Report Comments
This report presents feedback received from students for the course 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 Report Group if there is one affiliated with this course section, otherwise it is blank. The Report Group will be the lead section of a grouped course (i.e. multi-section lecture) and/or the primary of cross-listed courses.
Semester: Fall 2018
College: College of Computer, Math & Natural Sciences
Department: CMNS-Computer Science
Course #: CMSC435
Section #: 0101
Course Title: SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Report Group:
Instructor: James Purtilo
Indication is provided below for the Report Group if there is one affiliated with this course section, otherwise it is blank. The Report Group will be the lead section of a grouped course (i.e. multi-section lecture) and/or the primary of cross-listed courses.
Semester: Fall 2018
College: College of Computer, Math & Natural Sciences
Department: CMNS-Computer Science
Course #: CMSC435
Section #: 0101
Course Title: SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Report Group:
Instructor: James Purtilo
Grade Distribution
Grade distribution is current as of January 2, 2019 and includes students receiving a W for the course. Some grades are not included (e.g., Cancel, Incomplete).
| Grade A | Grade B | Grade C | Grade D | Grade F | Grade PS | Grade W |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 | 17 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Grade distribution is current as of January 2, 2019 and includes students receiving a W for the course. Some grades are not included (e.g., Cancel, Incomplete).
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.
By Score
Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point
| Question | Course | College (CMNS) | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| The course was intellectually challenging. | 3.15 | 3.26 | 3.35 | 3.42 |
| I learned a lot from this course. | 2.96 | 3.08 | 3.22 | 3.21 |
By Frequency
1. The course was intellectually challenging.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 1 | 3.7% |
| Disagree | 1 | 1 | 3.7% |
| Neutral | 2 | 3 | 11.1% |
| Agree | 3 | 10 | 37.0% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 12 | 44.4% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 27 |
| Mean | 3.15 |
| Standard Deviation | 1.03 |
2. I learned a lot from this course.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 1 | 3.7% |
| Disagree | 1 | 3 | 11.1% |
| Neutral | 2 | 1 | 3.7% |
| Agree | 3 | 13 | 48.1% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 9 | 33.3% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 27 |
| Mean | 2.96 |
| Standard Deviation | 1.09 |
How does this course fit into your academic plan or course of study?
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| General Education or CORE Requirement | 0 | 1 | 3.7% |
| Major/Certificate/Minor/Program Requirement | 1 | 25 | 92.6% |
| Elective | 2 | 1 | 3.7% |
Additional comments (e.g. about course content/materials, teaching style, etc.):
| Comments |
|---|
| Purtillo was very quick with grading things which was extremely helpful. My project (ConfigEdit) was a very abstract project and Purtilo was not very helpful in helping our group visualize the problem or guide us towards it. I would have prefered to be put on a more concrete project with a specific goal. Purtilo also shifted the direction of our project several times which made it frustrating because it made our group feel helpless and like we weren't working towards a specific goal. |
| Great class and Purtilo is an amazing professor who clearly cares about the course as well as his students. My only complaint is that as a 3credit course, the workload was too much. This course should be at least a 4credit course. |
| I really enjoyed the structure of this class, and how much was stressed about creating a product and not just a project. I loved the idea of the professor acting as a client, and thought it was a really unique class in that sense. Working in a team of 8 was difficult (as expected), but not impossible, and thought it was really enjoyable to do that. It was a great opportunity to network, and my teammates were mostly really enjoyable people to be with, not to mention very technically skilled. |
| I agree that this course should be counted as two – I definitely put in more than 4 credit hours of work. As for the course as a whole, if the project tasking was intentionally confusing then good job, if not then you should be clearer on the site. |
| Have a function point analysis practice during the scrimmages before the semester project. Tell people what a Cap Stone project is and the amount of effort is expected of people before the semester starts. Give people the slides/lecture notes, and send email alerts when you post blog messages. |
| In the future, I hope that you nix the warmup exercise and instead start the main project earlier. I don't think it is particularly helpful for the purposes of software engineering to have a warmup exercise and that the more time spent in a new group working on a large scale software project is more valuable. I know that our team was pressed for time at the end and another month of development time would have been very useful for testing and flushing out features. |
