- 201701-CMSC435-0101-SOFTWARE ENGINEERING - James Purtilo - Instructor Report

Grade A	Grade B	Grade C	Grade D	Grade F	Grade PS	Grade W
18	21	8	0	0	0	0

By Score

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)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
The course was intellectually challenging.	3.40	3.28	3.25	3.38
I learned a lot from this course.	3.44	3.20	3.11	3.18
Overall	3.42	3.24	3.18	3.28

Back | Top of Page

By Frequency

1. The course was intellectually challenging.

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	1	4.0%
Disagree	1	1	4.0%
Neutral	2	0	0.0%
Agree	3	8	32.0%
Strongly Agree	4	15	60.0%

Statistics	Value
Response Count	25
Mean	3.40
Standard Deviation	1.00

2. I learned a lot from this course.

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	2	8.0%
Disagree	1	0	0.0%
Neutral	2	1	4.0%
Agree	3	4	16.0%
Strongly Agree	4	18	72.0%

Statistics	Value
Response Count	25
Mean	3.44
Standard Deviation	1.16

Back | Top of Page

How does this course fit into your academic plan or course of study?

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
General Education or CORE Requirement	0	1	4.0%
Major/Certificate/Minor/Program Requirement	1	24	96.0%
Elective	2	0	0.0%

Back | Top of Page

Additional comments (e.g. about course content/materials, teaching style, etc.):

