Have more cats

I want to start by stating that I absolutely loved taking this class. I had previously taken Ling 5, but did not find it nearly as interesting and stimulating as the material covered in Ling 100. This is largely owed to Alice Shen, who is an extremely competent, intellectual, and engaging GSI. She is one of the best instructors I have had at Berkeley thus far. I learned so much in this class as a result of her clear, concise teaching and genuine caring and consideration for her students. She made the material and herself extremely relatable, which I think are really important factors to having an inspiring learning environment.

I thought a real strength of the course was the ability to cover a huge amount of material in a short time through daily lectures, discussions, and weekly quizzes and homework assignments. While there were times I felt that the class was moving too fast, after the mid–point evaluations Alice made a conscious effort to slow down her pace, which demonstrated her real awareness of her students. I also thought that a strength of the class was an emphasis on class participation and discussion, which made the class quite lively and engaging. I also really enjoyed how the course material tied into real life applications. Because language is the core way we communicate with each other and within society, the way people speak and use language is really revealing of not only their own experience but also of how they are perceived. I found the different papers assigned in the course to be quite fascinating to read as well.

I really do not have much to say regarding course weaknesses. Alice is a wonderful teacher and I will miss this class a lot. It inspired me to take another linguistics class this fall, and made me wish that I majored in the subject.

Thank you Alice :)

I hope homework came before the quizzes

I think that it was a bit stressful that sometimes there were questions on the homework that pretty much required you to go to office hours, or else it would be really difficult to get it right.

The weakest aspect of this course has been the condensed timeframe. IT's hard to keep up with the material and really feel like I have a command over the subject matter when things move so fast. Not the fault of anyone involved, just a comment.

I think that Alice was wonderful and I'm glad that she taught the course.

Overall, the course was good. I think integrating more discussion or in class problems would make the class more interactive. More in class practice problems would also help solidify concepts.

Considering the length of the course in regards to the material covered, Alice Shen does a good job of pacing topics. A lot of content is covered every day and it's a fair pace. I would say that the lecture was more helpful than the course reading. The homework timing made it difficult because I often had to wait until the appropriate lecture to solve a certain problem. I also found that the quizzes every


24

Friday were quite difficult in terms of the fast pace of the course. As for the instructor in general, I find that Alice Shen is transparent with her grading scale, linguistics background, and office hours. I find that she is more effective on one–on–one interactions and still does well when addressing the class as a whole. I found the group activities to be helpful sometimes depending on the challenge of the question. Some activities felt overextended in terms of relative time.

Real strengths include clarity with the material, and explaining concepts and how to do problems correctly.

The presentation of the material was both interesting and informative, and I feel like Alice has done a fantastic job as a teacher for this course. However, I feel like the class was overly concerned with minutiae and gave formal rules for presenting concepts an inordinately large place in the class content. This especially came through on homework, where I lost very few points due to an actual misunderstanding of the material, but a sizable amount for very small syntactic mistakes or not writing answers in the "correct" form, even though the meaning was identical.

Overall, I've really enjoyed this course, and I think Alice has done a fantastic job teaching it, but I do wish that formal rules weren't as core to the class as they are.

Alice is very approachable and I really like that about her. She's also in touch with how the class is feeling so if a material is unclear or difficult to understand she makes it clear before moving on. I really enjoyed the group activities she gave us in class.

The instructor was effective in making lessons streamlined and clear. She made the content interesting and it was clear that the content was something she was passionate about.

INSTRUCTOR PROVIDED QUESTIONS (CUSTOM): If any open-ended questions appear in this section, they were created by you. If blank, you did not add any custom items to your evaluation. These are viewable only by you and not accessible by other report viewers in your department.

On average, how many hours per week did you spend on this course, including attending classes, doing readings, reviewing notes, writing papers, and any other course-related work?

