- 202108-CMSC435-0101-SOFTWARE ENGINEERING - James Purtilo - Instructor Report

202108-CMSC435-0101-SOFTWARE ENGINEERING - James Purtilo - Instructor Report - Fall 2021

Project Title: University of Maryland Course Evaluation Fall 2021

Number of Students Invited: 41
Number of Evaluations Submitted: 16
Response Rate: 39.0%

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 2021
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	9	15	2	1	0	0

Grade distribution is current as of January 4, 2022 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.	3.6

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	6.3%
Agree	3	1	6.3%
Strongly Agree	4	14	87.5%

Table for By Frequency-1. The course was intellectually challenging.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	16
Mean	3.8
Standard Deviation	0.5

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	3	18.8%
Agree	3	1	6.3%
Strongly Agree	4	12	75.0%

Table for By Frequency-2. I learned a lot from this course.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	16
Mean	3.6
Standard Deviation	0.8

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	14	87.5%
Elective	2	2	12.5%

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 had a positive experience with this course and enjoyed creating our project.

Not really much to report. I thought it would be an involved but useful course, and it was. Thanks for always being there, with how little direction we had we really needed all the help we could get.

However, there is one thing I can't ignore. You said you gave our group (LIDAR) a harder project because we were stronger students and needed something more difficult to actually challenge us. If this is true, then I don't know how I feel about openly assigning students to projects of different difficulties. Unless the grade compensates for it, it doesn't seem like a fair way to go about things.

Extremely unclear and unfair expectations.

I know the point of this class is to stop the hand holding and teach you about actual software engineering practices and principles through the semester long project but a little assistance and forgiveness would go along way in keep moral up during this rather grueling course.

The professor was almost always available. Which was great.

Overall a great course, I learned a lot. There was a lot of content, and there wasn't time to go in depth into everything. This feels like if could be more than one class, or at least some of the stuff could have been taught in another class.

While I mostly liked the setup and vision for the course, it became a struggle due to lack of direction and clarity as well as exceedingly high expectations. Certain deliverables and goals were lost in seas of text or lectures, questions asked sometimes did not clarify the problem (we were left to discover it on our own without much to go on), and in my group's case I felt that we had a much more frustrating and difficult project when compared to other groups. Some disparity is fine, but our final product, had it been completed in time, would have taken hundreds more hours than other projects. Again, with that being said, I liked the ideas behind the course and had I had another project I might have a slightly different opinion. Some things would be the same, though.

more flexibility in grades/deadlines at the beginning of the semester would be appreciated

I think this course would be both more accessible and more effective if students recieved a little more support at the beginning of the semester. While such a change may be difficult, due to the different nature of this class compared to other classes, I believe I would have performed much better in this course had I correctly understood what it would be like from the start. This is partly my fault for dismissing the inital email warning, but I believe that many students, like myself, have the wrong set of expectations coming into this course and therefore have greater difficulty adjusting to the pace and level of attention that this course demands. To me, the most effective change that could be made to facilitate this change would be to increase this course's credit count to 4. I believe that this change would not only more accurately reflect this course's level of work, but would also signal to potential students that this course is not ordinary. The only other 4 credit CS course, Operating Systems, has a very strong reputation throughout the undergraduate community for being incredibly difficult. Despite this, I have heard from many other students that they found this course significantly more difficult than CMSC412. Therefore, the best change I can recommend for CMSC435 is to change it to a 4 credit course.

I think there are parts of this course which might depend a little too heavily on external factors. For example, if a client for a group is not readily available to meet with the group, this has a significant negative impact on the students and the quality of their project. This can then affect their performance in the class and also their grade, but I feel poor performance in the class as a result of this situation does not reflect the students' efforts or abilities to perform well in the course.

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.	3.7
The instructor was well-prepared for class.	3.6
Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher.	3.3

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	6.3%
Agree	3	3	18.8%
Strongly Agree	4	12	75.0%

Table for By Frequency-1. The instructor treated students with respect.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	16
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	0	0.0%
Neutral	2	2	12.5%
Agree	3	3	18.8%
Strongly Agree	4	11	68.8%

Table for By Frequency-2. The instructor was well-prepared for class.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	16
Mean	3.6
Standard Deviation	0.7

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	6.3%
Neutral	2	1	6.3%
Agree	3	7	43.8%
Strongly Agree	4	7	43.8%

Table for By Frequency-3. Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	16
Mean	3.3
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	3.8
I learned a lot from this course	3.6
The instructor treated students with respect	3.7
The instructor was well-prepared for class	3.6
Overall, this instructor was an effective teacher	3.3
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...	1.4

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	10	62.5%
Too High	2	6	37.5%

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.	2.7
The required texts (e.g. books, course packs, online resources) helped me learn course material.	1.8

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	3	18.8%
Neutral	2	5	31.3%
Agree	3	2	12.5%
Strongly Agree	4	6	37.5%

Table for By Frequency-1. Course guidelines were clearly described in the syllabus.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	16
Mean	2.7
Standard Deviation	1.2

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	4	28.6%
Disagree	1	1	7.1%
Neutral	2	5	35.7%
Agree	3	2	14.3%
Strongly Agree	4	2	14.3%

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	14
Mean	1.8
Standard Deviation	1.4

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	0.7

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	4	26.7%
Appropriate	1	11	73.3%
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	1.4

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	10	62.5%
Too High	2	6	37.5%

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	1	6.3%
Considerable	2	15	93.8%

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.	2.8
The instructor was responsive to student concerns.	3.4
The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content.	2.9

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	6.3%
Neutral	2	4	25.0%
Agree	3	8	50.0%
Strongly Agree	4	3	18.8%

Table for By Frequency-1. The instructor was effective in communicating the content of the course.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	16
Mean	2.8
Standard Deviation	0.8

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	1	6.7%
Neutral	2	1	6.7%
Agree	3	4	26.7%
Strongly Agree	4	9	60.0%

Table for By Frequency-2. The instructor was responsive to student concerns.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	15
Mean	3.4
Standard Deviation	0.9

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	6.3%
Neutral	2	6	37.5%
Agree	3	3	18.8%
Strongly Agree	4	6	37.5%

Table for By Frequency-3. The instructor helped create an atmosphere that kept me engaged in course content.-Statistics.
Statistics	Value
Response Count	16
Mean	2.9
Standard Deviation	1.0

End of Report