Comments
Best teacher in all of CS department. Would recommend separating blog into two parts one with assignment information and another with your comments to make information on assignments easier to get to. I recommend this because it was very clunky to go through the blog every time to get to what you really wanted to see. Everything else in the class was great. The style of teaching, making us work in teams made this class a perfect ready to get ready for the job market.
Should have been more clear early on about project ideas not being chosen by us and groups being merged.
This was one of the worst CS courses I have ever taken in my life. The professor was intentionally vague at times, which is fine. He does this to teach you about real world software engineering--requirements are vague. But that really isn't cool when people's grades are affected. For example, we had a scrimmage where we had to complete an elevator simulator. We submitted our code, and he basically said something along the lines of "Looks like you have a product, but you didn't include a readme or anything, so I didn't run it" and gave us practically a 0. Like, yes--its an important lesson to say that you should package your code in an .exe or include a readme so customers know what to do with your code. But why do you have to be so rude about it? You could instead have given us these requirements and we would have learned them--or instead mentioned it but not graded us about it. He would frequently play with people's grades to teach us 'lessons'. Also, we would have quizzes on things that were just things he made up. Such as what are the 10 software engineering principles. He wouldn't post slides, and they aren't online. It's not like that there are 10 definitive software engineering principles or anything--those are just 10 principles that he selected. Also, these quizzes were pop quizzes which would start immediately at the beginning of class which is really stressful for people who have a class right before this and might come in slightly late. He was just really unclear about the greenlight process of the final project too. And he would always give really snarky comments on the blog. It was really annoying. I do not think I learned much about software engineering! This class was just stressful and I didn't learn much other than 'MAKE SURE YOU KNOW THE REQUIREMENTS AND COMMUNICATE'. I learned more about good software engineering and agile principles from CMSC436 taught by Charles Song, which is a great course. Charles Song really knows good programming practices, agile principles, etc. But the professor just lectures us with powerpoints, and makes us do the group project where he had really unclear expectations. We put in countless all nighters just working on the proposal, code, projects, and still didn't receive good grades which is ridiculous. There was no clear place to get course content. He would assign stuff in little snippets in the blog--but sometimes instead he would put stuff on the course links on the front page--and sometimes it wouldn't be in the blog just something he says in class. It was not very organized.
Purtilo is a very intelligent and competent teacher. The class is very distinct from other �mic' classes, so compared to other classes we didn't really 'learn' anything in 435 in an academic sense. But, we still learned a great deal of useful skills as opposed to formulas and vocabulary. Constructive criticism: * Reorganize the website to be just as easy to use as Canvas or start using Canvas. Canvas gives calendars, a great mobile app, and other tools that integrate stuff from multiple classes in one environment. It was hard to find all of your material buried in your website which has no app with widgets / notifications for the phone. Almost all of your material was bombastic and verbose. It was difficult to find requirements and important dates without digging through your essays. Separate out important dates and requirement into something like a concise table / calendar. * I appreciate the effort you put into making slides and presenting them; however there was no incentive to pay attention (unless you specifically say there's a quiz on something). There was no ramification for ignoring you. If you want people to pay attention say everything is quiz-able or call out people who aren't paying attention. However, mostly during your class I worked on stuff for your class instead of paying attention to your lectures. * The elevator project did not add very much, if any, value to the course for me. Really it stole time from working on the longer project. If you want better semester-long projects, limit or remove the elevator project. * Also something to be careful about, is at the beginning of the semester, I found you condescending or intimidating, so it doesn't hurt to be especially careful about that sort of thing at the beginning. Towards the end, it became easier to see you are actually a really good person and a good teacher.
I put in considerable effort because I wanted a considerable outcome.
This is the most valuable course I have taken. This course teaches so much that no other class touches on.
Wonderful course, learned a lot. Syllabus could be a little clearer though. Also the spacing of the projects could be better. Assign groups earlier?
Course is a lot of work but it is fair. Teachs you how to work in a team and do real world software engineering and not just blind unrealistic programming assignments like most of the classes in the computer science degree.
Would have been nice to start as the big group earlier 1-2 scrimmages with the small teams and then immediately into project tasking would have been nice, most groups could have benefited from having more time Having the VM was integral to my team's success
put in tons of effort, scared to fail everyday, but in the end learned alot
For the projects without a direct customer. If the wants for that project are spelled out a little more clearly that would be helpful. Maybe give examples of what you want the project to do. I did learn a lot from the failure, though I hope without lasting effects.
Dr. Purtilo clearly cares about providing the best experience for the students. There were aspect of the class I really enjoyed and aspects I enjoyed less. I really appreciated the effort that Dr. Purtilo put into the class. He was always extremely responsive and willing to go the extra mile (or two) for the students. I also really liked that he made the effort to know everyone in the course. It is rare that teachers know their students that well. I have some comments regarding how the class could be improved. The first and most important comment is that I think the first group elevator project should be scrapped and the final project simply extended to cover more of the semester. Making the time window longer for the final project would allow teams to spend the appropriate time planning AND the appropriate time doing the work. I didn't think the first project had much value, certainly relative to the final project. I think the final products would have been less "hackathoned" if the proposal process and green lights were all completed by Spring break, which seems plausible if the teams are assigned within the first few weeks. This longer period would mean more time to code, test, prototype and debug. The current structure of the class correctly emphasizes the importance of documentation but I think it currently underplays the importance of a real, good final product (All the planning in the world won't make up for a flashy-but-bad product). My second suggestion would be to enforce some type of organization on the teams. Specifically ensure that everyone has a defined role. I think doing this would be a real help to teams. One thing that would really help with this type of organization would be improving the ticketing system to be something that is useful to the team and not just for log check purposes. If there was a central location where people could log tickets communally I think it would really make the slackers do more and reduce conflicts from people doing the same work in parallel. I'm aware these softwares exist independently of Dr. Purtilo (Trello), but if he made it a required part of the course it would go a long way towards increasing efficiency of teams. Next, I think that Dr. Purtilo should change the lecture structure. I think that at least one class meeting time a week should have at least half the class devoted to group work (at least once groups are assigned). Finding any other times that 8 students can meet is almost impossible; the times we were able to meet in class were some of the most productive meetings we had. Implementing far more in class group project time would also vastly increase the quality of the final products. Overall, I can tell Dr.Purtilo cares a lot about the course and really cares about the students as well. I hope he considers at least some of these suggestions because I think they would really help the students get the most value out of the course.
This is the first class at the University of Maryland that actually taught what it is like to be in the industry. This was the best class I have taken and should be required for the major.