Comments 20

8

14

20 hours

Roughly 20–25 hrs/wk

14

8+

12

16–18 hours


25

17 hours

20

18

10–15

20

12 hours

10

14

15–20 hrs/week

5

Approximately 6 hours/week

5

15

14

15


26

Subject Details

Name LINGUIS 100 DIS 201 INTRO LING SCI DEPT_NAME LINGUIS DEPT_FORM LINGUIS EVALUATION_TYPE G First Name Alice

Last Name Shen

Project Title : Project Audience : Responses Received : Response Ratio :

Shen, Alice (LINGUIS 100 DIS 201 INTRO LING SCI) - Su

2018 ( Instructor Version )

Summer 2018 Evaluations 39

29 74.36 %

Creation Date : Mon, Aug 27, 2018


27



Considering both the limitations and possibilities of the subject matter and the course, how would you rate the overall effectiveness of this graduate student instructor?



2 1 3.45%

3 0 0.00%


5 3 10.34%

6 11 37.93%


Response Count 29

Mean 6.24

Median 6.00




28



2 1 3.45%

3 1 3.45%


5 5 17.24%

6 6 20.69%


Response Count 29

Mean 6.03

Median 7.00


DEPARTMENT PROVIDED RATING QUESTIONS: Questions in this section were selected by your department for inclusion on this evaluation.

Please take a few minutes of your time to complete this form. Select the number you believe best describes your GSI. Your responses will help improve the teaching effectiveness of our instructors. 1. The GSI treats students with respect

2. The GSI answers questions to your satisfaction


29

3. The GSI is easy to talk to

4. The GSI encourages students to ask questions, express opinions, and voice concerns


30

Please take a few minutes of your time to complete this form. Select the number you believe best describes your GSI. Your responses will help improve the teaching effectiveness of our instructors. (continued) 5. The GSI recognizes when the class does not understand the material

6. The GSI provided useful feedback on student work

7. The GSI is enthusiastic about subject matter

8. GSI's sections have a clear sense of purpose

1. The GSI treats students with respect 2. The GSI answers questions to your satisfaction

Options Count Percentage Options Count Percentage Strongly Disagree (1) 0 0.00% Strongly Disagree (1) 0 0.00%

2 0 0.00% 2 1 3.45%

3 0 0.00% 3 1 3.45%

4 2 6.90% 4 7 24.14%


31

Strongly agree (5) 27 93.10% Strongly agree (5) 20 68.97% Statistics Value Statistics Value

Response Count 29 Response Count 29

Mean 4.93 Mean 4.59

Median 5.00 Median 5.00

Standard Deviation 0.26 Standard Deviation 0.73

3. The GSI is easy to talk to 4. The GSI encourages students to ask questions, express opinions, and voice concerns


2 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00%

3 0 0.00% 3 1 3.45%

4 7 24.14% 4 4 13.79%



Mean 4.76 Mean 4.79




32

5. The GSI recognizes when the class does not understand the material



2 0 0.00% 2 1 3.45%

3 2 6.90% 3 1 3.45%

4 12 41.38% 4 7 24.14%



Mean 4.31 Mean 4.59



7. The GSI is enthusiastic about subject matter 8. GSI's sections have a clear sense of purpose


2 0 0.00% 2 1 3.45%

3 0 0.00% 3 0 0.00%

4 3 10.71% 4 3 10.34%



Mean 4.89 Mean 4.79



INSTRUCTOR PROVIDED QUESTIONS (CUSTOM): If any rating questions appear in this section, they were created by you. If blank, you did not add any custom items to your evaluation. These are viewable only by you and not accessible by other report viewers in your department.


33

OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS (QUALITATIVE) DEPARTMENT PROVIDED QUESTIONS: Questions in this section were selected by your department for inclusion on this evaluation.

What did you especially appreciate/not appreciate about your GSI? What could the GSI have done to make your learning experience better? What worked well? What didn't work? What could be improved?

Comments I like that she offers help/office hours. I wished the class could go slower, but given the limitations I think Alice really tried her best.

Evaluated in the Lx100 lecture notes. Same GSI leads this "section"

Alice is very helpful in understanding the various topics covered in this course. Her enthusiasm for linguistics has made it very interesting and fun to be a part of this class. She recognizes what is difficult and if questions arise, she addresses them immediately.

