Student comments from EPID600 Fall 2010

(in random order - click here for date order)

(About student comments)

______________________________

124: “Overall, the course is interesting. However, if the materials were introduced in a different format, the concepts may be clearer (i.e. one whole section of rates, rate ratios, association,etc..., one section of study designs, etc..) It felt as if these concepts interupted the module as they were dispersed throughout the modules. If one could get a solid understanding of how these calculations work and are deciphered first then the rest of the course could be utilized in their application. Regardless, I feel I have learned a significant amount from this class and understand that I have so much more to learn. It has been helpful already in my work and I understand how to decipher journals a little better now. Glad for the opportunity.”
Stewart, CERT student, FEPI, TA: Hao (2nd peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/12/10)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

238: “Instructor: Course was online format and feedback was given by the TA.”
(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/06/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

93: “Yes, I would like for the instructor to note that the amount of homework for this class is definitely hard to balance when the other class for the Executive MHA track is Capstone.

There needs to be better communication between the EPI department and the Executive program to avoid scheduling Capstone and Epi together. As for us who are stuck in this situation, there should be more extra credit than 1 point for the individual responses to modules - maybe just for executive students.

Try balancing family, kids activities, work, school - Capstone and EPI and then tell me that this course with Capstone is a balanced workload for a semester!”

(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

108: “It was really evident how much both Vic and Brad cared about teaching and making sure that students understood the material, which is particularly impressive with such a large class. I really appreciate the time and energy that they devoted to teaching.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/13)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

136: “While this course is difficult to organize because every public health student is required to take it, class lectures were often boring and irrelevant to the assignments (case studies). Vic was a dedicated professor and his effort to help us learn epidemiology was clear. However, I often felt that he went overboard with providing too much instruction and clarity that he was (ironically) often unclear. Also, please make the lectures shorter (and include only 1-2 interesting facts, as they take up a lot of time!). That being said, he was probably one of the most intelligent professors I have ever had. He was very accessible through email and in person. Genee was an excellent TA and helped voice our concerns to Vic and address our questions.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

202: “Instructor: I did not really interact with him much. I talked more with TAs.

TA: She was great one-on-one and teaching break out sessions to numerous other students.

How contribute to career: This course has helped me think more critically about data that I'm presented.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/08/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

205: “Instructor: I feel that the course was excellent from a public health perspective, but not specifically made relevant or applied to the hospital setting.

TA: I felt that there was almost no proactive feedback or guidance, particularly at the beginning of the course.

I wish the content would have been made more applicable for a non-public health-specific role. I realize that public health is relevant to anyone in the field of healthcare, but I would have preferred more specific applications or even one or two case stu

I felt the course was completely dependent on my own work. I got very little out of the group-work and received very little proactive feedback or guidance from the TA.

How contribute to career: I'm not sure that a lot of the content will translate directly into by career field.

Will use new tools: Again, not sure that a lot of these tools are specifically relevant or that I will use many of them. It was valuable to understand high level concepts (for example, the difference between prevalence/incidence), and to think critically.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/08/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

127: “This course had great variety of content, with interesting and challenging learning opportunities. The case studies required a level of statistical manipulation that wasn't covered in the lectures. It was tough, but ultimately propelled you much farther forward in a "working" knowledge of epidemiology.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/12/05)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

226: “Instructor: I loved the integration of humor into the material!

Excellent - wish it were 2 semesters

Just wish I had the ability to give it the time I deserved”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/06/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

117: “Great group overall. I appreciated the fact that we all took on extra work at different times in order to support each other as workloads for school and work fluctuated during the semester.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/12/10)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

105: “Thanks Brad, I thought you were a great TA. I always enjoyed your lab sessions and thought you did a nice job of explaining things. Thanks again!!”
(2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/01)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

76: “Interesting and challenging”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

99: “It has been fun so far.”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

214: “Instructor: I think the amount of communication for the course was very poor overall. I never knew what my grades were as they were not promptly updated on "my grades" area just the extra credit. I also believe that the grading was very harsh for the course considering the dependency on cooperation from other students and this being on online class. I have taken 4 other classes in the school of Public Health and this by far has been the most disappointing one. The professor's lectures were very poor and not informative. He added jokes but when the time came to actually teach he failed.

TA: She was mediocre as far as help was concerned. She always returned my e-mails promptly, but did gave out grades with not much explanation.

The content was okay but the method of teaching that content was extremely poor. I have never had such poor lectures given to me in any course I have taken in my post-high school education. The grading was severely harsh in relation to the distance nature

The delivery of the course was all over the place. Rules and dates changed with no consistent updates on the message boards to let us know what was going on. I didn't know what was due when half the time.

How contribute to career: It won't”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/07/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

17: “I am really enjoying the class and the group discussions each week. I feel that just about everyone is putting in the appropriate amount of effort and some us go above and beyond. Each person has strengths and they are using them to help the rest of us and that is wonderful.”
(1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/27)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

135: “In general, the course has the expected content, but the organization of the content needs to be redone. Most of the time, there seemed to be too much information, whichleads to sifting through extranneous materials to get to the point of presented material, which in turn, makes it harder to grasp the basic concepts of epidemiology, which I assumed was the purpose of the course.,

More emphasis should be placed on mastery of the basic concepts. I foudn the TA lectures to be the most helpful in pinpointing what students were supposed to learn.

The text book was mediocre, and I found it somewhat difficult to navigate, so I didn't reference it much.

Overall, I think the issue in the course is an oversaturation of materials (from blackboard, to general lecture slides and so on). Paring down the blackboard site would be a good way to start making changes.

There may also be a better course book student may find helpful as a reference tool.”

(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

230: “Online learning is still difficult, especially group work. I am not sure that online group learning worked well for my learning style.

How contribute to career: I will focus on nutrition intervention and policy design, and evaluation and impact assessment are critical (as is my ability to read and interpret epidemiological data and information related to my fields of interest). I believe”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/06/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

177: “The course could be revised for the MHA cohorts to be more healthsystem centric; while applicable, the work load process is a bit outdated and time consuming.”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

1: “I think we have a really good group.”
(1st peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/09/24)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

24: “This is an intense learning experience - the only thing missing is the time and opportunity to really dig into things you miss or don't get on the first round.”
(1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/27)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

149: “This was interesting, but it needs to make the connection between what we are learning and why it will be important as health care senior leaders because I felt like it was getting too far into the weeds.”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

32: “This class is challenging and I've really enjoyed it thus far. Also, our TA, Julie, has gone above and beyond - she responds well and I know everyone has appreciated her assistance and support of our learning.”
(1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/27)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

78: “This is a very difficult class. So far, the TA has not been as involved as i would like. This may be the way the class is structured. However, given the complexity of the assignments and lack of clear examples, I believe the TA should be more hands on than what she currently is.”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

223: “Instructor: Limited interactions with professor (I was enrolled in the online course). I do wish the lecture materials were a little more clear or that there was a separate space in Blackboard for how to perform certain calculations. At times it was difficult to condense the basic format of a calculation from an example with numbers already included from ppt.

TA: Did not have many interactions with the TA, but she seemed friendly and encouraging.

