eCAFE: Course and Faculty Evaluations

Instructor: Daniel Suthers

Available Survey Results

ICS 311, Fall 2012
ICS 668, Fall 2012
ICS 668, Spring 2011
ICS 668, Fall 2009
ICS 667, Spring 2009
ICS 491, Fall 2008

Daniel Suthers: ICS 311, Fall 2012

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Information& Computer Sciences
Course:	ICS 311 - Algorithms	Crn (Section):	71770 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Freshman   Sophomore   Junior   Senior   Grad   Other   3.67 21 0.8 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 7 (33%) 12 (57%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%)

2. Course

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required   2.0 21 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 21 (100%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.19 21 0.75 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 12 (57%) 7 (33%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.9 21 0.94 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 4 (19%) 11 (52%) 5 (24%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.48 21 1.17 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 2 (10%) 4 (19%) 10 (48%) 3 (14%)

6. I learned a good deal of factual material in this course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.86 21 1.11 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 2 (10%) 10 (48%) 6 (29%)

7. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.67 21 1.06 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 4 (19%) 10 (48%) 4 (19%)

8. I developed the ability to solve real problems in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.67 21 0.8 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 5 (24%) 14 (67%) 1 (5%)

9. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.48 21 1.08 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 8 (38%) 8 (38%) 3 (14%)

10. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.86 21 0.91 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 4 (19%) 12 (57%) 4 (19%)

11. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.38 21 0.97 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 7 (33%) 12 (57%)

12. I have become more competent in this subject area during this course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.9 21 1.0 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 12 (57%) 5 (24%)

13. The course made me think hard and carefully.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.33 21 0.97 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 8 (38%) 11 (52%)

14. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

I found Dr. Suthers' explanations of the material to be easier to follow than the textbook. This was very helpful in many cases when countless hours of reading still didn't clarify very much for me. I liked the quizzes before every lecture. The problem sets were really helpful also. Just many of the concepts were very helpful and helped me a build a little about them. Challenging. The homework, implementation assignments, and midterms were challenging and helpful. Extra Credits Daily Quizzes forced me to learn the subjects The programming assignments were valuable, but they felt rushed. As such many of us were unable to do as much as was required for them. Search and sort algorithms are often asked as interview questions for software engineering and development along with trees and matrices. The course has made me interested in further self-learning algorithms, due to the fact that I feel I learned the topics covered only within a certain depth due to the speed at which the course was paced. Understanding Analysis and pretty much every concept taught. Concepts and ideas were taught that apply to various aspects of computer science overall. These include important algorithms and methods of analysis. The in-class lectures and quizzes forced me to keep up with the class readings. I also liked the fact that we went over the midterms and problem sets in class, immediately upon them being returned. I think his assignments really helped me understand what computer science is all about. It definitely kept my brain working all sysmester. none I enojyed the quizzes. They challenged people to read and put people in the right mindset when starting classes The material. It was tough but very important.

15. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

Nothing I can think of. I'm not really a math person so thoroughly going through proofs didn't do very much for me, but I can understand the importance of this and how people who are more focused on the theory would greatly appreciate this aspect of algorithms. I thought the overall course was a bit overwhelming. Having three projects with the midterms, with problem sets between them, was a little too much. None. I felt that the quizzes were not helpful in the intended way. They encourage regular class attendance, but not review of the material before class. Quiz on something that not been taught yet. Implementation projects were way too hard and arranged in such a way that you spent a ton of time on the assignment and failed the Tests. Nothing really. The quizzes done before the lecture was given. This rule was in place to have us read the book beforehand, but I found the professor's notes to be far more valuable during this course. No comment. I really hated that things were not graded in a timely matter. It's almost the end of semester and I still don't know what grade I got for a project due back in October. I also didn't like how the class felt extremely rushed everyday. If we really have such a heavy load of topics, I would suggest dropping one or all of the special/optional topics. I know that the prof. is trying to cover everything Sugihara does, but have you seen how many people should be failing Sugihara's class? I think someone passed with 15%s on their midterms, which is kinda ridiculous!! I actually think if he gave his quizes at the end of class it would help significantly. Learning and also for a grade. It would not only make people read but also pay attention during class. I feel that he covers a lot of material during class and paying attention is necessary to learn key concepts in the class. none