I especially appreciate how open the GSI/instructor is open to student feedback and almost immediately reforms lessons plans according to it. I feel more comfortable participating and sharing my questions and concerns.

Alice has been a wonderful teacher! My only concern is that we moved very, very quickly through some of the material but I understand that there is a lot to get through in a very short time. Alice always makes it clear that she is available for office hours as well as for privately scheduled, one–on–one meetings if that better suits our schedule. Overall, the material is fascinating and Alice Comments is supportive and enthusiastic. Thanks!

Putting slides together the morning before lecture is just bad practice (she admitted that she does this). I appreciate that GSI's don't just reuse department slides but there were some pretty bad mistakes made that were not obvious to the students and had a large impact on understanding (or misunderstanding as it were).

The GSI also speaks and moves very very fast. It is clear that she has a solid handle on the information but that is only about 70% of the teaching job.

When no one is asking questions it usually means either of two things: 1. Everyone understood exactly what you said and really has no questions or 2. You've gone so fast that you're getting a "deer in headlights" effect and no one really knows how to ask a question, they're afraid to look stupid in front of the class. I have never been in a class, regardless of the class composition where #1 was the case. It is always #2!

I am a fan of randomly calling on people because I've seen it encourages people to regurgitate what they just heard whether it's correct or no. This can also serve as a barometer for the instructor to see how he/she is doing.

Alice is a great teacher and mentor.


34

I think that a set of official course notes would be great in terms of summarizing the material. At the moment, it's kind of necessary to go through all the lecture slides to refresh your mind of something. Some more concise notes would be great (Like CS70 style notes, for reference).

More group work, possibly more frequent (shorter) HW assignments.

Overall, the course was good. I think integrating more discussion or in class problems would make the class more interactive. More in class practice problems would also help solidify concepts.

Alice was an excellent teacher: Passionate, knowledgable, and with a really good sense of how well the class was understanding the material. She encouraged questions and discussion, and made the class as interesting as it could be given the subject matter. My one issue with the course was with the homework, which I found to be easy but tedious, and full of opportunities to lose points for minor syntactic mistakes, even given a complete understanding of the material.

In summary, Alice was great, but I wish the homework could have been handled differently.

I liked that Alice Shen was always receptive to feedback and was willing to try new things such as creating new seating arrangements to try them out. I think she still has areas to improve in, but is a strong instructor.

I thought my GSI was really excellent–– she taught the material clearly and succinctly, covering lots of topics in a short 6 week course. She was good at balancing the class, getting students to engage in conversations and course material. Alice is clearly very intelligent, and that comes across in her teaching and engaging lecture style. She is one of the best GSI's I've had at Berkeley thus far. Alice is also extremely approachable, and despite being a little intense she has the students' best interests at heart. She makes the class demanding, but also manageable. I wish I had the opportunity to take another class with Alice!!

She noticed when we were tired/ didn't understand the material so she let us take a small break and/or explained and went through the problems easily.

I especially appreciated how willing Alice as to help us in anything that we needed if we reached out to her. She never treated any questions as though it were dumb but as always willing to clarify and really wanted us to understand the material. She also explained concepts really well in a way that was coherent and it was evident that she knew what she was talking about(for the most part). I liked how she would highlight slides with different colors so that she could illustrate the points better, being a visual learner, it personally helped me a lot and showed what I needed to focus on. There were some things over the course of the course that I wish would've been more clear that we definitely talked in class but it was hard to make inferences based off of that like on some of the quiz questions. Also I wish that she made her slides ahead of time because she said that she would procrastinate and then there'd be mistakes on her slides which happened kind of often and just felt like it was becoming distracting. Overall though, I think that Alice was a wonderful GSI who's very passionate about linguistics and is very patient and understanding and I'm going to miss having her as a GSI. She made taking this class a wonderful experience.