Difficult to understand and implement some of the calculations from the format in which they existed in powerpoint and from lecture notes. It would have been helpful to have separate documents that discussed how to calculate certain measures (RR v. OR fo

Online discussion groups were ultimately helpful in understanding topics, but often left errors and confusion about content unaddressed. It would have been helpful to have more TA involvement in Blackboard discussions to help clear up confusion or resolve a misunderstanding from the course materials. The lack of corrections (on individual submissions and in blackboard discussions) made it difficult to improve understanding until assignments were submitted and the course had already moved on. Feedback from Exams was helpful, but again, maybe too late to improve submissions.

Advance info wanted: I would say.. take the residential class. The online discussion group is convenient, but as mentioned, it was difficult for me to translate material online without the opportunity to discuss it with people. Residential groups seem t

How contribute to career: This will be important for the study of disease as a result of environmental contamination. The knowledge of how to perform and interpret the risk of adverse health effects as a result of exposure to contaminants.

Will use new tools: A much more refined ability to interpret research findings, graphs, and statistical analyses. I will be prepared to read and write reports using data and appropriate calculations and epidemiological terminology.

Topics to add: Environmental agents and their relevance to epidemiology”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/06/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

196: “Instructor: Tries hard to be a comedian, but fails; probably a respected epidemiologist, as he participated in development of the ACPH competency document. Perhaps if he spent time as an instructor rather than figurehead he could earn a bit more respect; I suppose he thinks he has better things to do.

The final module about Epidemiology in Public Health should be at the beginning of the course, to provide an overview of why we should take the course seriously. The course is pitched to Public Health majors, so either a module about how it will be useful

The schedule of deliverables was confusing; the dates in the modules were listed for components of each module and the due dates often seemed to bounce to and fro from module to module, as parts of the next module seemed to be occurring before the current module. A better means would be to have an additional chronologic calendar, so it would be clear what the next deliverable would be.

How contribute to career: Not sure

Will use new tools: What new tools?

Topics to add: Epidemiology as a tool for health care administrators”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/09/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

146: “This was a difficult course for me, but I learned a tremendous amount. I almost feel like I need to take it again to really absorb all the information. In fact I plan to do that, to go through all the lectures and readings again to more fully understand.,

I am grateful for the availability of online classes. As a working adult it would be impossible for me to attend traditional classes.

My plan had been to apply for entry into the MPH program. However the tuition increase means I will have to wait at least a year before applying.”

(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

111: “Students in my discussion group often complained about the format of the lecture slides; stating that they were essentially too esoteric in nature. I would argue that the slides were appropriate, but the high yield material provided during next week's discussion should be available much earlier. The high yield discussion slides would make comprehension of homework material more plausible; waiting to them prevented earlier comprehension of material.”
Mandrill, MPH student, PHLP, TA: Genee (2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/10)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

18: “I'm not sure we all realized how much we should be contributing to the forums. Should see more participation (at least from me) during the rest of the semester.”
Deb, MHA student, HPAX, TA: Beth (1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/26)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

121: “I have learned a lot this semester! Thank you for everything!”
(2nd peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/12/05)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

20: “It was a bit hard to do these evaluations simply because I have never met any of the people in my group and we do not meet on a weekly basis. I'm not exactly sure how much preparation people put into their work but it seems that our case studies always get turned in on time and that everybody understands the problems so, at least for now, I would say things are going well and everybody is participating.”
(1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/28)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

204: “How contribute to career: It is part of my degree requirement. I can use epi/stat for having a better understanding of the clinical studies.

Will use new tools: Yes, in better understanding of studies/trials.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/08/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

125: “A very interesting and challenging class”
(2nd peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/11/30)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

171: “I think the hint idea for exam question is a great idea but the explanations were a little vague: I felt like this esp for homework questions even when I submitted my work and needed more direction. I felt Kate responded timely considering she is living in Africa and seemed genuinely concerned about me as a student”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

159: “Julie was very nice, supportive and helpful. Deadlines & due dates changed so often in this course, it would have been more helpful if she reinforced the changes more than once. Also, understanding that she could not be available online in real time, if she answered emails in <24 hrs it would have been MUCH MORE helpful since the on-line group was often working on deadline.”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

174: “I think this course can be better organized. I did not like the grading for exams in this course. For example, in the short answer questions of the exams, the TA mentioned that answers were compared among students so whoever had the best answer would get full credit, while the other would receive partial credit. This mean that I could have answered all the questions correctly, but because another student went beyond what they asked for, my answers would be worth less points and I would not get full credit.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

50: “The way of operating the course should be changed. It makes me stick to problem sets, not the whole picture.”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

199: “Instructor: I would recommend connecting lecture material with weekly assignments. Often, I found myself "digging around" or could not find where the information for the group assignments was in the lecture material. Given the fact that many of us have never had Epi, it became frustrating and time consuming to locate and sometimes understand what was being asked.

this course was so front loaded. Please take more time time on the fundamental principles that are central to Epi and please take more time to word carefully your case and exam questions. At times it was difficult to understand what you were asking, the

Tests actually take more time than I believe the instructor thinks. These tests took 12-15 hours to complete, which is more time than professional board exams! Please remember that most of us in the Executive program are juggling professional careers and families as well. In addition, the first two tests should not be weighted so heavily; there is much effort and time given to the weekly group assignments but they carry very little weight towards the final grade. It was discouraging to spend that much time weekly, working hard and getting an 80% on a test which is the majority of the grade. This then is not an accurate representation of work effort, nullifying the importance of the learning experience with the weekly assignments.

How contribute to career: It will allow for a more critical assessment of clinical trials conducted that test dental materials, since my field is continually advancing with many products coming to market.

Topics to add: I enjoyed the module on infectious disease/outbreaks and trying to figure out the cause of disease.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/08/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

109: “Genee is a great TA. She was very helpful and I learned a lot from her lectures.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/09)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

102: “TA sessions were very helpful. These powerpoints were very useful.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/05)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

180: “The content is excellent for someone devoted to Public Health Epidemiology. It is too detailed for someone who chooses the business and management aspects of Healthcare.

Suggestion: can students have more time to study their modules (even two modules delivered every other week)? Students need the 1st week to read and become familiar with materials (book, articles and lectures). Then they can formulate well thought out questions to the TAs. Finally, they will excel in their homeworks after the TAs explain to them the most salient points and elucidate their confusion. This very information-rich course is designed to impart long-lasting knowledge to students (both undergrad and grad students). This course is not designed to just only gauge students' reading and comprehension skills. When students have thorough understanding of the teaching materials, then they could apply their knowledge onto their homeworks and they will retain their knowledge much better and much longer. Students learn best after they correctly apply the difficult concepts and teachings! EPID information is very precise, detailed and technical, so jamming will allow only for a very superficial short-term memor

Advance info wanted: Please warn students that EPID is very labor intensive and they must choose to combine this class with another very "easy" class that does not require any reading or homework! In any case, students must neglect their other classes to

How contribute to career: EPID is fantastic for a career in Public Health; I am in Public Health! Maybe I will sign up for the Field EPID certificate..