Back | Top of Page

By Score

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)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
The instructor treated students with respect.	3.68	3.42	3.46	3.46
The instructor was well-prepared for class.	3.64	3.26	3.35	3.32
Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher.	3.12	3.02	3.08	3.01
Overall	3.48	3.23	3.30	3.26

Back | Top of Page

By Frequency

1. The instructor treated students with respect.

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	1	4.0%
Disagree	1	0	0.0%
Neutral	2	0	0.0%
Agree	3	4	16.0%
Strongly Agree	4	20	80.0%

Statistics	Value
Response Count	25
Mean	3.68
Standard Deviation	0.85

2. The instructor was well-prepared for class.

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	1	4.0%
Disagree	1	0	0.0%
Neutral	2	1	4.0%
Agree	3	3	12.0%
Strongly Agree	4	20	80.0%

Statistics	Value
Response Count	25
Mean	3.64
Standard Deviation	0.91

3. Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher.

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	3	12.0%
Disagree	1	1	4.0%
Neutral	2	1	4.0%
Agree	3	5	20.0%
Strongly Agree	4	15	60.0%

Statistics	Value
Response Count	25
Mean	3.12
Standard Deviation	1.39

Back | Top of Page

Overall Score

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

Competency	Course
The course was intellectually challenging	3.40
I learned a lot from this course	3.44
The instructor treated students with respect	3.68
The instructor was well-prepared for class	3.64
Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher	3.12
Total Score	3.46

Back | Top of Page

By Score

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)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
The standards the instructor set for students were...	1.16	1.15	1.12	1.15

Back | Top of Page

By Frequency

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Too Low	0	0	0.0%
Appropriate	1	21	84.0%
Too High	2	4	16.0%

Back | Top of Page

By Score

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)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
Course guidelines were clearly described in the syllabus.	2.96	3.12	3.20	3.19

Back | Top of Page

By Frequency

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	1	4.0%
Disagree	1	2	8.0%
Neutral	2	5	20.0%
Agree	3	6	24.0%
Strongly Agree	4	11	44.0%

Statistics	Value
Response Count	25
Mean	2.96
Standard Deviation	1.17

Back | Top of Page

By Score

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)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
Based on the quality of my work in this course, the grades I earned were	0.92	0.82	0.84	0.82

Back | Top of Page

By Frequency

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Too Low	0	2	8.3%
Appropriate	1	22	91.7%
Too High	2	0	0.0%

Back | Top of Page

By Score

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)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
Given the course level and number of credits, the workload was	1.32	1.21	1.14	1.14

Back | Top of Page

By Frequency

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Too Low	0	0	0.0%
Appropriate	1	17	68.0%
Too High	2	8	32.0%

Back | Top of Page

By Score

Scale is Little (0) to Considerable (2) with a Moderate mid-point

Question	Course	Department (CMNS-Computer Science)	College (CMNS)	Course Level (CMNS_400)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
How much effort did you put into the course?	1.84	1.54	1.44	1.49

Back | Top of Page

By Frequency

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Little	0	0	0.0%
Moderate	1	4	16.0%
Considerable	2	21	84.0%

Back | Top of Page

By Score

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)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
The instructor was effective in communicating the content of the course.	2.92	3.02	3.09	3.02
The instructor was responsive to student concerns.	3.72	3.25	3.27	3.26
The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content.	2.80	2.93	3.00	2.91

Back | Top of Page

By Frequency

1. The instructor was effective in communicating the content of the course.

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	3	12.0%
Disagree	1	2	8.0%
Neutral	2	2	8.0%
Agree	3	5	20.0%
Strongly Agree	4	13	52.0%

Statistics	Value
Response Count	25
Mean	2.92
Standard Deviation	1.44

2. The instructor was responsive to student concerns.

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	1	4.0%
Disagree	1	0	0.0%
Neutral	2	1	4.0%
Agree	3	1	4.0%
Strongly Agree	4	22	88.0%

Statistics	Value
Response Count	25
Mean	3.72
Standard Deviation	0.89

3. The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content.

Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	3	12.0%
Disagree	1	1	4.0%
Neutral	2	5	20.0%
Agree	3	5	20.0%
Strongly Agree	4	11	44.0%

Statistics	Value
Response Count	25
Mean	2.80
Standard Deviation	1.38

Back | Top of Page