I love how Alice stops when she knows she's going too fast and is constantly asking for feedback and clarifying concepts that seem confusing. I feel like everything worked well especially the practice


35

quizzes that gave us direction on material to study for the quiz. I also enjoyed the group work we had to do in class.

I appreciated how the GSI did not act as a teacher or superior necessarily, but rather as someone who wanted to share something she was passionate about. It definitely helped to make the class more interesting. She was always tying in real–life examples and applications.



36

Shen, Alice (LINGUIS 110 DIS 101 PHONETS & PHONO) - Fa 2017 (Instructor Version) Fall 2017 Evaluations Project Audience 15 Responses Received 13 Response Ratio 86.67%

Subject Details Name LINGUIS 110 DIS 101 PHONETS & PHONO DEPT_NAME LINGUIS DEPT_FORM LINGUIS EVALUATION_TYPE G First Name Alice Last Name Shen

Creation Date Sun, Dec 24, 2017




Options


37

1-Not at all Effective Count 0

Percentage 0.00%

2 0 0.00% 3 0 0.00%

4-Moderately Effective 1 7.69% 5 1 7.69%

6 5 38.46% 7-Extremely Effective 6 46.15%

Statistics Value 13 Response Count

Mean 6.23 Median 6.00



Options Count

0 Percentage

0.00% 1-Not at all Effective

2 0 0.00% 3 0 0.00%





Standard Deviation 0.95 DEPARTMENT PROVIDED RATING QUESTIONS: Questions in this section were selected by your department for inclusion on this evaluation.


38

Please take a few minutes of your time to complete this form. Select the number you believe best describes your GSI. Your responses will help improve the teaching effectiveness of our instructors.

1. The GSI treats students with respect




Please take a few minutes of your time to complete this form. Select the number you believe best describes your GSI. Your responses will help improve the teaching effectiveness of our instructors. (continued)



39





Options Count Percentage 0 0.00%

Options Count Percentage 0 0.00% Strongly Disagree (1) Strongly Disagree (1)

2 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 3 1 7.69% 3 1 7.69%

4 0 0.00% 4 3 23.08% Strongly agree (5) 12 92.31% Strongly agree (5) 9 69.23%

Statistics Value 13

Statistics Value 13 Response Count Response Count

Mean 4.85 Mean 4.62 Median 5.00 Median 5.00

Standard Deviation 0.55 Standard Deviation 0.65 3. The GSI is easy to talk to 4. The GSI encourages students to ask questions,

Options Count 0

Percentage 0.00% Strongly Disagree (1)

2 0 0.00% 3 1 7.69%


40

express opinions, and voice concerns 4 2 15.38% Strongly agree (5) 10 76.92% Options Count

0 Percentage

0.00% Strongly Disagree (1)

2 0 0.00% 3 1 7.69%

4 1 7.69% Strongly agree (5) 11 84.62% Statistics Value

13 Response Count







41

5. The GSI recognizes when the class does not 6. The GSI provided useful feedback on student understand the material work



2 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 3 2 15.38% 3 2 15.38%


Statistics Value 13




7. The GSI is enthusiastic about subject matter 8. GSI's sections have a clear sense of purpose Options Count Percentage

0 0.00% Options Count Percentage

0 0.00% Strongly Disagree (1) Strongly Disagree (1)

2 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 3 1 7.69% 3 2 15.38%


Statistics Value 13





OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS (QUALITATIVE) DEPARTMENT PROVIDED QUESTIONS: Questions in this section were selected by your department for inclusion on this evaluation. What did you especially appreciate/not appreciate about your GSI? What could the GSI have done to make your learning experience better? What worked well? What didn't work? What could be improved?

Comments

Making answers more available to students


42

I appreciate the effort Alice puts into her work, especially since our section is at 8AM. She is always willing to answer questions in great detail, which is very helpful for a lot of us.

Halfway through the semester, Alice's laptop broke and since then we have been learning off of handouts as opposed to overhead projections. I find these handouts to be especially helpful because all the information I need to do the work every week is there.

