- 201908-CMSC435-0101-SOFTWARE ENGINEERING - James Purtilo - Instructor Report

201908-CMSC435-0101-SOFTWARE ENGINEERING - James Purtilo - Instructor Report - Fall 2019

Project Title: University of Maryland Course Evaluation Fall 2019

Number of Students Invited: 37
Number of Evaluations Submitted: 22
Response Rate: 59.5%

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 2019
College: College of Computer, Math & Natural Sciences
Department: CMNS-Computer Science
Course #: CMSC435
Section #: 0101
Course Title: SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Report Group:

Instructor: James Purtilo

Download PDF

Grade Distribution

Grade A	Grade B	Grade C	Grade D	Grade F	Grade PS	Grade W
8	15	12	1	1	0	2

Grade distribution is current as of January 2, 2020 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.

By Score

Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point

Table for By Score.
Question	Course	College (CMNS)	Department (CMNS-Computer Science)	Course Level (CMNS_400)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
The course was intellectually challenging.	3.5	3.3	3.4	3.4
I learned a lot from this course.	3.5	3.1	3.2	3.3

By Frequency

1. The course was intellectually challenging.

Table for By Frequency-1. The course was intellectually challenging..
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	0	0.0%
Disagree	1	0	0.0%
Neutral	2	1	4.5%
Agree	3	8	36.4%
Strongly Agree	4	13	59.1%

Table for By Frequency-1. The course was intellectually challenging.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	22
Mean	3.5
Standard Deviation	0.6

2. I learned a lot from this course.

Table for By Frequency-2. I learned a lot from this course..
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	0	0.0%
Disagree	1	0	0.0%
Neutral	2	1	4.5%
Agree	3	8	36.4%
Strongly Agree	4	13	59.1%

Table for By Frequency-2. I learned a lot from this course.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	22
Mean	3.5
Standard Deviation	0.6

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

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

Table for How does this course fit into your academic plan or course of study?-1. How does this course fit into your academic plan or course of study?.
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
General Education or CORE Requirement	0	0	0.0%
Major/Certificate/Minor/Program Requirement	1	22	100.0%
Elective	2	0	0.0%

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

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

Comments

The course felt very uncertain throughout, presumably by design. A significant part of the course was figuring out how to best make the use of my time and prepare for the uncertainty and change of the future. As one of my group members recommended, I think that a good instrument for increasing student involvement in the course early on would be more early one on one interaction with the professor (which of course no one took use of early this semester)

This course requires a lot of work, and in extreme cases extreme work. It however has the best effort–to–outcome ratio. The more time, thought, and energy you put in, the more you get out. The lectures were engaging but sometimes lacking in definitive content. That's my only gripe. The primary form of learning is through experience in the team project, which allows for a much more permanent and freeing pedagogical experience. This class, with it's many metrics, handles group projects well. You have security in your effort being recognized as long as you can prove its true. I think exposing those metrics periodically as a "report card" to the group could be an interesting experiment in "teammate peer pressure". I also understand that hard deadlines don't quite line up for every project, but I still think there should be more hard deadlines. Perhaps they could be set on a per–team basis in conjunction with the professor, just so that each team has an equal opportunity to explore all aspects of SE without falling into a double jeopardy situation.

I think that a design meeting with the professor would help teams crystallize what he expects from them, and reduce the time spent on false starts.

I think more guidance in regards to deadlines would be helpful. Too much freedom inevitably lead to my group losing focus on what should be happening and using the time inefficiently.

I did not feel that the lectures were valuable or particularly instructive. More opinion than fact–based. The teacher often did not stay for the entire class period.

I thought the course was great. It was very helpful to get experience with a real world type, challenging project in a group. Wish there was a bit more time to go more in depth with discussions about the nuances of great software engineering practices. I would've liked a pre–requisite course in the 200 or 300 level that, like this course, teaches engineering principles through real–world applications/projects. After taking that, I feel like this class would be a solid capstone class to use all the principles you've learned in the pre–requisite, build on them, and create a successful real–world project.

Professor Purtilo creates a unique class unlike any of the other 400 level classes. He tries to create an environment that is most similar to an actual work setting and he does it very well. I felt like I was challenged in the class and I like how he didn't hold your hand when trying to solve problems related to the class work.

Professor Purtilo's teaching style is somewhat bizarre. I don't think I ever left a lecture feeling like I really learned something– but every once in a while while working on the class project a tidbit would pop into my head, in a sort of "so that's what he was talking about" way. I do wish the lectures would get at the meat quicker, as Purtilo frequently spends too much time on less useful information.
Also, the requirements for many assignments are very unclear at times. We are told to do cost estimates without being shown what that really looks like. We are told to do a report, with only the vaguest questions to base it off of. Perhaps this is meant to teach us to speak up and ask questions, but it often ended up being just plain inconvenient.

I think it would be helpful to start the final project earlier. It can be a little too much towards the end with the CDR, acceptance testing, and improving based on the feedback when trying to balance other classes too.

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.

By Score

Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point

Table for By Score.
Question	Course	College (CMNS)	Department (CMNS-Computer Science)	Course Level (CMNS_400)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
The instructor treated students with respect.	3.7	3.5	3.5	3.6
The instructor was well-prepared for class.	3.6	3.4	3.3	3.4
Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher.	3.5	3.1	3.0	3.1

By Frequency

1. The instructor treated students with respect.

Table for By Frequency-1. The instructor treated students with respect..
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	0	0.0%
Disagree	1	0	0.0%
Neutral	2	1	4.5%
Agree	3	4	18.2%
Strongly Agree	4	17	77.3%

Table for By Frequency-1. The instructor treated students with respect.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	22
Mean	3.7
Standard Deviation	0.6

2. The instructor was well-prepared for class.

Table for By Frequency-2. The instructor was well-prepared for class..
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	0	0.0%
Disagree	1	1	4.5%
Neutral	2	1	4.5%
Agree	3	3	13.6%
Strongly Agree	4	17	77.3%

Table for By Frequency-2. The instructor was well-prepared for class.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	22
Mean	3.6
Standard Deviation	0.8

3. Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher.