16. The instructor gives clear explanations.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.52 21 1.17 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 6 (29%) 8 (38%) 4 (19%)

17. The instructor makes good use of examples and illustrations.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.76 21 1.14 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 13 (62%) 4 (19%)

18. The instructor stresses important points in lectures/discussions.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.86 21 1.01 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 3 (14%) 11 (52%) 5 (24%)

19. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.29 21 0.78 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 10 (48%) 9 (43%)

20. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.24 21 0.77 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 11 (52%) 8 (38%)

21. The instructor seems knowledgeable in many areas.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.29 21 0.78 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 10 (48%) 9 (43%)

22. The instructor clearly stated at the beginning of the semester the objectives of the course and requirements.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.19 21 0.93 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 11 (52%) 8 (38%)

23. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.6 20 1.05 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 4 (20%) 10 (50%) 3 (15%)

24. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course material.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.19 21 0.87 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 11 (52%) 8 (38%)

25. The instructor treated students fairly.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.24 21 1.0 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 8 (38%) 10 (48%)

26. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.86 21 1.2 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 4 (19%) 8 (38%) 7 (33%)

27. The instructor makes me feel free to ask questions.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.86 21 1.24 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 5 (24%) 6 (29%) 8 (38%)

28. The instructor keeps students informed of their progress.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.14 21 1.06 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 3 (14%) 7 (33%) 8 (38%) 1 (5%)

29. The instructor seems well prepared for each class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.62 21 1.02 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 4 (19%) 13 (62%) 2 (10%)

30. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.48 21 1.21 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 3 (14%) 2 (10%) 11 (52%) 3 (14%)

31. In general, the course was well organized.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.52 21 1.21 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 2 (10%) 4 (19%) 9 (43%) 4 (19%)

32. The instructor sets high standards for students.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.1 20 1.02 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 3 (15%) 8 (40%) 8 (40%)

33. My overall evaluation of this instructor is....

Very good instructor. I'm glad I had Dr. Suthers for my algorithms course! Although I've never been much of a math person, his lectures still helped me appreciate some of that and I've learned a lot about the different algorithms that I might employ someday! He is a very good teacher and is able to clearly explain difficult topics. Great teacher and person. He really cares about his students. He knows most of the material and maybe with a little more time for him to get the material more organized it would be very good overall he was fairly solid. This course needs a way better teacher than this guy. Great professor. Helpful. Professor Suthers is a fantastic wise man, but a terrible teacher. Very unorganized and never prepared to teach. The whole semester was so clustered and not spaced out so important topics got lost. Great teacher, although the amount of material seemed overwhelming at times even for him. He is a good teacher, but he often takes material from other lectures that he has not worked out. I didn't find that particularly helpful. Very enthusiastic professor. Good teacher of materials that are hard to grasp. Good teacher, gave a heavy load, was doable but more direction for tests would be nice. He seems very knowledgeable and cares about his field of study. He also shows sufficient interest in making sure that students understand (or at least try to understand) the subject matter. My only points of criticism would be that he seems a bit awkward at public speaking and that he can be somewhat confusing. He sometimes stumbles about in explaining the material and hasn't quite organized the topics in an easily presentable way but the general concepts of each chapter is conveyed. A nice and enthusiastic prof. I feel that he really just needs to lower the workload a bit, and everything should be fine. I also suggest getting coursework and project grades out earlier. I feel like I learned a lot and found the class interesting, it was just too rushed at times. Great professor. Seemed as if he had a lot of knowledge in the computer science field. He shared a lot of this information with us and it was a joy to have him as a professor. Would definitely recommend this class to other CS students. none He is a great teacher. He takes student questions seriously and researches the answers he doesnt know, emailing us his findings at all hours. Good teacher. He is able to adjust according to how the class is moving and also keeps track of how the students are doing. If the material is to tough or the work load is just becoming to much, he will adjust so that it is suitable. overall i liked him as a teacher.