Will use new tools: Read articles and process information with improved accuracy...”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/14/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

48: “This course has been as challenging as I had heard and expected it to be, but I have been learning a lot. Working in an entry-level research position, I have found it exciting to learn material that helps to clarify and reinforce the work I am doing. Also, seeing these concepts being utilized in current studies helps me to view their direct application in the"real world".”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

165: “The organization of this class is overwhelming. It is difficult to follow and becomes a constant burden instead of an opportunity to engage with the material and really learn. It was more of a weekly battle to just get things submitted, I found that I did not take the time to really focus on learning the material.,

While I do feel that I learned some key part of EPID, I do not feel that I have a good grasp of concepts still. I feel like what the third exam paper assignment is gear twds addressing should be the point of this class, but instead it was very bogged down in submissions instead of understanding the big picture of epidemiological studies. As a class required by many departments it should be structured not to consume so much time.

I also felt the grading policy was overly complicated. I have no idea what my grade in the class will be because I am unsure how the final formula for grading will effect my tests. This mkaes it difficult to feel like you can really work harder to improve your grade throughout the semester.

Overall course was complicated to navigate and disengaged me from learning.”

(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

217: “Instructor: Less is more, less slides with more detailed instruction. Less problems, more focused on key topics. 6 hour exams are reasonable, 12 hours are not additive to instructive ability.

Volume at the expense of detail is less helpful. Greater detail or repetition on key items would have been beneficial. This course is not for Epid Majors.

How contribute to career: Need to understand the clinical outcomes of key epid issues

Will use new tools: Interpretation of key outcome measures is extremely useful such as odds ratios in explaining pharmacogenomic testing.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/07/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

120: “Thank you! Lots of hard work but really learned from the materials and assignments. I very much appreciate your modifications to the expectations of the program due to the Capstone conflict. Probably enabled me to stay enrolled through the semester”
(2nd peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/12/03)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

200: “Advance info wanted: I would advise the extra help sessions to be more consistant.”
(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/08/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

2: “The readings for the class are too much and confusing; I wish the reading were more organized and more helpful with the case studies.”
(1st peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/09/25)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

144: “Brad Wheeler was my TA. He was a great TA. I learned a tremendous amount from his lectures. He was always very quick and thorough in response to any questions.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

41: “This course is not only invaluable in setting a public health foundation, but also thoroughly enjoyable. The supportive and flexible environment makes a big difference in ease of learning new material. I really like the structure of the course, and have found that the small group work has been really helpful (and fun).”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

64: “Epidemiology 600 is a strong and fundamental course for any person or persons interested in the field of medicine or public health.”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

193: “I recommend to have summary at the end of each lesson summerizing the main epi concepts like sensitivity, specificity, confounding ---etc

The course delivery was perfect

How contribute to career: Improved my reading to article and researches and will help me to structure new researches.

Will use new tools: Will help with research”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/10/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

38: “Brad does a great job of clarifying concepts during our lab session and is very helpful.”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

46: “1) The homework problems are not worded clearly - the emphasis seems to be on deciphering logic problems rather than learning the terms & methods of epidemiology. Also, one specific suggestion: often the case studies will refer to articles by saying for example,"Page 225, Column 1". The articles usually open as a web document without page numbers and it can be very hard to find the information you are referring to! / 2) I like the group structure of the course, but I think peer evaluations are not a good use of our time. We have a lot of work, and a lot of other classes, and I just don't think the peer evaluations are necessary.”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

188: “The number of case studies and the quick turnaround time were very difficult to keep up with.

How contribute to career: This course will not contribute to my current career in public health.

Will use new tools: I will not be using these tools in my current career in public health.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/10/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

25: “dynamic in the group is generally good. some more gung ho than others.”
(1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/30)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

104: “Brad was awesome. He answered questions by email in a matter of minutes most of the time.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/08)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

153: “Brad was great!”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

210: “TA: A lecture summary or review or something like that would have been helpful throughout the semester. The "live" classes usually did this with their TA.

There were a couple of instances where we had questions on the case study that were not actually addressed in lecture or reading.

A review session with TA for each lecture/case study would be helpful.

How contribute to career: I want to go into epidemiology. I thought this was a good introduction.

Will use new tools: See 18”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/07/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

169: “Would probably have been useful to be able to work problems and submit them in excel since we're using that in other classes and at work.”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

221: “How contribute to career: I am a PA and review literature often.”
(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/07/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

45: “I wish the readings for the class were less and more organized, it gets really confusing with the large amount of reading.”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

161: “This course was great. My main problem was that I already knew everything - I either underestimated my own mastery of epidemiology or else I was misled by the course description, which may merit revision. The quality of the course was excellent, but I felt like a cog in a wheel due to the large student volume, despite excellent TAs and class structure. I would consider a placement test for credit as a solution to reduce experiences like mine - spending over $1000 for a course I have already mastered - and as a way to reduce the class size.”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

8: “Great TA, very helpful!”
(1st peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/09/27)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

186: “Instructor: The lectures were clear and easy to follow in this web-based format. More examples, especially in applying different metrics, would have been great. Interaction w/ professor and TAs is difficult when in different timezones etc

TA: Beth responded quickly to emails

The material was interesting and having to pick apart articles did help with the understanding of the concept However I question the value recalculating article tables to find errors; often the task was more frustrating than anything else.

The timeline for completing assignments became confusing. There did not seem to be enough time to complete all work (consensus due clos to individual assignment). I appreciate the shift in deadlines

How contribute to career: helpful in understanding and critiquing proposals that come across my desk

Will use new tools: developing analytic plans and study protocols”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/11/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

162: “The spacing of the exams seemed very cramped. It would have been helpful to spread them throughout the semester more. The second exam caught me off guard and I did much worse than on the first and than I should have because I just didn't know what to study for it. The word limits on the exams also got in the way for me a lot, especially on exam 3. In exam 3, I couldn't really address anything in the depth I wanted to, and I had to shallowly address several points in order to try and encompass the scope of the questions in my responses. I understand that exam grading takes time, having taught myself, but I felt intellectually limited in my performance because of the word limits. A better design would be to have students answer four questions with no word limit or (since we should have covered everything in exams 1 and 2 and in recitation) one question in great depth. I felt like I could have written an essay of at least 1000 words length about each of the questions asked.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

175: “This class, as an intro Epi class for non-Epi majors, was not that at all. I believe that Vic made the material more confusing than it needed to be and that key themes, models, etc were not clearly presented to the class. The overwhelming amount of work that had to go into weekly case studies that bear such an insignificant amount on one's grade was discouraging. I believe that group work is a good thing and necessary, but due to the unnecessary complexities of this course, it became tedious and uninteresting. As a side note, as a first year MCH grad student, Epid was the class I was looking the most forward to. Unfortunately, after taking this class, I no longer have a desire to continue with any other epid classes at UNC or elsewhere. Vic, you're an intelligent man, and a fun lecturer, but I would have rather learned something in your class and not liked you, than vise versa.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

96: “The course has been insightful. I have loved the articles and in particular the discussion we have in our small groups. The groups really make up the essence and learning in the course. I have learned so much from my group members.”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

115: “This course was a bear, much too time consuming, but Genee Smith was a FABULOUS teaching assistant, who summarized all the material in a clear and cogent manner and was helpful to all of us. She deserves to be recognized.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/08)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

112: “Group 2 was great! I was very impressed with how well we all worked together and was grateful to have such a motivated group! I also really enjoyed working with graduate students.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/12)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

88: “I am enjoying the class but I feel like I'm always answering some question. I think I would absorb and be able to put more into each case study if they were spread out more instead of every week.”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

73: “not sure that was or is much consideration for those in the executive track that work FT and attend school.

