University of Maryland Course Evaluation Spring 2016
Number of Students Enrolled:
51
Number of Evaluations Submitted:
25
Response Rate:
49.0%
| Subject Details | |
|---|---|
| DIVISION_SD | CMNS |
| DEPARTMENT | CMNS-Computer Science |
| INSTR_CT | 1 |
| TA_CT | 0 |
| TEACHING_ROLE | INSTRUCTOR |
Report Comments
This report presents feedback received from students for the course 201601-CMSC435-0101-SOFTWARE ENGINEERING and for the Instructor James Purtilo in that course. Course means are provided as well as department, college, and college course-level means (e.g., all 200-level courses in a college). Means are calculated from all responses by all students in the unit (i.e., course section, department, college, course-level in a college) on that item and exclude N/A (not applicable) responses. A grade table is included on the next page.
Indication is provided below for the Large Lecture Group if there is one affiliated with this course section.
Semester: 201601
Course #: CMSC435
Section #: 0101
Course Name: 201601-CMSC435-0101-SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Large Lecture Group: No Large Lecture Designation
Instructor: James Purtilo
Indication is provided below for the Large Lecture Group if there is one affiliated with this course section.
Semester: 201601
Course #: CMSC435
Section #: 0101
Course Name: 201601-CMSC435-0101-SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Large Lecture Group: No Large Lecture Designation
Instructor: James Purtilo
Creation Date
Thu, Jun 09, 2016
Grade Distribution:
Grade distribution is current as of May 25, 2016 and includes students receiving a W for the course. Some grades are not included (e.g., Cancel, Incomplete). Student Count reflects total enrollment as of February 9, 2016 and includes any students auditing the course.
| Student Count | Grade A | Grade B | Grade C | Grade D | Grade F | Grade PS | Grade W |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 51 | 23 | 17 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Grade distribution is current as of May 25, 2016 and includes students receiving a W for the course. Some grades are not included (e.g., Cancel, Incomplete). Student Count reflects total enrollment as of February 9, 2016 and includes any students auditing the course.
Administrator University-Wide Course Items Applied to All Section Instructors
Results for use by faculty/instructors and for administrative purposes.
N/A responses have been excluded from the following calculations.
Results for use by faculty/instructors and for administrative purposes.
N/A responses have been excluded from the following calculations.
Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point
| Question | Course | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | College (CMNS) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| The course was intellectually challenging. | 3.40 | 3.42 | 3.37 | 3.36 |
| I learned a lot from this course. | 3.56 | 3.35 | 3.05 | 3.16 |
| Overall | 3.48 | 3.38 | 3.21 | 3.26 |
1. The course was intellectually challenging.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Disagree | 1 | 1 | 4.0% |
| Neutral | 2 | 1 | 4.0% |
| Agree | 3 | 10 | 40.0% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 13 | 52.0% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 25 |
| Mean | 3.40 |
| Standard Deviation | +/-0.76 |
2. I learned a lot from this course.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Disagree | 1 | 1 | 4.0% |
| Neutral | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Agree | 3 | 8 | 32.0% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 16 | 64.0% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 25 |
| Mean | 3.56 |
| Standard Deviation | +/-0.71 |
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| General Education or CORE Requirement | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Major/Certificate/Minor/Program Requirement | 1 | 25 | 100.0% |
| Elective | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Comment |
|---|
| Very confusion course expectation for student for the first 2/3 of the course; not sure what is the purpose of our assignments (ie. scrimmages) . Course goal and expectation are more clear as I work on class project with my large team. This course will be hard for me to understand if I didn't have previous work/intern experience. |
| This could easily be a four credit course, given the intense workload. However, Dr. Purtilo is committed to teaching his students about Software Engineering concepts. He truly cares about all of them, even if it feels like he doesn't sometimes. He's very "Hands off" with his teaching style, which sometimes feels like it's lacking structure but is designed to maximize the amount of decisions the students make for themselves. If you work with him, he will help you succeed. |
| There is so much information in this class it's nigh impossible to get it all down. The Gallup stuff is neat, but groups really don't want to take the time to use the results of the strengths finder. Everyone just seems to grumble about how it's $10 and thus refuses to use it at all. Seems silly to me but idk what to do about it. On top of the proposal taking a very long time, most people have no idea what the scope of the project should be and eventually just want Purtilo to tell them what to include and not to include. The "Is CMSC 435 right for me?" thingy we read does not, imo, accurately picture what this class will be like. I gives you an idea that the class will be different, yes, but it doesn't explain what a student needs to bring to the table for this class. Perhaps it's just supposed to scare away the, for lack of a better term, "lazy" students, but it gave me a completely different perception of the class then compared to now. |
| One of the more challenging courses that I have taken at UMD. Very glad I took this course, I made 10 friends along the way, and remind myself why I love computer science so much. Thank you Jim you were excellent, my only advice is to make sure teams start at an earlier time by making idea evaluation and project team forming part of an early scrimmage. |