34. The TA gives clear and understandable explanations.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A   3.05 21 1.31 Freq(%) 4 (19%) 1 (5%) 6 (29%) 6 (29%) 2 (10%) 2 (10%)

35. The TA appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A   3.05 21 1.18 Freq(%) 3 (14%) 2 (10%) 6 (29%) 7 (33%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%)

36. The TA grades paper (exams, homework) fairly.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A   3.85 21 1.09 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 4 (19%) 8 (38%) 6 (29%) 1 (5%)

37. The TA was easy to talk with and available for consultation.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A   3.44 21 1.2 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 8 (38%) 4 (19%) 4 (19%) 3 (14%)

38. Assignments (papers, problem sets) seem carefully chosen.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.0 21 1.0 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 4 (19%) 9 (43%) 7 (33%)

39. Assignments make students think.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.52 21 0.93 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (29%) 14 (67%)

40. Assignments are relevant to what is presented in class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.15 20 1.04 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 10 (50%) 8 (40%)

41. The course materials (texts, handouts) are easy to read and understand.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.29 21 1.1 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 2 (10%) 7 (33%) 8 (38%) 2 (10%)

42. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.05 21 0.92 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 12 (57%) 6 (29%)

43. In relation to the number of hours spent in class, this course requires an appropriate amount of homework.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.57 21 1.16 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 5 (24%) 9 (43%) 4 (19%)

44. The course is so conducted that I know on a daily/weekly basis what is expected of me.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.81 21 1.25 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 3 (14%) 8 (38%) 7 (33%)

45. Audiovisual materials (or computers) were adequate and used appropriately.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.05 21 1.2 Freq(%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 8 (38%) 9 (43%)

46. Examinations cover the important aspects of the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.1 21 0.94 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 2 (10%) 11 (52%) 7 (33%)

47. Exams are reasonable in length and difficulty.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   2.76 21 1.18 Freq(%) 4 (19%) 4 (19%) 7 (33%) 5 (24%) 1 (5%)

48. The examinations are graded very carefully and fairly.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.86 21 1.31 Freq(%) 3 (14%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 10 (48%) 7 (33%)

49. The exams gave students an opportunity to demonstrate what they had learned.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.48 21 1.25 Freq(%) 3 (14%) 1 (5%) 3 (14%) 11 (52%) 3 (14%)

50. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.0 19 1.05 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 10 (53%) 6 (32%)

51. The grading system was clearly explained.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.14 21 1.01 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 3 (14%) 8 (38%) 9 (43%)

52. Requests for re-grading or review were handled fairly.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.86 21 1.11 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 8 (38%) 4 (19%) 8 (38%)

53. My grades accurately represent my performance in the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.62 21 1.16 Freq(%) 1 (5%) 3 (14%) 4 (19%) 8 (38%) 5 (24%)

54. What changes would you make in the lectures?

Maybe leave more time at the end to discuss the miscellaneous stuff (projects, midterm review, etc.). It always felt like we had so much to cover, there was some rushing involved, and we still didn't have enough time to talk about some things that would have been helpful for students that weren't necessarily related to the lecture. The lectures were fine. I just wish we had more time for the class. Well, most of the material was review from 141 and 241; so maybe the lectures should have focused more on the algorithms more than explaining the old material. A little more organization and a little bit better insight into the information. The teacher. If not he needs more examples on the board. He needs to actually teach the student and not let them learn everything on their own. The three student choice lecture classes should be used as exam reviews. More in-class practice. I really liked the format employed in my ICS 321 class (45 minute lecture followed by relevant practice, which the teacher goes over at the end). Any practice currently given in lectures are mostly "gloss over this briefly" kind of stuff. Please cancel the quiz, it is an annoying. Spread them out and come in with a plan. The pace of the class was unbearable and I think a lot of other students agree with me. Too much material covered in one lecture. Maybe have us work on problems/examples in class. And/or quizzes at the end of class. More worked out examples. More examples of problems and how to solve them. Better pacing. Maybe add in a review class or plan to have half the previous class as review before tests. Add in a recitation hour for future classes like the Discrete math classes utilize. The lectures were satisfactory, though a little confusing. Less topics in order to allow more time to cover important areas. Rather than running through series of proofs, get the students to understand the basics of the algorithms first. Probably give quizes at the end of class and since he covers a lot of material during class, it would force students to really soak in the information. He does a great job explaining complicated concepts and key concepts you need to know to succeed during class. He does a good job covering a lot of material during such a little amount of time. more examples, handwritten step by step quiz grades are not that big of a deal because its worth such few points. I would be more than fine with an alphabetized stack passed boustrophedonically.

