Opportunities:

Opportunities for graduate studies will be posted here when they are available.

However, students with 85% or above in their B.Sc. and M.Sc. are always encouraged to apply as there may be special opportunities for exceptionally talented students.

 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!  If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. Jesus is

“‘the stone you builders rejected,
    which has become the cornerstone.’

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”


Acts 4:8-12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Course Evaluations

Course Evaluation

Summary of course Evaluations (U of G)

The following table summarizes the course evaluations for the six courses that I taught for a total of 14 times between 2010 and 2014 at University of Guelph, School of Engineering (click here for details).

  • Q1: The instructor provided a clear statement of course objective and requirements.
  • Q2: The instructor presented the course in a well-organized manner.
  • Q3: Where appropriate, the instructor encouraged response from the class and was responsible to the viewpoints, interest and questions of the students.
  • Q4: The instructor’s evaluation of my performance was fair.
  • Q5: The instructor was available for consultation during office hours.

RESPONSE TYPE TO Q1 TO Q6:
(5) I strongly agree; (4) I agree; (3) I neither agree nor disagree; (2) I disagree; (1) I strongly disagree.

  • Q6: My overall rating of the instructor of this course is ____.
  • Q7: My overall rating of the course is _____.

RESPONSE TYPE TO Q6 TO Q7:
(5) Much better than average; (4) Better than average; (3) Average; (2) Worse than average; (1) Much worse than average.

  • Q8: The intellectual effort was _______ for this level.
  • Q9: The work load was _______ for this course.

RESPONSE TYPE TO Q8 TO Q9:
(5) To high, too much; (4) Somewhat high; (3) Just right – best answer; (2) Somewhat low, slightly too little; (1) Too low, too little.

No.

Term

Course Number (Course Title)

Enrollment
Number

Mean students response

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

1

W14

Computer Aided Design and Manufacturing (ENGG*3120)

53

4.7

4.0

3.8

4.2

4.0

4.1

4.0

3.4

3.6

2

W14

Kinematics and Dynamics (ENGG*2340)

143

3.8

3.5

3.8

3.6

3.9

3.3

3.2

3.6

3.7

3

F13

Integrated Manufacturing Systems (ENGG*3070

59

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.1

4.1

3.6

3.2

3.2

4

F13

Simulation Analysis of Discrete Event Systems (ENGG*6090)

11

4.9

4.8

4.9

4.8

4.9

4.7

4.6

3.4

3.1

5

W13

Kinematics and Dynamics (ENGG*2340)

113

3.9

3.8

4.1

3.6

3.8

3.5

3.3

3.6

3.7

6

W13

Computer Aided Design and Manufacturing (ENGG*3120)

32

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.2

3.8

4.0

4.1

3.1

3.1

7

F12

Integrated Manufacturing Systems (ENGG*3070)

28

3.1

2.9

3.0

3.6

3.8

2.8

2.9

3.1

3.1

8

S12

Optimization Techniques (ENGG*6140)

8

4.7

4.7

4.7

4.7

4.6

4.3

4.1

3.4

3.1

9

W12

Computer Aided Design and Manufacturing (ENGG*3120)

8

4.3

4.0

3.8

4.8

4.5

4.0

3.8

2.8

3.0

10

W12

Kinematics and Dynamics (ENGG*2340)

94

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.3

4.2

4.2

3.9

3.5

3.2

11

S11

Optimization Techniques (ENGG*6140)

6

3.8

4.0

4.3

4.2

4.3

3.7

3.7

2.8

2.8

12

W11

Kinematics and Dynamics (ENGG*2340)

67

4.1

3.9

4.1

4.4

4.4

3.8

3.8

3.5

3.2

13

F10

Engineering Mechanics I (ENGG*1210)

164

3.8

3.8

3.6

3.7

3.7

2.9

2.9

3.8

3.5

14

W10

Engineering Mechanics I (ENGG*1210)

46

4.0

4.3

4.3

4.4

4.5

3.8

3.1

3.9

3.9

Average for combined Q1 to Q7 = 4.0 (Best is 5)
Average for combined Q8 and Q9  = 3.3 (Best is 3.0, whereas 5.0, 4.0, 2.0 or 1.0 are not preferred)

Summary of Coruse Evaluations (Concordia University)

The following table summarizes the course evaluations for the courses I taught at Concordia University (click here for details).

Type of Responses:

Questions Descriptions of questions Courses:
  1. 2009 INDU 311 Industrial Systems Simulation
  2. 2009 INDU 324 INDU 6121 (Operations Research II/ Advanced Operations Research
  3. 2008 INDU 323 Industrial Operations Research
  4. 2007 INDU 323 Industrial Operations Research
  5. 2007 INDU 6211 Production Systems and Inventory Control
  6. 2006 INDU 6211 Production Systems and Inventory Control

Course name and year - refer to the above list

1

2

3

4

5

6

Q1

Overall, this course has been...

4.50

4.09

4.60

4.66

4.08

4.35

Q2

Overall, the instructor has been...

4.55

4.43

4.68

4.67

4.17

4.50

Q3

Overall, my learning has been...

4.35

4.06

4.33

4.55

4.08

4.27

Q4

Course outline and syllabus are clear, complete and well explained.

4.65

4.26

4.57

4.69

4.00

4.32

Q5

Course materials, text book or readings are useful or relevant.

4.40

4.35

4.47

4.55

4.08

4.44

Q6

I have found this course intellectually challenging and stimulating.

4.65

4.12

4.20

4.55

3.92

4.44

Q7

The course met the objectives as stated in the course outline.