| In order for the textbook to have been more helpful, we should have had more quizzes that tested that we read certain chapters. The empty threat of having a quiz was still not enough to keep me engaged in class, other than just showing up. We should have had weekly quizzes to keep people engaged. Also, the material didn't seem to reflect what our teams were working on directly. This was another reason I was not engaged, because the material didn't seem to apply to me at the time. I understand that the engineering principles we learn will help me out in the future, but as a senior in college with other responsibilities, this promise is not enough. |
| The course overall was structured well. We did not waste much time in class and we were given plenty of time to work on our projects. I do wish we had some sort of choice over what projects we received. I understand the balancing act for teams, but I would've been a bit more motivated had I been given a choice of projects. In terms of the material, I think a lot of what we learned was useful in the real world, but I do wish that some of this was stuff we had learned earlier. A lot of what was covered is knowledge that gets picked up through internships and real world experience, which I already had going into the class. If we had learned this freshman or sophomore year, we would have gotten useful knowledge going into our first internships. |
| The worst teacher I have had. Half the time no one in my group knew what was expected of us. Grades were ambiguous. I was accused of cheating on the very first quiz. Instead of first coming to me and talking to me, he sent me to academic dishonesty hearings, which had me worried I would not graduate and eventually led to nothing. I was given zeros on assignments that were not explained or written or well announced. I was given zeros for assignments I missed because I joined late off the waitlists. Jim is unhelpful, unclear, horrible about instructions, unsympathetic, unfair grader, bad lecturer, and at times, plain rude. |
| I was a little disappointed with this course. There are various productivity and technical tools used in the work force to help manage and work on complex technical projects. I think this course would be a lot more beneficial to students if we were provided the opportunity and guidance to work with and learn such tools. Examples of applications and technologies I would recommend covering are git and/or Perforce, Jira, Slack, Agile, Kanban, and Confluence. From my experience these are extensively used in the workforce and it would be a great benefit if students could be exposed to them before graduation. |
| – I personally enjoyed the project and I liked how it could be useful in practice. – In my opinion, the course site and the peer review site has a lot of things that could be improved. The way that things are organized is confusing and it is frustrating to follow links instead of having dedicated sections for each major piece of the site. Some of the things on the peer review site does not work and some necessary functionality, such as being able to tally up task hours is missing. – Dr. Purtilo was extremely available to help guide us throughout the project. My team and I really appreciate his advice when we planned and implemented our project. – I wish that people had more preparation for the tools in the class. I have noticed that a lot of people were not familiar with interfacing the VM (there's even people who do not know what a VM even is). A class dedicated towards the PRACTICAL application of software tools would have been a great pre–req for this course. – One way that could promote team engagement is assigning a mandatory team meetup before the project even begins (like a coffee meeting). This will get people settled with each other so that they can get a feel of everyone else's strengths and weaknesses. |
| Throughout the semester I have been really impressed with Dr Purtilo's commitment to a high quality class and learning as much as possible through experience. I really got the feeling that he has been honing this class over a long time and making improvements every semester which is definitely not a commitment that every professor has. Dr Purtilo demonstrated early on how much wisdom and knowledge he has from his career and what his goals and philosophy of the class are – to facilitate and enable our process of learning through experience by preparing us and giving us the tools we need, giving us a challenge he knows we can handle, guiding us closely throughout the project, and helping us reflect throughout and after the project so we can "get maximum value" by learning from what happened. It was clear that he held everyone to a high standard of effort, taking our project seriously, and learning from it. |