TA's seem overburdened by sheer numbers.

the postings (perhaps due to group size or nature of course design) can be overhwhelming and a difficult manage which may impact true learning, impact and assimilation of material.”

(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

179: “Would have been helpful to make better use of excel and reproduce results in a case study.

How contribute to career: It will help to reinforce and apply statistics knowledge. However, it was geared toward the researcher. This is good but it will not translate directly to hospital administration.

Topics to add: Apply similar principles to actuarial studies for a given population. Need to know how to determine market need for a particular specialty.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/14/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

185: “TA: Beth was really very good at supporting our group and responding to our questions in a timely manner especially considering the number of students taking the course.

Course content was very good. I would not change a thing.

I would have really preferred to take this course by itself so I would have had more time to dedicate to it. There was alot of work which I think was necessary and helpful but I needed more time to dedicate to it.

How contribute to career: Helped clarify and solidify concepts I use everyday. Also made me realize what I really did not understand but thought I did.

Will use new tools: Definitely has helped me be able to better synthesize and analyze scientific papers.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/11/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

143: “I felt that the exams did not provide the opportunity for me to accurately demonstrate my knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. Wording was confusing, and even though I felt I had a good understanding of lecture and reading concepts, I struggled with the exams. This was disheartening for a subject that was new to me.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

216: “I did not care for the group work. I became very frustrated trying to explain a basic algebraic manipulation to my group at the outset. It might be helpful to provide a math refresher or require BIOS 600 as a prerequisite to teh course.

Advance info wanted: I would like to have known for the first couple of case studies tha,t for answers where calculations were required, we were also supposed to provide a verbal explanation of our answer.

How contribute to career: I am a communicable disease nurse. This content is directly applicable to what I do on a daily basis.

Will use new tools: The outbreak investigation information and corresponding epi terminology is information that I will use on a regular basis in carrying out my job duties. I have taken many research methods courses over the years, but this course provi”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/07/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

213: “Instructor: It was a very difficult class to complete given the fact that we also had to take Capstone.

TA: I think she was fine.

There was a lot there, and it was somewhat overwhelming. I think having smaller, more focused assignments would have been helpful.

It seemed that the material was not organized in a user friendly manner - especially given the amount of material and the number of assignments required.

Advance info wanted: I would have liked to have some breaks between some of the assignments. It felt like a 16 week sprint. Also, the means for communicating was very long winded. Emails from the professor would be pages long. As a working professional

How contribute to career: I'm not sure. But I'm glad to have the background.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/07/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

167: “Genee did an amazing job as a TA for this course. She was able to present all the material in a concise yet understandable manner. She is a very effective teacher.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

212: “Instructor: He must be a great professor! Wish I could have taken the course "in class" rather than online

TA: Beth, you were very helpful! Being a TA for so many students must be a lot of work. Thanks for your input!

Well constructed course, challenging but enjoyable!

well paced!

Advance info wanted: How much work it entailed!

How contribute to career: I would like to teach introductory epidemiology to my undergrad college students - it will help me a better frame work!

Will use new tools: Not sure yet!

Topics to add: More local (NC) epi problems or concerns.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/07/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

5: “It is very strange to have lecture for the NEXT week before recitation for the CURRENT week! We go to lecture and begin thinking about a new subject, but then have to go back to the old topic - class should be designed so that case study groups meet before the next week's lecture.”
(1st peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/09/29)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

157: “The TA evaluation is for Brad Wheeler.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

155: “Ridiculous class -- 120 slide PPT -- every week. Would prefer an outline with info provided -- not just reams and reams of details. I'm not planning to be an epidemiologist -- just wanted an intro to it.”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

176: “I thought the lectures were on the boring side and I didn't find them as interesting as the group sessions with Genee. I really did like the group aspect of the class though an found collaboration to be a useful teaching method”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

84: “This course delivery setup is AWFUL. I have learned absolutely nothing about epidemiology from this class. The lectures have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the homeworks. The homeworks are graded very archaicly. Last, we get NO FEEDBACK. We're trying to teach ourselves and we don't know if we're right or not.”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

82: “It would be extremely useful to have more examples of the the types of questions used in the Case Study submittals, especially for students whose background is not in math or statistics (or for whom those classes have been in the distant past, worked through in either the lecture or in other posted materials (Additional Study Materials/Sample Questions).”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

19: “This is a very well planned course, and a good over view of the theoretical and practical/real world applications of Epidemiology. The course is intense and a lot of work but a good learning experience - even if it is online! Thanks Vic for adding a touch of humor to the lectures.”
(1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/27)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

90: “Structurally the discussion board on Bb is cumbersome and unwieldy when trying to collaborate over detailed, iterative material. Perhaps more guidance at the beginning of the term would help make the discussion process more efficient and fluid. I feel a great deal of time is spent just trying to keep track of what's been and being said which detracts from focusing on substance.”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

231: “How contribute to career: fulfills my major requirement for undergrate environmental health siciences”
(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/06/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

147: “I understand that exams are very lengthy and take considerable time to grade; however, it is difficult for students to know if they understand the material to answer questions for exam 3 (final paper) when they do not receive feedback from exam 2 within a few days of the deadline for exam 3 to be submitted. This time line makes it difficult to go back to ask questions, review materials, etc., because the student's focus is on submitting exam 3 in a timely manner. Again, I understand that there may not be anything that can be done about this and that this may just the nature of the course, but I wanted to provide the feedback. I did enjoy the course and know I will take away information that I will use in the future. Thanks for the course!”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

139: “Time requirement of the class, particularly the exams, was extreme for an MHA student. I didn't feel the content was particularly applicable for me. I can understand that the course would be outstanding for someone entering the public health field, but I wish the course could provide more cases studies or application for someone in a leadership role within a healthcare organization.”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

138: “Julie has been fantastic!!!! However, I think that Vic, as knowledgeable as he is about the subject, often times was quite confusing in his explanations. This may be due to not being in the class in person but I thought that his lectures are fairly confusing, extremely long-winded, and not specific and succinct enough. However, he does seem to care for his students overall and wants them to grasp the material and do well.”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

100: “Thank you, Vic and Brad, for fostering our wonderful "group 3" experience in epidemiology. Working together in small groups was a wonderful way to learn.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/02)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