55. What changes would you make in the readings?

I think the current book provides a good mathematical approach to everything, but it isn't necessarily easy for everyone to grasp. I found myself still constantly Googling explanations about topics even after reading the book. The explanations offered by the textbook started to make more sense once I had more to trace through the code, but I don't think it's a good book for someone that doesn't have a very strong connection to math and just wants to get a general sense of how the algorithms work first before tackling all the proofs and whatnot. For this reason, I found Sedgewick's text to be a little easier to understand. The readings helped a lot. They were a little difficult to understand, but after the lecture, most of it was understood. n/a A better book. None. None. The book is good but hard to understand, Combined with the fact the lectures were never any help I had to spend a long time deciphering the book alone. The readings were very in-depth, particularly the proofs, which in my opinion were not worth taking up class time. I liked the alternate readings, they were often easier to understand then the assigned text. More of hem would be helpful. N/A No comment. Take out the special topics and consider alternate textbook(s) that make algorithms easier to understand. The readings are really dense. But I don't think we can really do much about this because the material is really dense. The book itself is even more dense than the readings. The professor did a great job making sure the readings weren't so horrible. none require the hard copy. pdf was difficult to work wtih and doesnt help on tests and such. The readings were fine.

56. My overall evaluation of this course is...

The material was interesting. I really wish grading was handled a little better; most of us still aren't very sure of where we stand as far as grades go. The grade posted on Laulima is deceiving because it leaves out so much of the assignments we've turned in. I think it is taught well, but is over crowded with the number of topics needed to be covered. Also having three projects during the semester is really tough. Especially when the project is due the week before the final. The course material is very hard, but Suthers at least gives his students a fighting chance to pass on the first try. It is ok but extremely difficult sometimes to keep up for me but I guess maybe it is my problem but overall not a bad class. Hard class but even harder if you have a teacher and TA like this. Always late but demanding for when things have to be turned in for students. Never returns anything on time. Great, challenging course, satisfying to see myself doing well. Pretty good content-wise as one of the core Major requirements. This is a most difficult course I token in my life. Worst ICS class I had so far. The algorithms are hard but the way it was presented made it just impossible to learn and implement. Could be improved a lot. Really disliked going to class cuz I didn't learn anything from the proffessor but I had to because there was a daily quiz. A very difficult, demanding course. Alleviated a bit by the curve, but still, far too much material to be covered in-depth. This course requires an extreme amount of work compared to other courses and while having to take other courses. The assignments, projects, and exams go from one to another often without enough time to sufficiently work on them. Wish that this course was split into two semesters instead of one, as the workload is very hard to manage with other classes between exams, problem sets, extra credit, and implementations. If it were split into two semesters, I feel that I would learn the material much more thoroughly and at a decent rate. Hard, but very informative! This will definitely change how I handle future tasks at programming and theory. The course has valuable information, but is presented in a rather confusing way. It is obviously meant to be a difficult course, but how confusing the material is makes it overwhelming sometimes. Still, the instructor does know what he's talking about and makes an effort to teach it. Tough. Difficult, but rewarding if you are willing to put the time into it. Great class, would recommend this to other students. an ok class It was fun. i'll pass next time... I liked this course and already knew it was going to be tough when i decided to take this class, but Suthers helped to make it so that it wasnt beyond the students abilities.

57. Other comments:

Some of the MIT video lectures were useful, but some of them were just as confusing as the book (more specifically, when they go into all the math). I like having quizzes since they force me to read and they're technically "freebie" points. It definitely makes studying and learning in lecture much easier. The problem sets are nice as well. I've never been a good test taker, so I was glad to see more points allocated to things such as problem sets and programming assignments. This course taught me a lot, but at the end of this semester, I am really burnt out. I gave a lot into this course, but unfortunately I don't think my grade will reflect that. The TA is usually late on grading, and it's hard to keep up with progress in the course. The amount of workload is insane, but at the same time, it is necessary for one to succeed in this class, mixed feeling on this one. The quizzes seems redundant since there are the problem sets already. I'm not saying it is unnecessary, but it should be weighed less than 10% The third exam had way too much arithmetic, impossible to finish. Special topics should only be included if students appear to have a thorough understanding of the basic material. Implementation projects should be split up into smaller projects since students naturally tend to cram all of it into a weekend. The TA took far too long to grade assignments, students were unable to check their progress accurately. The exams are long and require more time than it is alotted for. Keep it up Prof. Suthers, I know that this is only the second time teaching this course and that it will run smoother and smoother each time. :) none