| 435 was an interesting course. Dr. Putilo throws you right into a scrimmage too see how you think on your toes. I liked the first coding exercise (calculating possible graduation paths without a professor) but I think it needs to be a little more manageable in the future. With the task at hand and time we were allotted it was difficult to produce realistic results. That being said Dr. Purtilo graded the majority of our assignments based on the work we put in and our ability to prove purpose in our work. The main project was assigned at what seemed to be random. I thought that the group I had worked really well together but we also bonded on how frustrating the project was. The project descriptions were very abstract, intentionally, but I think that there could have been a little more hand holding in the beginning or maybe a few smaller assignments like proposal checks to see if the groups were at least on the right track. I think the most helpful aspects of the class were learning to develop a pitch for your product, the walk–through, and how to create a presentable end product. I Think more emphasis on how to pitch a product and how to advertise your product would be very helpful. I really enjoyed the class and I think the experience I gained in 435 will help me in my career. |
| I would appreciate it if there was a required check up meeting with the professor every wee. This would allow us to review our progress, receive feedback on the project, and discuss implementation details. The key word is "required" which would provide incentive and a reminder to the huge resource opportunity, my team missed this entire project. |
| I think that I learned more from this class than from any other class that I have taken at UMD, however I think that some of the methods are pretty unfair. I understand that the ambiguity of instructions serves a huge purpose for this course, and the lessons that I learned from this will be very helpful throughout the rest of my career. However, I think that because the university attempts to accommodate students who are trying to find the right courses to suit their interests during the drop add period, The professors of these courses should accommodate those interests as well. I found out about CMSC435 through a friend about a week into the semester. By the time that I had registered for the course, there had already been two grades given, both of which were worth 3% of the final grade. Receiving a zero for 6% of your grade for assignments that you were not given an opportunity to complete during the drop add period is not constructive, and if anything, hurt not only my grade but my whole attitude towards this course as I had to then worry about whether I would pass the class or not. Also i think that there should be more direct sources to look at for guidance. For instance, when we are told to study design methods, students should be pointed toward an exact section in the textbook, because most of the course reading material I was reading ended up being the wrong material. Example greenlight docs proposals should be gone over in class so that students know how to format these documents and what to include. There is really no other way to know what writing one of these documents entails when you have never written one and have never seen one. I think that the class should also have a lab, where the teams can get more face time, because my group had a very hard time scheduling around team members various class schedules and jobs. I don't love the methods, but the class was very informative and Jim was very attentive with asking for feedback so that he can improve |
| The class required team time be outside of class. While this is okay on a weekly basis, the need for consistent daily team time negatively affected my ability to get a grade I felt I deserved, and negatively affected all the other classes I took with my full schedule. Team time should have been more guided to fully learn the concepts and software engineering process, not the "go and fail and come back and I'll fix it" teaching method that this class felt like. |
| I feel as though I got a lot out of this course, perhaps this is the computer science course that will be most relevant to the real world work I will be doing. However, I would have appreciated it if I was not put with the two people I requested not to work with while not being put with the one person I did. I also would have liked being put on a project that I would have found to be more in my interests especially the malware prevention software testing platform or the project dealing with creating a GUI for creating nonlinear "pipes". However, I really liked this course and found it to be helpful. |
| This class definitely captures what it means to be a software engineer with its group product and all the components that go into it. There was always a bit of ambiguity in some of the guidelines for certain aspects of the project, which I assume is to reflect the conditions of working with customers and not always having 100% clarity on what is necessary. Earlier on in the semester navigating the class website and its resources was a bit difficult, and it would be helpful if there was clearer presentation on the website, but after using it for a while it was fine to navigate. |
| To the administration of the Undergraduate Program at the University of Maryland. You should raise the credit level of this course to 4 credits or allow a corequisite course for lab work. I did not have enough time to appropriately complete the projects assigned in the course. The work for the course was appropriate. A semester long final project were we go through the full stack framework is what students should be given their senior year. To Jim, please require one of the recommended text books and specify where we can find sections. Also I think there should be a case study. You should talk more in class about what to do in the event of failure so we aren't as stressed and more prepared about failing forward. Most classes we don't hit the mark we fail, but I know in the real world we pick up what we have and move forward. |