152: “Epid 600 needs a new curriculum and a new professor. Professor Schoenbach may be well-suited to a high level Epi course, but was not an effective instructor for an entry level course. The structure of this course is bizarre. While I enjoyed working with my group, the strange and complicated organization of the individual/group assignments was confusing and unhelpful. I understand the online submission form assists the TAs with grading, but it seemed like a lot of unnecessary extra steps. The instructor needs to work on making everything much more concise. As students in SPH, we would never be allowed to use so many excess words! Often the instructions on an exam or assignment would be two or three times as long as the word limit for the answer itself. The structure of the course is not conducive to learning, and I felt when questions were asked, the response was to encourage us to figure out the answer in our groups. This might work as a learning tactic in a higher level course, but we don't know the basics - we can't figure it out on our own. We need more guidance. I really feel like I did not learn or retain much at all from this course. Since this is a course almost everyone in SPH has to take, I feel strongly that it should be improved so we can actually learn the basics of Epi well. Bios 600 should be a required pre-req for this course. I was taking it simultaneously but my friends who weren't were baffled by the mention of confidence intervals, etc. You can't assume people are familiar with those concepts unless statistics is a required pre-req. I felt the exams focused on complicated calculations instead of conceptual understanding. Overall, I do think that Professor Schoenbach has a lot of enthusiasm for the subject and tries his best to be responsive and make this a good course, but I and almost everyone else I knew in this class were very disappointed with it. Please make some changes!”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

220: “Instructor: In the 3 1/4 years I have spent at UNC in the MHA program. This was the worst. Awful- and I would not wish it on my worst enemy. However, the presentations/ videos were well done, the slides on prevalence very helpful with all the people and circles, etc. It would have been nice to have had an hour and a half lecture once a week to review the material rather than having to watch them on line. More interaction would have been helpful. I did listen to the TA lectures and while they were helpful- they were not the same has having the professor lecture and have open discussion. And, the TA's could never give us examples to apply the math- only lecture on the concepts. Why was this the worst class- even for an RN? The amount of work was unbelievable and I would never use most of the material working in health adminstration. MHA is totally different that the MPH and this course could be modified for the MHA's. I was so excited to take this class having a clinical background too but... I would also recom

Start over and reinvent especially for the MHA program.

face to face on line lectures as we had at the beginning of the class.

Advance info wanted: Simple definitions and concepts. One or two module on overall Epi- types of cohorts, etc and then dive into each.

How contribute to career: None- I am afraid to read another clinical article

Will use new tools: Can't say that I will - it was the most frustrating course.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/07/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

173: “The course material is very interesting and the instructors are very good and very responsive. At times there were too many things going on all at once with the required readings, homework, group work, exams, etc. Having the TA present slides of the material that was presented the week previously made it frustrating to apply information when doing the homework, which was due before, the TA presented material in the lab session. I feel students would grasp the concepts better and apply the information with more confidence if the TA presented the material that was just lectured on for the week rather than the following week.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

87: “Having been through almost the entire MHA program on-line, I still feel the group discussion boards are time consuming to the point they would be much better in a wiki format. Let the moderator post the answers, then the group can shape the deliverable. It is extremely frustrating taking a day to address other coursework or a job to come back to 75 forum posts to weed through (most are just a reiteration of the same theme). Please consider this if the course continues to be offered on-line.”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

74: “I am enjoying the class greatly and learning so much!”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

118: “I am leaving EPID 600 as an avid fan. I thoroughly enjoyed my learning experience, and I am definitely not the kind of student who typically says things like that. This was one of the more challenging, yet interesting courses I have taken. I appreciated the subject content, the TA encouragement, and the instructor teaching style. I felt like help was always available when needed, and that Beth and Vic both cared a lot about my learning. I became more critical and analytical through the mode of thinking that EPID 600 encourages, traits that help one be successful regardless of the field in which they work.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/12/09)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

218: “Instructor: Dr. Schoenbach kindly made himself available to answer student questions, something I relied on during the semester. His degree of accessibility is unique and appreciated!

TA: Irina was always quick to answer thoroughly questions submitted via email.

How contribute to career: As a vaccine specialist, I often read scientific articles. Due to this course, I now have a much better understanding of the information and the derivation of data in said articles.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/07/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

77: “The course is quite interesting and I am happy to be taking it. Some weeks I do feel that the case studies are quite long and especially since I am in an online group, I don't get the opportunity to talk about what we are learning or have a true discussion. Most of the online group discussion is directed to submitting the case study, so I do wish there was more fluid conversation about the topic. Otherwise, the class is going well and I'd add that the textbook is a good resource.”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

28: “I have worked with some of group more than others so have a better perception of their contributions.”
(1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/24)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

26: “The group discussion forum is helpful, but it is also very limited. When it comes to working on consensus answers...it seems redundant to post the same answers (if we have a similar answer)that others who had an opportunity to post earlier in the week had. Therefore, it could seems as if a member does not contribute, when they are simply trying not to be redundant.”
Stewart, CERT student, FEPI, TA: Hao (1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/27)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

235: “Instructor: One of the best online instructors I have ever had (out of 6 classes taken to date) and it is obvious how much he cares about his students learning. His lectures are organized logically and manages to present at times "thick" material in ways that are entertaining.

TA: I was in frequent contact with Beth and she always gave me a timely and very helpful response. I believe she graded very fairly and sincerely hoped for our success in this course.

I found it very interesting, useful, and conducive to a mode of critical thinking that I have not experienced in quite some time. I really don't know how the content could be better, however I did really enjoy the most recent interactive assignment where

At times it seemed as though the text, lectures, and case studies were all addressing slightly different topics and it was a lot to take in, however I would expect this from a UNC graduate level course.

Advance info wanted: I think the syllabus did a good job of preparing me for the course. It may have been helpful to emphasize the "Evolving Text" a little more, as it took me a few lessons to begin using it (once I found it), but found it to be a very va

How contribute to career: It has allowed me to think more critically and organize studies to improve existing processes.

Will use new tools: I will be able to avoid drawing false causal inference when I notice an event before thoroughly investigating it. I have gained valuable tools that will allow me to organize pertinent studies.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/06/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

164: “Sometimes he was a little confusing when it came to explaining something or answering questions. Otherwise, he seemed very knowledgeable and eager to help.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

55: “The course is difficult but I am finding that now that some time has passed, I am getting more acquainted with the type of material and I am beginning to grasp the concepts better.”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

172: “The class and lab/recitation should be offered in the morning. Also, I think the course should be revised each time it is taught with new examples and current cases. The amount of material is tremendous, with little detail given to very complex concepts. I am not sure how much I actually learned.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

166: “Genee's slides were very helpful. Thank you for preparing and posting those.

The lecture did NOT prepare us to complete the case study questions and there were not adequate resources given to answer the questions. I had to rely on Google searches far too often than I feel I should have due to the inadequacy of course materials. I was very disappointed with this required course. Since this is a required course for SPH I think it should be revamped, particularly the group consensus case studies with groups of 10 students. That size group is far too large.”

(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

7: “Prof. Vic is really nice!, but I don't understand some jokes he attached to our lecture :) Brad is also very nice TA. He is flexible and supportive of student discussion. However, this class take me more time than I thought. I'll try better to catch up the class.”
(1st peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/09/30)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

160: “I think the course would be better if Statistics was required before taking this course.”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

52: “Course's reliance on the website is sometimes frustrating (there is so much posted content that it is sometimes hard to find the resources described in the lessons).”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

62: “I am really enjoying the course. The content is presented in a way that is interesting and challenging. I enjoy Dr Shoenbach's injections of humor throughout the lectures!”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

133: “I think the TAs should be the one keeping track of who is posting and making contributions. It's too much of a popularity contest this way. Also, slackers give everyone high points because they know they haven't carried their weight. The slackers giving each other high scores protects them from the consequences of their actions. There should be some rating by your peers but the objective stuff should come from the TA.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/12/09)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

168: “Although I understand that the course was laid out for both in class and internet instruction, I think the instruction was not stimulating. For a non-major course, there was a lot of material covered in great detail and I think the most important points about the basics of epidemiology were lost.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

60: “Since I know very little about the grading, it is often difficult to even guess how my group did on the case study.”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

203: “Instructor: Very human, easy to correspond with. Very knowledgeable of the subject matter.