Daniel Suthers: ICS 668, Fall 2012     Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Information& Computer Sciences
Course:	ICS 668 - Social Informatics	Crn (Section):	79272 (001)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Freshman   Sophomore   Junior   Senior   Grad   Other   5.0 10 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (100%) 0 (0%)

2. Course

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required   1.4 10 0.52 Freq(%) 6 (60%) 4 (40%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.7 10 0.48 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (30%) 7 (70%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.22 9 1.09 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 1 (11%) 2 (22%) 5 (56%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.1 10 1.2 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 0 (0%) 3 (30%) 5 (50%)

6. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.1 10 0.99 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 4 (40%) 4 (40%)

7. I learned to identify main points and central issues in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.3 10 0.48 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7 (70%) 3 (30%)

8. I learned to recognize quality work in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.1 10 0.88 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 0 (0%) 6 (60%) 3 (30%)

9. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.3 10 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 5 (50%)

10. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.8 10 1.03 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 3 (30%) 3 (30%)

11. I try to relate what I learn in this course to my own experience.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.33 9 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 4 (44%) 4 (44%)

12. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.2 10 0.63 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 6 (60%) 3 (30%)

13. My opinions about some topics changed because of this course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.0 10 1.05 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 4 (40%)

14. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

the readings and writing summaries Dr. Suthers' extremely rich experiences and knowledge in this field and in other interdisciplinary fields. The interesting readings were valuable. Logically the interesting papers lead to interesting class discussions. Readings in general Partial selfselection of Readings in particular A plethora of topics were covered, which gave a good range of different aspects to the overall topic of social informatics. Open exploration into the contents of the topics based on the reading provided sometimes allowed a greater look at said topics from other perspectives or with different foci. The discussions in class The variety of articles and discussions.

15. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

I understand that this is a seminar class and everybody gets to talk. However, some auditing students who do not care about the credits but just have a good time by saying whatever they feel like even not related to the discussion topics at all. This drags the quality of the class discussion down. The problem was the variability between what was "interesting" vs. what was practical knowledge. Although professor did a brief overview of papers, there needed to be a points in which it was stated "this is significant because...XYZ". Why? Some things we grew up with and understand or assume. As such there are a number of topics(important ideas and concepts) that some people gloss over because we "knew" it but didn't put much importance into it. Just because we know it doesn't mean we understand it or why it is important. Since the class was centered around discussion, if the discussion wasn't interesting, there would be a loss of gain. On that same note, I felt the class was too large to have full participation. As discussions have shown, discussion tended to be dominated by few people and those who were basically willing to blurt something out and "gain" speaker status. I have talked with people outside of class who felt that the discussions didn't promote participation due to the way people acted, reacted, portrayed themselves, etc. A smaller class with induced participation could have helped in this manner. Online discussion may have suffered from the same effects. Personally I found it incredibly hard to comment on someone's summary because most were so cookie cutter. I read paper x by y. It contained z. How is anyone supposed to comment on that? Not to mention those who didn't to the standard summary usually stated their opinion. How am I supposed to comment on their opinion without agreeing(imo pointless post) or disagreeing which I appear to be offensive. General discussion also suffered somewhat. Discussion in general DID suffer because of fear of insulting someone. Take the conversations that did get "heated" there were few instances, and most people immediately backed off because they didn't want to insult anyone. This is good and bad. Good because people care. Bad because it leads to a stagnant idea pool. Someone who never encounters new ideas cannot gain new idea. AND someone who is unwilling to accept new ideas cannot improve. True debate is VERY hard to come by. Most debate is try as hard as possible to convince the other party I'm right, and not giving in because that means I lost. Some readings proved long and not very interested. Conversations were sometimes derailed and participation proved difficult when topics were steered in certain directions. The general sense of the class felt very scattered and prevented deep exploration at times due to time constraints, conversational direction, and limitations of topic and focus. The forced reading summaries and posting of messages The online discussions were of least value.