4.55

4.00

4.53

4.67

4.00

4.40

Q8

Instructor demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of the subject matter.

4.75

4.53

4.80

4.69

4.33

4.64

Q9

The instructor's explanations are clear.

4.35

4.41

4.33

4.45

4.00

4.16

Q10

The instructor provides feedback in the form of exams and/or assignment grading.

4.10

4.09

4.60

4.67

4.25

4.40

Q11

Students are encouraged to ask questions.

4.50

4.38

4.50

4.73

3.92

4.64

Q12

Students are encouraged to share their ideas and knowledge.

4.40

4.17

4.33

4.67

3.92

4.56

Q13

The instructor is approachable.

4.86

4.47

4.80

4.87

4.27

4.69

Note: 2009-INDU 324/ INDU 6121 (Operations Research II/ Advanced Operations Research) is a combined Undergrad and Grad Course

Overall average in 13 questions over 6 courses  = 4.41 out of 5

Summary of Coruse Evaluations (Addis Ababa University)

The following table summarizes the course evaluations for the courses I taught in Addis Ababa University (click here for details).


Questions

Descriptions of questions

Courses:

  1. MEng 515 - Industrial Management and Engineering Economy
  2. MEng 202 – Engineering Mechanics II (Dynamics)
  3. MEng 416 – Engineering mechanics IV (Vibration)
  4. EE212 – Probability and statistics
  5. MEng 409 – Production Technology I
  6. MEng 202 – Machine Drawing I
  7. MEng 235 – Machine Drawing

Course name - refer to the above list

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q1

Clarification of the statement of general objectives of the course

4.83

4.84

4.79

4.67

4.72

4.71

4.71

Q2

Presentation and clarification of course plan and course outline

4.76

4.89

4.76

4.7

4.72

4.75

4.59

Q3

Clarification of the statement of specific objectives at the beginning of each chapter or unit

4.76

4.79

4.52

4.52

4.72

4.76

4.53

Q4

Instructor knowledge of the subject matter

4.73

4.81

4.54

4.47

4.64

4.76

4.75

Q5

Preparation of classes

4.90

4.95

4.76

4.76

4.72

4.57

4.59

Q6

Presentation of subject matter clearly in the language of instruction (English)

4.72

4.76

4.52

4.52

4.6

4.8

4.59

Q7

Presentation of subject matter

4.73

4.86

4.66

4.48

4.67

4.81

4.59

Q8

Willingness to encourage students to ask or answer questions in class

4.63

4.74

4.74

4.52

4.67

4.62

4.81

Q9

Willingness to let students express their options about the course in the classroom

4.73

4.75

4.61

4.35

4.64

4.6

4.59

Q10

Availability during consultation hours.

4.81

4.79

4.78

4.72

4.65

4.56

4.65

Q11

Punctuality for class

4.77

4.92

4.69

4.88

4.76

4.71

4.59

Q12

Meeting classes regularly (non-absenteeism)

4.82

4.95

4.86

4.76

4.68

4.75

4.65

Q13

Ability to arouse students interest and provoke their thinking

4.87

4.7

4.71

4.3

4.52

4.52

4.53

Q14

Ability to encourage student participation in the classroom

4.70

4.69

4.83

4.42

4.54

4.67

4.65

Q15

Appropriate use of available and relevant instructional materials (blackboard, maps, …)

4.83

4.66

4.69

4.5

4.72

4.43

4.71

Q16

Provide feedback on homework, tests and or assignments on time

4.83

4.4

4.64

4.4

4.46

4.55

4.76

Q17

Usefulness of homework and /or assignments for course work

4.87

4.5

4.54

4.28

4.6

4.55

4.76

Q18

Presence of questions in tests, exams, or homework that requires reasoning.

4.80

4.56

4.59

4.52

4.56

4.61

4.6

Q19

Amount of time allowed for test, assignments, or mid-semester exams

4.71

4.5

4.62

4.5

4.68

4.2

4.41

Q20

Coverage of course content in tests, or mid-term exams

4.83

4.69

4.59

4.67

4.67

4.53

4.59

Q21

Fairness in marking/grading

4.87

4.63

4.61

4.04

4.56

4.22

4.5

Q22

Clarification of methods of assessing students

4.84

4.48

4.64

4.43

4.67

4.5

4.76

Q23

Converge of content according course outline

4.81

4.62

4.55

4.59

4.4

4.59

4.5

Q24

Providing/giving a list of reference for the course

4.81

4.63

4.69

3.97

4.4

4.67

4.4

Q25

Use of class period for teaching or discussion of subject and related matters

4.74

4.86

4.81

4.67

4.84

4.63

4.5

Q26

Respect of students

4.85

4.92

4.85

4.84

4.88

4.63

4.63

Q27

Willingness to listen to a student’s problem

4.88

4.72

4.74

4.69

4.8

4.61

4.5

Q28

Ability to maintain appropriate discipline in the class

4.81

4.84

4.71

4.75

4.71

4.47

4.56

Q29

Clarity of questions in tests, and or/midterm

4.77

4.57

4.71

4.48

4.44

4.56

4.5

Q30

Overall assessment of instructor’s teaching effectiveness

4.77

4.83

4.68

4.73

4.6

4.74

4.69

Types of responses: (5) Very Good; (4) Good; (3) Fair; (2) Poor; (1) Very Poor

Overall Average in 30 questions over 7 courses = 4.66 out of 5

Click here for course evaluations

Click here for a comprehensive teaching dossier up to 2015