| Things that worked well: * The log system worked really well. I like being able to just keep the webpage open and have it constantly saving my information. It was also helpful that they were all timestamped which helped me remember what day it was when I wrote it. * Having easy access to the professor. At no point did I stroll by the office and the door was closed or was turned away. This really helped facilitate communication between the professor and the team because at no point did it not cross our mind to just ask him. * I really liked the peer review assignments. I thought it was a great way for team members to anonymously provide feedback to other team members without directly causing a conflict between members. It was also nice to get constructive feedback from others. * The blog status updates from the professor were good. This allowed me to constantly receive reminders and updates about assignments without having to wait until I could get to class. Things that did not work well: * Using svn is the worst. This caused so many unnecessary issues on the project. I wish there had been some sort of svn tutorial or something provided to the students to facilitate using svn. * Not having access to the slides was inconvenient. Often, I would wish to look at the slides for some piece of information but couldn't. * I wish the VMs had a visual component (like lxde) Many members of my team tried to install one but it just wouldn't work. Not having a visual component caused a lot of frustration for the team. * The course website overall was just a large wall of unbroken text. This made it extremely difficult to read through the entire thing. It also made it extremely difficult to find previously read text. Maybe add more sections and subsections to make it more readable. * Project timeline: I felt like we did not have enough time to work on the project. Only having two weeks to code an entire project was a bit much especially since the time of build was during midterms. I suggest maybe taking out one of the scrimmage assignments to start team projects a little bit earlier. |
| I really wish it was a 4 credit class so it could have a lab section which would make it easier to meet with teams at least once a week |
| Lectures didn't always feel particularly relevant to the project and project expectations weren't very clear. I know that was part of the pedagogy but I felt like you sprung some expectations on our team at the walkthrough that we had no way to know ahead of time. If that could have happened a little sooner in the semester I think we would have had a much better chance of being able to make those changes in time without having to "throw code over the wall at the end". It seemed like the mini projects we did at the beginning of the semester didn't provide as much value as the amount of time they took away from the real project. It would have been better if they could have been shorter so we could have gotten as much time as possible to do the final project. Also I think that in the future you should use a different system for the final round of peer mentoring that was supposed to be just for you because even though they were only up for about an hour, having those comments visible to our team members after you specifically told us that we could write them honestly because our teammates wouldn't see them felt a bit disrespectful to our concerns about writing them. |
| The project was a considerable amount of work for this course and I would've appreciated topics that were equally fair between the groups. It would have also been good to pick projects that better suited the teams they were assigned to as our team had no knowledge of our project and found the teacher was often degrading us for not doing better given the limited knowledge we began with. The lectures were very difficult to retain information from as the slides were cluttered with text and not posted online anywhere so it was hard to write everything in time. This made the quizzes even more difficult. The textbook was not a set required text, and instead multiple options of textbooks that were recommended which made me unsure of whether what I was reading was actually relevant to the assignments for the course. I found that more often than not, I was reading a lot more information than I actually needed for the quiz, and there was no benefit for me to have read that in terms of grade. I found the professor was often very disparaging, calling out students who didn't pay attention in class, and always holding high expectations for our team project that were impossible to meet. Our team met twice a week and logged more hours than any of the other teams most weeks, yet still our efforts were not enough for him. It seemed impossible to meet his expectations which was very discouraging to me as a student. |