16. What things did you get from this course that will benefit you personally?

Applications of SNA and ANT, my research paper, the origins of the field This course is eye-opening. It opened the door for me to Social Informatics. I was exposed to the major theories and classic studies in this field, which benefit my own research. Many things. Most importantly is the viewpoints I have gained. Hard to quantify and explain. Also want to use this area to explain Q17. "Daniel Suthers gives clear explanations" To be honest, this is hard to ask because it was a discussion, meaning emphasis was put into presenting an idea and see what the different interpretations were. And yes, it was possible that we can be told the "real" interpretation but still believe in our own. A slightly better understanding of the meaning of terminology and the vast range of topics that is included within it. Survey taking techniques and learning to read through other people's literature This course helped me to develop the community of practice portion of my design for a mobile device learning environment. I also obtained articles that contribute to my Lit Review.

17. The instructor gives clear explanations.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.7 10 1.16 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 3 (30%)

18. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.8 10 0.63 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 0 (0%) 9 (90%)

19. The instructor seems to enjoy teaching.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.4 10 1.07 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 7 (70%)

20. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.7 10 0.48 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (30%) 7 (70%)

21. The instructor seems knowledgeable in many areas.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 10 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (50%) 5 (50%)

22. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.0 10 0.67 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 6 (60%) 2 (20%)

23. The instructor frequently discussed recent developments related to the subject matter.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.3 10 0.67 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 5 (50%) 4 (40%)

24. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course material.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.6 10 0.7 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 7 (70%)

25. The instructor maintains an atmosphere of good feeling in class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.2 10 0.79 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 4 (40%) 4 (40%)

26. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.67 9 1.12 Freq(%) 1 (11%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 6 (67%) 1 (11%)

27. The instructor tailors this course to help many kinds of students.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.1 10 0.99 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 4 (40%) 4 (40%)

28. The instructor makes me feel free to ask questions.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.3 10 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 5 (50%)

29. One real strength of this course is the classroom discussion.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.3 10 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 5 (50%)

30. The instructor keeps students informed of their progress.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   2.11 9 1.05 Freq(%) 3 (33%) 3 (33%) 2 (22%) 1 (11%) 0 (0%)

31. The instructor seems well prepared for each class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.4 10 1.35 Freq(%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 1 (10%) 4 (40%) 2 (20%)

32. Work requirements and grading system were clear from the beginning.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.4 10 1.51 Freq(%) 2 (20%) 1 (10%) 0 (0%) 5 (50%) 2 (20%)

33. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.89 9 0.78 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (33%) 4 (44%) 2 (22%)

34. In general, the course was well organized.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.0 10 1.05 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 4 (40%)

35. The instructor makes the course difficult enough to be stimulating.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.1 10 0.88 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 0 (0%) 6 (60%) 3 (30%)

36. How can the instructor improve the teaching of this course?

By having less auditing students. Mostly covered in "what aspects were least valuable" Give clear feedback on progress. Actually give progress reports and feedback early, so people know what to do. Then you can be lax on giving reports. Q47. grades are assigned fairly and impartially. Yes, except as stated, need early feedback to understand what is desired of the assignments. It is important to ensure students have a good grasp of their standing in terms of grading and whether the input they are providing to the class is sufficient or not. Participation in class both online and offline with both the participation points and the summary&discussion points were giving general classifications which could not be used to comfortably confirm acknowledgement of points for grades. Project specifications, potential issues, and guidelines for development would be welcome additions when assigning a project. Readings provided uneven usefulness during class discussion, prioritizing which readings might get more emphasis or points existing points of discussion might make discussion points easier to access and debate. Exploring alternative approaches to class discussion and participation could help gain more involvement from the class as a whole. The current method of trying to summarize the papers then asking for feedback in a general scope can be somewhat disorienting to addressing points of interest in the reading. Key issues in the readings, or how the readings match up to the major concepts of the class topic might be useful in knowing what to focus on and prevent major digressions in class or student's aim in discussion. Earlier feedback on how students are doing in terms of participation, summary grades, and such. if there was another way to assign a grade without forcing reading summaries that might be nice. <- also hard on teacher to keep grades up to date because there's so much to read I like the structure of the course but I would like to have more timely feedback. More time for project development.