TA: TA was very compassionate when asked for an extention due to personal circumstances.

The content was good, sometimes a bit over my head as I had no background in epidemiology

More examples starting simple and progressing to more complex for practice for those that need it. I often found the cases studies complex and was not sure what was being asked or did not fully understand what was asked.

Advance info wanted: A glossary of terms and basic formulas

How contribute to career: At present the course does not contribute to my job. It does contribute to my career goal of working in public health.

Will use new tools: I can now better evaluate journal articles and understand more the strength of evidence they provide”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/11/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

163: “This course had a lot of material! As a non-epi major, it was hard to devote all the time to this course that it requires. I had focus the majority of my time to my major courses and as such, EPI 600 often took a back seat. Perhaps it would be better if this course didn't require so much time. I evaluated Brad Wheeler (my TA) above under Jennifer Wheeler as I didn't see Brad's name.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

170: “Genee was wonderful! She made everything much clearer and was always extremely helpful during lab and outside of it.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

9: “Peer evaluations for our group (and groups like ours) may be difficult to access because our section splits into teams and divides the work load during our recitation period.”
Mandrill, MPH student, PHLP, TA: Genee (1st peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/09/27)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

11: “I think that the schedule is very confusing especially with learning a lesson then working in recitation on the lesson from last week. It dissuades people from going to lecture and it's hard to pay attention because I am trying to remember the stuff from last week while learning something new.”
(1st peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/09/25)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

137: “I really appreciated that Vic made his lectures available online. I have a young son, and it made my life so much easier to be able to watch the lecture online on days when I couldn't make it to class so that I could pick up my son from daycare. Also, it helped to have access to the lecture while doing the homework assignments. I hope that my lack of attendance was not construed in any way as a reflection on my opinion of his lectures, which were great. Instead, it was a reflection of how much I appreciated being able to watch them at home.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

42: “I don't like the schedule so far. It's awkward to have a lecture on one topic and group work/TA discussion on another topic in the same week.”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

134: “Overall, I was very happy with this course”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

23: “Overall my group peers are well prepared and quick to contribute. I follow along with all the postings on the discussion board even if I don't contribute as often. Mostly I'm trying to understand the source of the responses or calculations others have arrived at before I have. The group discussions have really helped me understand the course material in a way I may not have otherwise.”
(1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/27)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

219: “Instructor: This was by far the worst class I have taken here at UNC. There was never any constructive feedback provided; points were simply taken off of assignments for no rhyme or reason. The lectures absolutely did not stimulate learning in any function. I've actually recommended that this course be adjusted for a departmental-specific course through my home department. The manner in which Dr. Schoenbach taught this course was counterproductive to any form of learning epidemiology.

How contribute to career: I thought it would help me better identify new markets for growth as a healthcare administrator but unfortunately this course did not provide any necessary information for this necessary skill.

Will use new tools: What tools? I learned more about epidemiology in my previous career as a clinical researcher than I did through this course.

Topics to add: Where to identify incidence/prevalence data and how to use these databases. THose of us taking this class aren't going to be epidemiologists; we need to understand how to assimilate the Epidemiology and how to use it in our own careers. Mor”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/07/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

68: “I am very stressed taking this course with capstone which of course wasn't the original plan. The humor is greatly appreciated!”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

14: “I am really enjoying your class, both the section and the lectures. Good work!”
(1st peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/09/29)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

209: “Instructor: By far the most engaging professor so far. This is an intimidating subject but I felt really excited about taking it. Dr. Schoenbach eased my fears by validating the difficulty of the subject and offering his insights in a clear and relevant manner.

I got the sense that the team of instructors were actively adapting the coordination of the class to continue improve how things were done.

Advance info wanted: Group projects are tough. Especially when we don't actually meet together in person. Despite this, I really enjoyed my group projects and learned quite a bit.

How contribute to career: I intend to continue on with an advanced practice degree in nursing. I will no doubt use the skills developed in this course to better understand the published literature and how to critically apply it to my practice in primary c

Will use new tools: As mentioned above, the skills I learned in this class will help me better inform my practice in providing primary care to patients.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/07/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

47: “Working group session is better than what I thought at the beginning. However, this class takes me more time than what I thought as well.”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

183: “How contribute to career: This course applies to the work I am currently doing since I am in involved in clinical trials that fit the various study designs discussed.

Will use new tools: Learning about health screenings, designing studies, and analyzing data will all contribute to my future career in implementing and evaluating health education programs.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/12/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

6: “Epidemiology covers a lot of concepts. The chance to discuss the concepts taught in lecture during recitation is very helpful in understanding the material. Slowly but surely, Epidemiology is starting to make sense. The willingness and availability of the professor and TAs to answer questions, even with the silliest of analogies, is great and makes me feel more comfortable asking questions.”
(1st peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/09/27)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

12: “The course is wonderfully insightful and brilliantly orchestrated.”
Chima, BSPH student, BIOS, TA: Genee (1st peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/09/25)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

154: “This course was an example of absolute hubris. The once a week lecture was not enough. This should be taught like biostatistics. They have much in common. If it were not for the TA's summary, we would not have had a clue what was going on. The homework load was overwhelming, and giving 3 exams that take 12-20 hours each represents a complete disregard for the burdensome course load of any serious graduate student. I HATED this course, and it reduced my estimation of the quality of education one gets at UNC.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

192: “Instructor: I think this class needs to be on campus, not online. I think that would help with the understanding of the material.

Should never have to take with Capstone. I also think we should have to sign an honor pledge only once to cover the course. This was to the point of ridiculous.

How contribute to career: I haven't figured that out yet

Will use new tools: not sure that I can”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/10/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

71: “I haven't been able to take advantage of the Monday evening sessions and those may help my understanding but I feel as if I'm on a freight train trying to grab ideas as we roll along - not really time to digest and learn them thoroughly before moving on to more concepts and calculations. The content is interesting, the audio tutorials very helpful and it's obvious the faculty have passion for the subject. The structure and timing of group work is very challenging, however - I'm always amazed that some of my group members appear to be on the Discussion board every day multiple times a day - I can't fit that into my schedule, and feel a bit guilty for not contributing at that level -”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

110: “This is one of the best group dynamics I have experienced at UNC. Everyone worked well with and was very respectful of each other. I find that the group experience in EPID 600 can really make or break the experience due to the high level of group work.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/08)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

33: “Our group is AWESOME. I have learned so much from each individual member. And our group has prided itself on being thorough, and being very clear and communicative. We are open to ask each other questions, and I have to reiterate that I have learned so much from my team members.”
Emily, CERT student, PHCP, TA: Kate (1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/25)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

103: “Thank you!”
(2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/05)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

191: “Instructor: I am so happy I got to have Dr. S, even from our distance learning. He was prompt if there were questions directed for him, and he always created an environment that stimulated us intellectually, but also gave us an environment where we enjoyed learning.