If I had to make a suggestion, I believe that Alice should incorporate more group activities into her lessons. We had group work for the first month or so, but after that we never did them again. I believe that people learn better when they learn together, and thus I believe that having more group activities is important. It also allows us to learn more about each other, which is nice given that we have to see these people at least once to four times a week.

Thanks for all that you've done for us this semester, Alice! :)

I appreciate Alice's willingness to help and that she's very approachable. She was so nice all the time. She explained the materials very well.

I really enjoyed having Alice as my GSI. She always did her best to answer my questions, and even checked in with Professor Lin multiple times just to make sure that I could get an official answer to them.

ALICE is great at: explaining concepts and answers our questions clearly and succinctly.



43

Shen, Alice (LINGUIS 110 DIS 102 PHONETS & PHONO) - Fa 2017 (Instructor Version)

Fall 2017 Evaluations Project Audience 18 Responses Received 15 Response Ratio 83.33%


Creation Date Fri, Dec 22, 2017




Options


44


Percentage 0.00%

2 0 0.00% 3 0 0.00%







Options Count

0 Percentage


2 0 0.00% 3 1 6.67%







45









46







2 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 3 0 0.00% 3 3 20.00%


Statistics Value 15




3. The GSI is easy to talk to 4. The GSI encourages students to ask questions,

Options Count 0


2 0 0.00% 3 0 0.00%


47


0 Percentage


2 0 0.00% 3 0 0.00%


15 Response Count







48




2 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 3 2 13.33% 3 1 6.67%


Statistics Value 15







2 0 0.00% 2 1 6.67% 3 2 13.33% 3 2 13.33%


Statistics Value 15






Comments

I appreciate the flexibility of discussions because it helps students ask questions/concerns about project/hw


49

I really enjoyed Alice's presence, helpfulness, and teaching during Ling 110. I think the learning experience could have been a little better if she had more practice and work for us to do, or went over homework + discussion review, instead of just discussion review.

The discussion sections that I found very helpful were when we went over the current weeks homework. I also think it would be even more helpful if she did a recap of lecture as a refresher. These are only suggestions though, that help me personally.

Overall, Alice does a great job of helping students feel safe and respected in discussion. She's very friendly, in addition to being knowledgeable; I think Alice really fits in well as a GSI.

Alice is very approachable and always tries to help students to the best of her ability. Occasionally, I felt that she did not clearly explain all questions asked by students to a maximal degree of clarity, but with a little more pedagogical experience, I am sure that she will be an excellent professor!

Very approachable GSI and good at explaining concepts.

Office hours were not super effective when there were several students at once all with questions about production. Would be better to give each student a moment alone with GSI.

I really liked that section, especially closer to the end of the semester, became part–supplemental material and part– work on your own things (so I guess in that respect it felt like a lab section anyway??). Finding the Evans offices was an Adventure the first time I went to Alice's OH there, but I'm not sure how to fix navigation confusion

too many days of working on project in discussion. I did not find it helpful. The GSI was good at engaging students in a respectful and useful manner. Sections were well organized. Worksheets were very useful, and we probably would have benefitted from having more of them, especially toward the beginning of the class.

I think Alice's sections are really helpful in that her sections always have a clear intention and prepared contents to help us review the course materials. She's also always down to answer any questions and sometimes talk me through some life problems as well. Her explanations for questions are really clear and I'm grateful to have her as my GSI.

The GSI is always attentive and responsive to students. Gives quality feedback. I would aprpeciate a more rigorous approach to the discussion section. I thought that the formant worksheet (where students have to predict the vowel produced given a diagram of the F1 and F2 values) was helpful and challenged students to think more critically.

Practicing together on different topics that we learned in class. She explained it really well. Alice was very friendly and enthusiastic and I was able to approach the subject with a more positive attitude. She could sometimes get confused when explaining, but she quickly gets back on track. I liked how she was able available and ready to help. I was able to enjoy 110 more than I expected in the beginning.