| Additional questions: – Choice of projects: I thought the choice of topics was pretty good. I got the feeling that each project was tuned to push each team to excel and provided it's own unique set of challenges. I personally would like to see a wider variety of projects from different areas of computer science. Maybe this is the inner engineer in me, but I would like to see something more related to testing hardware or making software for the hardware. I also really like how some of the projects were from outside of the Maryland computer science program, giving teams that real world experience. – Resources available I don't really think I had a lack of resources available. Thanks stack overflow – textbook, prof availability, course mechanics I didn't find much value in reading the textbook or other course material on the topic we were covering, though I definitely prefer just gleaning information from lectures over outside resources. You were also always available and willing to schedule times to meet with teams and individuals and were very approachable. I'm not going to lie, I was pretty concerned when you suggested taking this course another semester since I was going to be missing the first week and a half of classes because of lab travel, but meeting in the beginning and catching up on all that material I missed was very useful and helped me get a good gauge of the course. Course mechanics is a bit tougher to judge since I often found myself saying "If only I knew that 2 weeks ago!" but at the same time realizing that all the material we learned previously needed to happen then. For example, having team building stuff at the end of the semester doesn't really make since. – value of teaming strategies When you first explained to me your teaming strategy, I wondered why more professors don't do that. I often found myself pushing myself to make sure that I didn't let down my team instead of trying to pull my team along, which I had to do in other classes – pre–reqs, level of credit offered The prereqs here seemed kind of odd as most of what I had to do didn't end up relating too much, but that is probably not the case for most students. The prereq structure you suggested at the end of having a software survival class and a software team building class as prereqs would be really useful. It would help accelerate some of the topics that were covered in the beginning of class so that we could get into the nitty gritty of software engineering and not feel behind. This class, I feel, could theoretically be offered as a 4 credit class, but 3 seems perfectly fine to me. – alternate ways to promote engagement on class project earlier in semester Not really sure this needs improvement – value of pushing some of these concepts to earlier in the major sequence As I mentioned in the prereqs section, it would be super useful to push some of these topics earlier in the major sequence so that we could focus class on some of the more important topics that I felt we were behind on and should've learned 2 weeks ago. – value of offering an SE specialization in major I would love to have a software engineering specialization in the major, as I would probably take it. I started in Aerospace Engineering, then added Computer Science to that, so I have always leaned on the engineering side and tried to take as many classes that would help with engineering, which there were less of than I would like. Even for people who go more "software" than "engineering", I think it would be useful. |
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.
By Score
Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point
| Question | Course | College (CMNS) | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| The instructor treated students with respect. | 3.50 | 3.43 | 3.48 | 3.50 |
| The instructor was well-prepared for class. | 3.58 | 3.30 | 3.31 | 3.35 |
| Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher. | 2.85 | 2.98 | 3.01 | 3.01 |
By Frequency
1. The instructor treated students with respect.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Disagree | 1 | 2 | 7.7% |
| Neutral | 2 | 1 | 3.8% |
| Agree | 3 | 5 | 19.2% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 18 | 69.2% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 26 |
| Mean | 3.50 |
| Standard Deviation | 0.91 |
2. The instructor was well-prepared for class.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Disagree | 1 | 1 | 3.8% |
| Neutral | 2 | 1 | 3.8% |
| Agree | 3 | 6 | 23.1% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 18 | 69.2% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 26 |
| Mean | 3.58 |
| Standard Deviation | 0.76 |
3. Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 2 | 7.7% |
| Disagree | 1 | 2 | 7.7% |
| Neutral | 2 | 4 | 15.4% |
| Agree | 3 | 8 | 30.8% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 10 | 38.5% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 26 |
| Mean | 2.85 |
| Standard Deviation | 1.26 |
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 | 3.15 |
| I learned a lot from this course | 2.96 |
| The instructor treated students with respect | 3.50 |
| The instructor was well-prepared for class | 3.58 |
| Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher | 2.85 |
| Total Score | 3.21 |
The standards the instructor James Purtilo set for students were...