TA: Kate was excellent! I am so happy we had her as our TA. She was always supportive, timely, and helpful.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/10/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

222: “The course content was made overly dense given the students most likely enrolled. The emphasis on computation rather than concepts and applications made the course work burdensome and detracted form the overall themes that should have been emphasized. Fe

The discussion group work needs to re-designed to actually approximate a discussion as verses a group quiz. While collaboration is indispensable to learning and working effectively, it is inappropriate, especially in a virtual forum, to have student's evaluated on the basis of group performance or lack thereof.

Advance info wanted: The TA should be an integral and active member of discussion and participation in the group forum providing contemporaneous feedback and direction.

How contribute to career: Background and awareness

Will use new tools: To some extent, statistical concepts and applications.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/06/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

151: “I really struggled with this course. Though intellectually, I gained a lot from this course, the vast majority of what I learned was self-taught through completion of the case studies/exams, rather than through instruction provided in lecture/recitation. While my TA (Genee) was excellent at highlighting and presenting the important material/formulas from the lectures/readings, general lecture often felt disorganized, rambling, and hard-to-follow. Many times it felt that the point of the lecture was impossible to determine, or was buried within so much superfluous, only tangentially related material, that it was hard to understand. Similarly, there seemed to be little concordance between material in the lectures, material in the case studies, and material in the reading. Often I found myself relying on Wikipedia and other outside sources when completing assignments. Regarding the model of the course, it was somewhat jarring that the case-studies emphasized a group model, whereas the exams required an individual approach, a disconnect that I found particularly jarring when completing the exams. I appreciate Professor Schoenbach's enthusiasm and clear experience in the field, and I expect to do quite well in the course, yet in the end, I found myself predominantly disappointed with my EPID 600 experience.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

198: “Instructor: I really enjoyed the course. It was a lot of work but I feel like I have a much better grasp of Epidemiology. This was my first distance learning course and I am looking forward to taking more.

I liked the articles for the case study questions, but maybe some that were more recent or ones that dealt with current public health problems so we can see how it relates to right now. Also to include some more specific examples in the lectures or have

I liked being able to listen to the lectures and I loved the live meetings for extra help.

How contribute to career: I am hoping to get a Masters in Public Health and this course will help me do that and also help me advance at work.

Will use new tools: I have to read articles at work and now I have a better understanding of how to analyze them so I can get the most from the information.

Topics to add: Current public health issues”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/09/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

16: “I have enjoyed this group and appreciate the comraderie and support we have provided each other.”
(1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/10/01)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

178: “Instructor: I thought Dr. Schoenbach was great and kept the presentations interesting. Given the amount of material needed to be covered, it was sometime difficult to take it all in through one presentation.

TA: Julie was great! Responsive and understanding.

The course is extremely time consuming for a 3 hour course. The amount of content needs to be decreased for an iintroductory course.

How contribute to career: Very little. Being as it is a core requirement, I took the course. Given the amount of work and little relevance to my job, I would not recommend the course.

Will use new tools: In some articles, epi terminology is used. I now have a better understanding of those study statistics.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/15/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

182: “Instructor: Yes the material is organized, however, several topic areas could have been introduced as one topic (i.e. rates, ratios, etc...and how to measure association with them) instead of introducing those concepts right in the middle of learning about cohort design or case-control designs... If possible keep the topics to one subject area.

Questions (tests & case studies) were often asked so generally, it was difficult to determine exactly what was being asked.

Advance info wanted: Text book readings would be helpful to get started on this way in advance.

How contribute to career: Reviewing research articles. Evaluating data.

Will use new tools: Looking for associations between causes of injury and injury prevalance/incidence. Determining study design and evaluation methods.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/13/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

79: “This course is sold as an innovative online class. It feels like a traditional class that has been put online and not directed by the newest pedagogy on distance learning.”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

40: “In general I greatly enjoy the content of the course and the conceptual concepts. I greatly do not appreciate however the lag in between the class lecture and my recitation section. It's greatly confusing and not helpful to have the recitation for the specific weeks correspoding lecture a week later. By the time my recitation meets I've already had to start working on the questions for the week prior, thus I get the concepts from the two lectures mixed up.”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

150: “This class has been mass-produced and has become so formulaic that has made a really interesting subject boring. I also did not like how in the case studies there would be questions on topics that we had not covered in class or in the readings; this is not conducive to learning.”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

237: “Instructor: I felt that the material was presented in a confusing way at times. I do think Dr. Schoenbach is extremely knowledgable about the field, I just had trouble following him sometimes.

TA: Julie was absolutely fantastic. Knowledgable, always responsive, and willing to help!

Advance info wanted: how many hrs per week are expected, not sure i knew quite how much time this course would take!!”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/06/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

195: “Instructor: Excellent presentations. I liked the humor.

TA: Your quick and responsive answers were very helpful. Our group seems to have lost enthusiasm towards the end and after the exams. Perhaps a little "kick" might have been needed.

The content covers the subject extensively.

At several points I felt like there were too many things going on at once - group discussions, advanced readings, individuals assignments, etc. These need to be coordinated.

Advance info wanted: I feel there were just to many internet discussions and I felt that our group lost enthusiasm towards the end. Also the group exercises do not really promote discussion, more a search for "the" answer. I'd like to have more free flowi

How contribute to career: I do consulting for community health centers and understanding these principles is invaluable. While taking this course, I was working on a major funding proposal. The concepts gave me a lot of confidence in my discussions.

Will use new tools: I study the health of vulnerable, underserved populations; course has given many good tools. Used the RR in my proposal to discuss minority health disparities.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/09/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

57: “It would be EXTREMELY helpful if a reference sheet (with detailed vocabulary) of the mathmatical formulas used in this were available prior to the start of the semester. There isn't one posted on the website or in the back of the text.”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

232: “How contribute to career: I would like to participate in a study on the genetic risk factors for eye disease”
(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/06/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

148: “I think this would have been an excellent class, I was very interested in the material, but the course load was astronomical- it was impossible to keep up and digest all of the information. Also, taking it with our capstone class was completely unfair- and unreasonable. I hope the school of public health feels shame for what they did to all of us, and never does this to anyone again”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

113: “I really thought the class could have provided a clearer overview of introductory Epi topics. We seemed to race through material that I didn't understand and have an increased number of power point slides during lecture that we less helpful. I think cutting down on the lecture slides would draw more people to actually attend lecture especially if they were focused on topics and specifics about those topics (instead of huge broad overviews). I appreciate that there was a lot of information to get to, but it could have been presented in a more helpful format. I appreciated the TAs power point slides, but would like to have had them before the individual case studies were due in order to properly prepare for recitation. Furthermore, I thought the case study questions were sometimes worded in a less-than-straight-forward manner; clearer questions would be great.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/07)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

119: “It was a well designed course, and especially the group discussions were well organized!”
(2nd peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/12/07)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

106: “The study materials from Prof. and TA are really supportive for learning epidemiological concepts. However, international student like me has to take more time to cover all stuffs. Sometime I don't understand the questions in case-studies when I work on myself. But, I'm clarified when do discuss in the lab session. Postponing individual due date and reducing submitted questions were effective policy to decrease workload in this class. However, they also reduced the degree of discussion too. On exam3, slides from TA seem not be useful as always do. They helped me point out where the information is, but didn't guide me on critique as much as the reference book.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/06)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