| I feel like much of the course content could have been more useful. It would have been better if there more materials on different ways to design code for scale or for maintainability, and weighing design decisions against one another. |
| I disagreed that the course guidelines were clearly described in the syllabus - but also the syllabus explains that we should expect that. One of the things software engineering teaches you is how to deal with unclear guidelines. I think overall the whole "do this thing that you don't know how to do and learn from your mistakes", which was the theme of this class, is a good idea, and something that is rarely done. I do think I gained a lot of valuable experience from being thrown into a team with a project and just doing it. That being said, I think the lectures for the most part were a complete waste of time. Professor describes to us principles and scenarios in in such generality that we have no idea what he's talking about. If we had a few years of experience in software development we would probably have much more of an appreciation for the lessons that he's trying to teach us, but for now what we needed is more specific guidance. The website also needs to be more organized and spruced up a little bit, and we need to be alerted when important announcements are posted. |
| This course destroyed me. I spent ~30 hours a week outside of class only on this course at least 3 times during the semester. Probably the only course that hopes to reflect the real world. |
| What an amazing class. I've never felt more ready to take on my future and career than after completing this course. I'm truly thankful that I was able to get through the waitlist and get in the class. The professor's availability and effort gave it a dynamic that I have not seen in any course through my collegiate career. I'm hoping to keep close ties with Dr. Purtilo. I will forever hold close the lessons learned. |
| I feel that lectures could be more engaging. (How? I'm not sure...) This course did a really good job of teaching how businesses build software for profit. It really opened my eyes to the "bigger picture" that is often hidden in internships and other classes. |
| Purtilo is a good professor. I didn't really pay attention in lectures hough learned a lot rom outside the classroom with projects. He's a pretty entertaining guy as well whih keeps engagement up. He could be a bit clearer at times and it would have been useful for hirm to have posted examples for the engineering log. The final exam is causing a good amount of anxiety, what with the less than 14/20 or you fail policy. Learned a lot from this class and have already started to implement the poliies he taught in my work place. |
| It took me a while to get acclimated to the teaching style, but I think I can really see the value in it now. Many of the project requirements and expectations weren't explicit, but became clearer after communicating with the professor, which seems like one of the major learning outcomes of the class. |
| Course was a great introduction into SE experience as well as breakdown of what to expect in a real work environment. Dr Purtilo was a great resource being always available, and responding to revisions on reports ( Even when we didn't realize that we weren't actually doing the correct thing in terms of submission). I really enjoyed this class and would've liked to have more classes like it before senior year as they seem applicable and helped me improve my own software design practices to be able to mesh with other team members (mainly with regards to coding format and ensuring good comments as well as no commits before testing). Thanks a lot for a great last semester! |
| I invested a considerable amount of time in this course. This course should probably be worth 4 credits instead of 3 based on the workload that is expected of the students. |
Administrator University-Wide Instructor James Purtilo Items
Results for use by faculty/instructors and for administrative purposes.
N/A responses have been excluded from the following calculations.
Results for use by faculty/instructors and for administrative purposes.
N/A responses have been excluded from the following calculations.
Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point
| Question | Course | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | College (CMNS) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| The instructor treated students with respect. | 3.67 | 3.36 | 3.37 | 3.43 |
| The instructor was well-prepared for class. | 3.64 | 3.35 | 3.30 | 3.34 |
| Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher. | 3.28 | 3.07 | 2.91 | 3.03 |
| Overall | 3.53 | 3.26 | 3.20 | 3.26 |
1. The instructor treated students with respect.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Disagree | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Neutral | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Agree | 3 | 8 | 33.3% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 16 | 66.7% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 24 |
| Mean | 3.67 |
| Standard Deviation | +/-0.48 |
2. The instructor was well-prepared for class.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Disagree | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Neutral | 2 | 1 | 4.0% |
| Agree | 3 | 7 | 28.0% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 17 | 68.0% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 25 |
| Mean | 3.64 |
| Standard Deviation | +/-0.57 |
3. Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Disagree | 1 | 1 | 4.0% |
| Neutral | 2 | 3 | 12.0% |
| Agree | 3 | 9 | 36.0% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 12 | 48.0% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 25 |
| Mean | 3.28 |
| Standard Deviation | +/-0.84 |
Averaging the following five scaled Administrator items (from above, repeated below) results in the Overall Score.
Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point
Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point
| Competency | Course |
|---|---|
| The course was intellectually challenging. | 3.40 |
| I learned a lot from this course. | 3.56 |
| The instructor treated students with respect. | 3.67 |
| The instructor was well-prepared for class. | 3.64 |
| Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher. | 3.28 |
| Total Score | 3.51 |
The standards the instructor James Purtilo set for students were...
Scale is Too Low (0) to Too High (2) with an Appropriate mid-point
| Question | Course | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | College (CMNS) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| The standards the instructor set for students were... | 1.24 | 1.15 | 1.19 | 1.18 |
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Too Low | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Appropriate | 1 | 19 | 76.0% |
| Too High | 2 | 6 | 24.0% |
Student University-Wide Course Items Applied to All Section Instructors
Results for use by faculty/instructors and students.
N/A responses have been excluded from the following calculations.
Results for use by faculty/instructors and students.
N/A responses have been excluded from the following calculations.
Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point
| Question | Course | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | College (CMNS) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| Course guidelines were clearly described in the syllabus. | 2.75 | 3.25 | 3.21 | 3.15 |
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 1 | 4.2% |
| Disagree | 1 | 4 | 16.7% |
| Neutral | 2 | 1 | 4.2% |
| Agree | 3 | 12 | 50.0% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 6 | 25.0% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 24 |
| Mean | 2.75 |
| Standard Deviation | +/-1.15 |
Based on the quality of my work in this course, the grades I earned were
Scale is Too Low (0) to Too High (2) with an Appropriate mid-point
| Question | Course | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | College (CMNS) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| Based on the quality of my work in this course, the grades I earned were | 0.96 | 0.82 | 0.74 | 0.77 |
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Too Low | 0 | 1 | 4.2% |
| Appropriate | 1 | 23 | 95.8% |
| Too High | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
Given the course level and number of credits, the workload was
Scale is Too Low (0) to Too High (2) with an Appropriate mid-point
| Question | Course | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | College (CMNS) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| Given the course level and number of credits, the workload was | 1.40 | 1.16 | 1.21 | 1.16 |
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Too Low | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Appropriate | 1 | 15 | 60.0% |
| Too High | 2 | 10 | 40.0% |
How much effort did you put into the course?
Scale is Little (0) to Considerable (2) with a Moderate mid-point
| Question | Course | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | College (CMNS) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| How much effort did you put into the course? | 1.76 | 1.54 | 1.55 | 1.54 |
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Little | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Moderate | 1 | 6 | 24.0% |
| Considerable | 2 | 19 | 76.0% |
Student University-Wide Instructor James Purtilo Items
Results for use by faculty/instructors and students.
N/A responses have been excluded from the following calculations.
Results for use by faculty/instructors and students.
N/A responses have been excluded from the following calculations.
Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point
| Question | Course | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | College (CMNS) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| The instructor was effective in communicating the content of the course. | 3.32 | 3.10 | 2.94 | 3.04 |
| The instructor was responsive to student concerns. | 3.72 | 3.23 | 3.15 | 3.23 |
| The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content. | 3.08 | 2.96 | 2.84 | 2.97 |
1. The instructor was effective in communicating the content of the course.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Disagree | 1 | 1 | 4.0% |
| Neutral | 2 | 1 | 4.0% |
| Agree | 3 | 12 | 48.0% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 11 | 44.0% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 25 |
| Mean | 3.32 |
| Standard Deviation | +/-0.75 |
2. The instructor was responsive to student concerns.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Disagree | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Neutral | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Agree | 3 | 7 | 28.0% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 18 | 72.0% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 25 |
| Mean | 3.72 |
| Standard Deviation | +/-0.46 |
3. The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 2 | 8.0% |
| Disagree | 1 | 2 | 8.0% |
| Neutral | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Agree | 3 | 9 | 36.0% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 12 | 48.0% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 25 |
| Mean | 3.08 |
| Standard Deviation | +/-1.26 |