By Score
Scale is Too Low (0) to Too High (2) with an Appropriate mid-point
| Question | Course | College (CMNS) | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| The standards the instructor set for students were... | 1.33 | 1.15 | 1.17 | 1.16 |
By Frequency
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Too Low | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Appropriate | 1 | 18 | 66.7% |
| Too High | 2 | 9 | 33.3% |
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.
By Score
Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point
| Question | Course | College (CMNS) | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| Course guidelines were clearly described in the syllabus. | 2.56 | 3.18 | 3.18 | 3.17 |
| The required texts (e.g., books, course packs, online resources) helped me learn course material. | 1.35 | 2.87 | 2.66 | 2.90 |
By Frequency
1. Course guidelines were clearly described in the syllabus.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 3 | 11.1% |
| Disagree | 1 | 3 | 11.1% |
| Neutral | 2 | 3 | 11.1% |
| Agree | 3 | 12 | 44.4% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 6 | 22.2% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 27 |
| Mean | 2.56 |
| Standard Deviation | 1.28 |
2. The required texts (e.g., books, course packs, online resources) helped me learn course material.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 5 | 19.2% |
| Disagree | 1 | 10 | 38.5% |
| Neutral | 2 | 8 | 30.8% |
| Agree | 3 | 3 | 11.5% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 26 |
| Mean | 1.35 |
| Standard Deviation | 0.94 |
Based on the quality of my work in this course, the grades I earned were
By Score
Scale is Too Low (0) to Too High (2) with an Appropriate mid-point
| Question | Course | College (CMNS) | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| Based on the quality of my work in this course, the grades I earned were | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.81 |
By Frequency
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Too Low | 0 | 5 | 20.0% |
| Appropriate | 1 | 20 | 80.0% |
| Too High | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
Given the course level and number of credits the workload was
By Score
Scale is Too Low (0) to Too High (2) with an Appropriate mid-point
| Question | Course | College (CMNS) | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| Given the course level and number of credits, the workload was | 1.46 | 1.14 | 1.18 | 1.12 |
By Frequency
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Too Low | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Appropriate | 1 | 14 | 53.8% |
| Too High | 2 | 12 | 46.2% |
How much effort did you put into the course?
By Score
Scale is Little (0) to Considerable (2) with a Moderate mid-point
| Question | Course | College (CMNS) | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| How much effort did you put into the course? | 1.89 | 1.49 | 1.54 | 1.51 |
By Frequency
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Little | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Moderate | 1 | 3 | 11.1% |
| Considerable | 2 | 24 | 88.9% |
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.
By Score
Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point
| Question | Course | College (CMNS) | Department (CMNS-Computer Science) | Course Level (CMNS_400) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| The instructor was effective in communicating the content of the course. | 2.73 | 3.01 | 3.03 | 3.04 |
| The instructor was responsive to student concerns. | 3.62 | 3.21 | 3.28 | 3.29 |
| The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content. | 2.96 | 2.94 | 2.96 | 2.97 |
By Frequency
1. The instructor was effective in communicating the content of the course.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 1 | 3.8% |
| Disagree | 1 | 5 | 19.2% |
| Neutral | 2 | 3 | 11.5% |
| Agree | 3 | 8 | 30.8% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 9 | 34.6% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 26 |
| Mean | 2.73 |
| Standard Deviation | 1.25 |
2. The instructor was responsive to student concerns.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 1 | 3.8% |
| Disagree | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Neutral | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Agree | 3 | 6 | 23.1% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 19 | 73.1% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 26 |
| Mean | 3.62 |
| Standard Deviation | 0.85 |
3. The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content.
| Options | Score | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly Disagree | 0 | 2 | 7.7% |
| Disagree | 1 | 4 | 15.4% |
| Neutral | 2 | 1 | 3.8% |
| Agree | 3 | 5 | 19.2% |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 14 | 53.8% |
| Statistics | Value |
|---|---|
| Response Count | 26 |
| Mean | 2.96 |
| Standard Deviation | 1.40 |
End of Report