10: “I am really impressed with Group 2's working dynamic. Everyone has contributed to group discussion and comes prepared to the weekly recitations.”
(1st peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/09/26)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

142: “The class was very difficult in terms of the workload. I felt it was unfair to give students taking a required course not their specified field of study take-home exams that were 10 or more hours long. Either the course should be a 4 hour course, or the workload should change. The lecture slides were old, ponderous and extremely long, full of minute details and mathematical equations that most of the students in the class will never use on a regular basis again. Finally, I felt that courses in my field of training suffered because of the enormous amount of time this class consumed: reading case studies and answering questions every week; hours of lab every week; lecture every week, and exams that required more time to complete than the total hours in an average work day. My feeling is that this course needs a complete overhaul. I would not recommend this course to other students.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

215: “Instructor: Thank you for being a professor who embraces diversity as reflected in your enthisiasm for foreign languages.

The content has been very challenging

How contribute to career: being able to measure disease”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/07/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

132: “I am sure I have written this tons of times before. But I wanted to let the instructor know that our TA, Kate, is excellent. I felt like she got us through the course and gave us a lot of support and encouragement. I hope that I can have her again, maybe as an instructor soon.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/12/09)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

158: “I enjoyed the class and how it was organized to meet objectives. My only suggestion would be to spend more time on individual case studies (less case studies) arriving at calculations within those case studies (duplicating calculations) to help with learning key concepts.”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

140: “The course does not apply principles of distance learning”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

49: “The course is interesting so far, but the fact that it is lecture-based really inhibits active learning.”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

91: “Volume and clarity of voice on Monday discussion is not great desite even downloading Adobe audio. It would also be helpful to students to work through a whole sample problem on the material presented-the summaries are nice but not what is really needed. / Maybe there is a way for TAs to present this in slide format-I think this would help solidify concepts to EPI students.”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

239: “Instructor: this was essentially a self taught course.

TA: he seemed very genuine in wanting to help, guide, and re-direct.

Too much content in the time frame. Therefore, assimilation and integration of course content was compromised. This is a course that does not lend itself well to self-learning in its current format. Evidence of this can be seen in the exam scores. Ther

Too much overall > information, course work/assignments, blackboard site, and deliverables. Total information overload. Expectations did not align with course content, delivery and course methodology.

Advance info wanted: I felt completely disadvantaged taking this course with MHA Capstone. Not wise, nor conducive to a positive learning experience. Recommendation: consider the value of this course for MHA students. If it remains a requirement, re-va

How contribute to career: I may be able to converse with scientists that I come in contact with based on terminology taught as well as overall role of epidemiology in public health/population health. I will also likely be able to more critically evaluate

Will use new tools: Will not use these tools, as a hospital adminstrator.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/06/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

81: “The weekly assignments are tough to keep up with, especially having group and individual assignments due back to back.”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

21: “Would like a better means for file collaboration. The discussion board is somewhat unwieldy. Haven't used the file exchange but I think the wiki board would probably be best if we can figure out how to use it. We have used google docs and that worked well but I think some people were uncomfortable with it.”
Suzanne, MPH student, PHPX, TA: Beth (1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/25)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

101: “I enjoyed working with this group. Everyone was very supportive and worked well together.”
(2nd peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/12/08)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

131: “Vic's enthusiasm is "infectious". He clearly wants his students to learn and be able to use the material. Kate was a very effective, responsive and helpful instructor. During the exam, I appreciate her efforts to steer me in the right direction without being overly directive.”
Edward, CERT student, PHCP, TA: Kate (2nd peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/12/09)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

234: “Sometimes the assignments are very close esp when doing both the indvidual and group reading and it is stressful sometimes

The delivery of the course was very good.

Advance info wanted: I recommend to give more highlights about the important issues ( 1 page summary at end of each lesson)

How contribute to career: I will be involved in clinical research regarding kidney and this will improve my research experience

Will use new tools: Very useful in research”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/06/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

184: “Instructor: This course was too far "in the weeds" of the technical epidemiological skills. I would have greatly appreciated learning how this will impact me as a non-epidemiology public health worker. This was not provided in the slightest, and, from the best I can tell, never considered to be included.

TA: THe grading of exams was terrible. "See Answer Key" does not really foster learning after the exam is returned.

Include practical applications for the rest of the students in SPH since this is a survey course geared toward non-EPI students.

How contribute to career: Apparently Epidemiology will never impact my life. This class showed ABSOLUTELY NO interaction with other career paths in public health. This is a MAJOR concern that should be addressed.

Will use new tools: Again, see above. There was never any discussion about other careers -- just extremely technical epidemiology that will not be applicable to other public health careers.

Topics to add: How does Epi pertain to BIOS, HPM, Nutrition, HBHE, etc. Make this applicable to everyone else, not a prerequisite for other EPI classes.”

(NCIPH, Internet course, 12/11/2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

3: “I don't really remember who these people are - most have done nothing to warrant being remembered. They show up, i guess they do some work and we move on without much from them. Some are much better than others few are memorable.”
(1st peer evaluation, Classroom course, 2010/09/27)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

61: “I feel that it would be more helpful to have the recitation before the next class because starting a new topic while still having to work on a previous topic is difficult.”
(TAeval1, Classroom course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

30: “Many of the case study questions ask for biostats computations that have not been covered in the course. If you have not yet taken biostats, as is my case, the weekly estimate of time required for the course is far greater.”
(1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/27)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

156: “This course needs to be designed differently for Exceutive MHA students , as we did not get a overall Executive Management view as it relates to effective budgeting, operations, modeling etc.”
(UNCcourseeval, Internet course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

145: “I felt like I had to teach myself this material. Dr. Schoenbach is a wonderfully personable man and has immense knowledge and vast experience in epidemiology, yet he is unable to hone that in to teach a basic foundation of epid. I would suggest that he teach upper level courses only. Epid is a very important foundation for all of public health and it is disappointing that I don't feel confident about any of the material. The entire class is a swirl of confusion, from the scheduling to the assignments. It really is a disservice to incoming students wanting to build a strong foundation in epid.”
(UNCcourseeval, Classroom course, )
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

128: “Overall the group worked well. Please make this form work correctly with google chrome!”
(2nd peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/12/09)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

75: “Challenging, seems extremely fast paced when attepting to juggle a full time job. The time necessary to fully understand and digest the information has been eye opening. However, the material is extremely interesting. Lectures notes are somewhat wordy and difficult to follow without reading them several times. (might be my own issue, no offence). The text has been an incredible help in understanding the material though. I am enjoying the course.”
(TAeval1, Internet course, 2010)
Order by date submitted.
______________________________

27: “I am enjoying this course and learning a lot about Epidemology. Irina is very prompt about responding to my quesions and well as Dr. Vic!”
(1st peer evaluation, Internet course, 2010/09/29)
Order by date submitted.

(An additional 65 comments were received but the students did not authorize their dissemination.)

Back to top Information for students EPID160 home page

2010cd, compiled 1/23/2011