I appreciate her winning attitude and how easy she is to talk to! She clarified concepts from lecture well, and the handouts we worked through every now and then were helpful.



50

Shen, Alice (LINGUIS 110 DIS 103 PHONETS & PHONO) - Fa 2017 (Instructor Version)

Fall 2017 Evaluations Project Audience 17 Responses Received 16 Response Ratio 94.12%


Creation Date Sun, Dec 24, 2017




Options


51


Percentage 0.00%

2 0 0.00% 3 0 0.00%







Options Count

0 Percentage


2 0 0.00% 3 0 0.00%







52









53







2 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 3 1 6.25% 3 4 25.00%


Statistics Value 16



Standard Deviation 0.50 Standard Deviation 0.77 3. The GSI is easy to talk to 4. The GSI encourages students to ask questions,

Options Count 0


2 0 0.00% 3 1 6.25%


54


0 Percentage


2 0 0.00% 3 2 12.50%


16 Response Count







55




2 0 0.00% 2 1 6.25% 3 2 13.33% 3 4 25.00%


Statistics Value 15







2 1 6.25% 2 1 7.14% 3 2 12.50% 3 2 14.29%


Statistics Value 16






Comments

Grateful for her understanding and openness to talk about problems.


56

I would have liked to have more worksheets and example problems done in class. Part of the reason we didn't have as many examples were because the room had faulty technology, so that's not on Alice.

Alice is really sweet and easy to talk to! I think she should be more confident in the subject (especially at the beginning of the semester)!

Alice creates a very safe environment to ask questions and attend office hours, and did a particularly good job making sure I never felt panicked about this course, despite my tendency to overwhelm.

Alice is really approachable! If you go to her outside of normal hours she is really helpful, but doesn’t always provide a lot of feedback if you don’t seek out that extra help.

I really liked when we had handouts for visualization. I think it would've been more beneficial if sections were more structured, doing practice problems(? not sure if it's possible for this class) that are related to the lecture material. Sometimes, I have trouble digesting all the material introduced in lecture and it would be helpful to maybe focus on a topic or two in section and go over examples to really solidify our understanding of the material.

She was really down to earth and easy to talk to. I sometimes felt like she wasn't super interested in the content we were covering in class and didn't always have satisfying answers to my questions.

I appreciate how Alice notices needs of the class and focuses on the topics the class wants to go over, but sometimes she looked less confident in answering students' questions.

needs to be more confident! looks unsure of what she's doing much of the time. but very very nice and always willing to answer questions as best as she can.

I think many times people asked questions and weren't given a satisfactory answer. i know myself included was often times more confused after given an answer



57

Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education


58

Professional development activities completed for UC Berkeley Certificate of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education:

• Attended teaching conference for first-time Graduate Student Instructors (GSIs) • Completed GSI Professional Standards and Ethics Online Course structured in five modules:

o GSI Responsibilities and Ethics o Promoting Learning through Diversity: The Inclusive Classroom o Teaching Students with Disabilities o Creating an Educational Environment Free of Sexual Harassment o Fostering Academic Integrity

• Completed Linguistics 375: o Semester-long pedagogy seminar taught by Professor Sharon Inkelas

• Participated in six teaching workshops: o How Students Learn o Syllabus and Course Design o Assessing Teaching and Learning o Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Microaggressions and the Learning Environment o Developing a Statement of Teaching Philosophy and Teaching Portfolio o Peer Exchange and Feedback on Statements of Teaching Philosophy

• Observed during classroom teaching by a faculty member: o Observed by Professor Mahesh Srinivasan in teaching discussion section for

Language Acquisition (Psychology C143 / Linguistics C146) • Created a course syllabus:

o Introduction to Linguistics (Linguistics 100) – Summer 2018 • Used and reflected on mid-semester and end-of-semester teaching evaluations • Created a teaching portfolio

Documents

Table of Contentslinguistics.berkeley.edu/~azshen/Shen_Teaching_Portfolio.pdf · introduction to linguistics, phonetics, phonology, psycholinguistics, bilingualism, and language acquisition