- 202008-CMSC435-0101-SOFTWARE ENGINEERING - James Purtilo - Instructor Report

202008-CMSC435-0101-SOFTWARE ENGINEERING - James Purtilo - Instructor Report - Fall 2020

Project Title: University of Maryland Course Evaluation Fall 2020

Number of Students Invited: 42
Number of Evaluations Submitted: 17
Response Rate: 40.5%

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 calculated from all responses by all students in the unit (i.e., course section) on that item and exclude N/A (not applicable) responses. A grade table is included on the next page if available.

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. Subsections are found in the Instructor Subgroup Report.

Semester: Fall 2020
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
14	18	4	0	6	0	3

Grade distribution is current as of January 5, 2021 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
Question	Mean
The course was intellectually challenging.	3.8
I learned a lot from this course.	3.5

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	0	0.0%
Agree	3	4	23.5%
Strongly Agree	4	13	76.5%

Table for By Frequency-1. The course was intellectually challenging.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	17
Mean	3.8
Standard Deviation	0.4

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	1	5.9%
Neutral	2	2	11.8%
Agree	3	2	11.8%
Strongly Agree	4	12	70.6%

Table for By Frequency-2. I learned a lot from this course.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	17
Mean	3.5
Standard Deviation	0.9

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?-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	16	94.1%
Elective	2	1	5.9%

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

I think we would have benefitted from starting the group projects earlier to give more time for planning and development.

If students are fully engaged in the class, they should be putting forth a lot of effort, particularly since it's a capstone class. I think it should be a 4 credit course.

I understand Purtilo likes to be mean to prove a point but I think its quite unnecessary and demoralizes students. I also think its disgusting that he has the following on his umd webpage: https://seam.cs.umd.edu/purtilo/dstand.html so I have little respect for Purtilo. And he can laugh at this and call me sensitive and say that this doesn't matter in the context of class, because yeah, sure, it does not directly affect the course. Regardless though I simply feel uncomfortable around him which makes the overall class experience very unpleasant.

It was a challenging class and a valuable experience. Prof. Purtilo has been responsive to students' questions and concerns throughout the semester – he really is the spirit guide of the class. Prof. Purtilo is always prepared for lectures. However, personally, it was hard not to zone out during some of the lectures. I am sure this would be less of a problem if I hadn't been sitting in front of my laptop for so long. Another tiny suggestion I have is to make the course website somewhat easier to navigate. Specifically with the due dates, projects and resources. Though the course website is very resourceful, sometimes it is just hard to read through long paragraphs and look for the information I need.

Overall great class. Very time consuming but worth it in the end.

The course is handled very well by professor Purtilo. He is honest from the very beginning. It's a time–consuming course, but it's really rewarding when you finish (If you do it right). Although I do wish that he gave us weekly reminders on where to find information for upcoming assignments(Mainly the course projects).

I always distracted from the lecture, it was hard for me to understand.

Very challenging but extremely useful class! Loved it.

Purtilo is certainly a fantastic mentor but a very unorthodox teacher. He is available and compassionate to students, but a weakness can be communication at times. One of many students' frustrations was when asking a direct question and receiving an indirect answer. This is somewhat understandable as he says he is trying to teach intuition so he doesn't want to just give answers, but it can be frustrating when some answers you need are a brief definition and he won't answer. But as I said, compassionate to students, passionate about the field, and always available. Mostly pros.

I think giving the class a pop quiz on the second day of class wasn inappropriate. Not only was the timing inappropriate, but the weight of this particular quiz seemed skewed as it far exceeded the weight of all subsequent quizzes.

Dr. Purtilo seems to be a maveric when it comes to using corporate umd resources. Other classes I have taken levaraged Elms for the management of zoom and other class information. Dr. Purtilo hosts his content on his servers that he manages in a non–traditional manner. The class was also forced to use the mentoring software the that was hosted on his servers which was buggy and it was actually off line when I attempted to complete the last mentoring assignment.

This course provides the best undergraduate CS real world experience. In order to provide the best work and gain the best experience from the class, it however, requires a considerable amount more time than other classes of the same credit hours. If possible, a credit count of 4 seems more appropriate for students to better gauge the workload and for them to be able to better provide the time needed for the class/get the most out of the class.

turned out to be my favorite course this semester despite it taking up most of my time. really wish Git was used instead of SVN for the semester–long group project. SVN could be okay for the class/personal repos (and maybe the scrimmages too), but for more complicated projects that would greatly benefit from branches, Git is more practical than SVN and would be an excellent learning experience for students (since it is standard in industry).