Table for By Frequency-3. Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher..
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	0	0.0%
Disagree	1	1	4.5%
Neutral	2	2	9.1%
Agree	3	4	18.2%
Strongly Agree	4	15	68.2%

Table for By Frequency-3. Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	22
Mean	3.5
Standard Deviation	0.9

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

Table for Overall Score-1st Scale.
Competency	Course
The course was intellectually challenging	3.5
I learned a lot from this course	3.5
The instructor treated students with respect	3.7
The instructor was well-prepared for class	3.6
Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher	3.5
Total Score	3.6

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

Table for By Score.
Question	Course	College (CMNS)	Department (CMNS-Computer Science)	Course Level (CMNS_400)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
The standards the instructor set for students were...	1.1	1.1	1.2	1.1

By Frequency

1. The standards the instructor set for students were...

Table for By Frequency-1. The standards the instructor set for students were....
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Too Low	0	0	0.0%
Appropriate	1	20	90.9%
Too High	2	2	9.1%

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.

By Score

Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point

Table for By Score.
Question	Course	College (CMNS)	Department (CMNS-Computer Science)	Course Level (CMNS_400)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
Course guidelines were clearly described in the syllabus.	3.0	3.2	3.1	3.2
The required texts (e.g., books, course packs, online resources) helped me learn course material.	2.3	2.9	2.7	3.0

By Frequency

1. Course guidelines were clearly described in the syllabus.

Table for By Frequency-1. Course guidelines were clearly described in the syllabus..
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	0	0.0%
Disagree	1	2	9.1%
Neutral	2	5	22.7%
Agree	3	5	22.7%
Strongly Agree	4	10	45.5%

Table for By Frequency-1. Course guidelines were clearly described in the syllabus.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	22
Mean	3.0
Standard Deviation	1.0

2. The required texts (e.g., books, course packs, online resources) helped me learn course material.

Table for By Frequency-2. The required texts (e.g., books, course packs, online resources) helped me learn course material..
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	2	9.1%
Disagree	1	2	9.1%
Neutral	2	10	45.5%
Agree	3	3	13.6%
Strongly Agree	4	5	22.7%

Table for By Frequency-2. The required texts (e.g., books, course packs, online resources) helped me learn course material.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	22
Mean	2.3
Standard Deviation	1.2

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

Table for By Score.
Question	Course	College (CMNS)	Department (CMNS-Computer Science)	Course Level (CMNS_400)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
Based on the quality of my work in this course, the grades I earned were	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8

By Frequency

1. Based on the quality of my work in this course, the grades I earned were

Table for By Frequency-1. Based on the quality of my work in this course, the grades I earned were.
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Too Low	0	3	13.6%
Appropriate	1	19	86.4%
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

Table for By Score.
Question	Course	College (CMNS)	Department (CMNS-Computer Science)	Course Level (CMNS_400)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
Given the course level and number of credits, the workload was	1.3	1.1	1.2	1.1

By Frequency

1. Given the course level and number of credits, the workload was

Table for By Frequency-1. Given the course level and number of credits, the workload was.
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Too Low	0	0	0.0%
Appropriate	1	16	72.7%
Too High	2	6	27.3%

How much effort did you put into the course?

By Score

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

Table for By Score.
Question	Course	College (CMNS)	Department (CMNS-Computer Science)	Course Level (CMNS_400)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
How much effort did you put into the course?	1.9	1.5	1.5	1.5

By Frequency

1. How much effort did you put into the course?

Table for By Frequency-1. How much effort did you put into the course?.
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Little	0	0	0.0%
Moderate	1	3	13.6%
Considerable	2	19	86.4%

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.

By Score

Scale is Strongly Disagree (0) to Strongly Agree (4) with a Neutral mid-point

Table for By Score.
Question	Course	College (CMNS)	Department (CMNS-Computer Science)	Course Level (CMNS_400)
Question	Mean	Mean	Mean	Mean
The instructor was effective in communicating the content of the course.	3.2	3.1	3.0	3.1
The instructor was responsive to student concerns.	3.9	3.3	3.2	3.3
The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content.	3.5	3.0	2.9	3.1

By Frequency

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

Table for By Frequency-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	4.5%
Neutral	2	4	18.2%
Agree	3	6	27.3%
Strongly Agree	4	11	50.0%

Table for By Frequency-1. The instructor was effective in communicating the content of the course.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	22
Mean	3.2
Standard Deviation	0.9

2. The instructor was responsive to student concerns.

Table for By Frequency-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	2	9.1%
Strongly Agree	4	20	90.9%

Table for By Frequency-2. The instructor was responsive to student concerns.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	22
Mean	3.9
Standard Deviation	0.3

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

Table for By Frequency-3. The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content..
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Strongly Disagree	0	0	0.0%
Disagree	1	1	4.5%
Neutral	2	1	4.5%
Agree	3	6	27.3%
Strongly Agree	4	14	63.6%

Table for By Frequency-3. The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	22
Mean	3.5
Standard Deviation	0.8

End of Report