Prof. Purtilo is one of the most dedicated educators I have ever seen throughout my academic career. Seldom have I seen someone answer emails so quickly with such detail. I have also met with Prof. Purtilo multiple times outside of class hours for help/guidance on the semester–long project, and he was more than happy to help advise in any way he could.

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
Question	Mean
The instructor treated students with respect.	3.5
The instructor was well-prepared for class.	3.6
Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher.	3.4

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	1	5.9%
Disagree	1	0	0.0%
Neutral	2	0	0.0%
Agree	3	5	29.4%
Strongly Agree	4	11	64.7%

Table for By Frequency-1. The instructor treated students with respect.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	17
Mean	3.5
Standard Deviation	1.0

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	5.9%
Neutral	2	0	0.0%
Agree	3	3	17.6%
Strongly Agree	4	13	76.5%

Table for By Frequency-2. The instructor was well-prepared for class.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	17
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	1	5.9%
Disagree	1	0	0.0%
Neutral	2	2	11.8%
Agree	3	2	11.8%
Strongly Agree	4	12	70.6%

Table for By Frequency-3. Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	17
Mean	3.4
Standard Deviation	1.1

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	3.8
I learned a lot from this course	3.5
The instructor treated students with respect	3.5
The instructor was well-prepared for class	3.6
Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher	3.4
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
Question	Mean
The standards the instructor set for students were...	1.2

By Frequency

The standards the instructor set for students were...

Table for By Frequency-The standards the instructor set for students were....
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Too Low	0	0	0.0%
Appropriate	1	14	82.4%
Too High	2	3	17.6%

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
Question	Mean
Course guidelines were clearly described in the syllabus.	3.1
The required texts (e.g. books, course packs, online resources) helped me learn course material.	2.3

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	1	5.9%
Neutral	2	4	23.5%
Agree	3	4	23.5%
Strongly Agree	4	8	47.1%

Table for By Frequency-1. Course guidelines were clearly described in the syllabus.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	17
Mean	3.1
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	1	6.7%
Disagree	1	2	13.3%
Neutral	2	7	46.7%
Agree	3	2	13.3%
Strongly Agree	4	3	20.0%

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	15
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
Question	Mean
Based on the quality of my work in this course, the grades I earned were	0.8

By Frequency

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

Table for By Frequency-Based on the quality of my work in this course, the grades I earned were.
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Too Low	0	3	20.0%
Appropriate	1	12	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

Table for By Score.
Question	Course
Question	Mean
Given the course level and number of credits, the workload was	1.6

By Frequency

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

Table for By Frequency-Given the course level and number of credits, the workload was.
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Too Low	0	0	0.0%
Appropriate	1	7	43.8%
Too High	2	9	56.3%

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
Question	Mean
How much effort did you put into the course?	1.9

By Frequency

How much effort did you put into the course?

Table for By Frequency-How much effort did you put into the course?.
Options	Score	Count	Percentage
Little	0	0	0.0%
Moderate	1	2	11.8%
Considerable	2	15	88.2%

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
Question	Mean
The instructor was effective in communicating the content of the course.	3.4
The instructor was responsive to student concerns.	3.6
The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content.	3.5

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	1	5.9%
Disagree	1	0	0.0%
Neutral	2	2	11.8%
Agree	3	3	17.6%
Strongly Agree	4	11	64.7%

Table for By Frequency-1. The instructor was effective in communicating the content of the course.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	17
Mean	3.4
Standard Deviation	1.1

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	1	5.9%
Disagree	1	0	0.0%
Neutral	2	1	5.9%
Agree	3	0	0.0%
Strongly Agree	4	15	88.2%

Table for By Frequency-2. The instructor was responsive to student concerns.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	17
Mean	3.6
Standard Deviation	1.1

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	1	5.9%
Disagree	1	0	0.0%
Neutral	2	1	5.9%
Agree	3	3	17.6%
Strongly Agree	4	12	70.6%

Table for By Frequency-3. The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	17
Mean	3.5
Standard Deviation	1.1

End of Report