37. My overall evaluation of this instructor is....

A great professor and great researcher. Excellent discussion leader; authoritative expert in the field (and many other interdisciplinary fields) but still respects even very naive opinions from his students. Good teacher, would take more classes. very good Dr. Suthers is an enthusiastic and spirited professor who seems to have a fair grasp of his topic. While he shows a caring for the topic and students, his approach lacks some clarity and can be disorienting at times in terms of goals and points to focus on. He appears to often be affected by his other class which in turn has an affect on the students in this class. I would be interested in seeing him in a more focused class, with clearer objectives. Knowledgeable in Social Informatics. Seems very busy with a lot of classes, research, conferences. nice guy. fun class He is an enthusiastic Professor who is interested in the course but he currently has a great deal of work so he is short on time. Great!

38. Assignments are relevant to what is presented in class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.6 10 0.7 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 7 (70%)

39. The writing assignments helped me understand the course content.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.2 10 0.63 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 6 (60%) 3 (30%)

40. Reading assignments seem carefully chosen.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.0 10 0.67 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 6 (60%) 2 (20%)

41. Reading assignments require a reasonable amount of time and effort.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.2 10 1.03 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 5 (50%)

42. The assigned readings were instrumental in the development of my knowledge of the subject matter.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 10 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (50%) 5 (50%)

43. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.4 10 0.7 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 4 (40%) 5 (50%)

44. The course is so conducted that I know on a daily/weekly basis what is expected of me.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.7 10 1.7 Freq(%) 2 (20%) 1 (10%) 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 5 (50%)

45. The projects were valuable in understanding the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.7 10 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 6 (60%) 1 (10%)

46. The guest speakers contributed significantly to this course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.6 10 0.84 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 5 (50%) 1 (10%)

47. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.5 10 0.85 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 4 (40%) 4 (40%) 1 (10%)

48. Participation in online conversations (e.g., chats/bulletin boards/discussions boards) with my classmates contributed to my understanding of the course material.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A   3.9 10 1.1 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 2 (20%) 4 (40%) 0 (0%)

49. Which aspects of the course did you like the best?

Dr. Suthers' extremely rich experiences and knowledge in this field and his terrific listening skills that flourish the seminar discussions. Covered in Q14 Interactions with other students were both entertaining and educational. Being able to discuss topics and to digress while maintaining a connection to the material proved to be stimulating though not always useful in the long run. The online interactions provided a different way to interact with classmates as well, allowing easier ways for students who felt less inclined to participate in class a way to interact without feeling pressed to speak up or interrupt other students. Some topics provided were fairly interesting and provided interesting points of interaction. The topic range also provided a lot of different options for what a student could focus on as a point of interest. I enjoyed reading about World of Warcraft, Twitter, facebook, youtube. the class discussions Classroom Discussion Variety of topics and class discussions.

50. Which aspects of the course did you like least?

I didn't like that we, the students, were divided (by major, it seemed) for so long. I think it took, like, 7 or 8 weeks for us to really gel and develop a functional class dynamic. Some people blab out their opinions without even thinking, which wasted the valuable class time. Covered in Q15 Why the hell is google analytics scripts running!? Really, when I saw that I was tempted to stop the evaluation immediately. In fact, I dislike that very much considering there was a segment on online security/personal info. The amount of readings and their relevance to class and assignments were sometimes vague and confusing. Sometimes long readings rarely became important to class interactions and discussions while other times they took up most of the discussion. Student interactions while health were sometimes overly one sided or focused on one perspective or type of conversation. Often times the discussion became controlled in class by one or two students who would then create an affirmative statement or a inconclusive statement that was difficult to transition from in order to create more conversation. A lack of starting point or key points to discuss in readings prevented starting conversations in class and made preparation for class difficult. Grading and standards were not clear and many students have voiced amongst each other the difficulty in knowing how well they are doing in class or whether they are doing them right. The sense that Professor Suthers is busy and overwhelmed by doing this class in addition to teaching other classes made it difficult to want to ask too much of him which instead lead to students being confused. Summarize were often commented by the professor well after they were submitted, suggesting corrections which couldn't be done to subsequent assignments between submission and response. Feedback on participation was not given often and left some of us uncertain if we were doing them right or if we were receiving credit for our efforts. Project assignment and specifications were not very clear. Checkpoints were not given much effort and clarity in what was required from the project made setting goals and providing materials difficult. Feedback helped to realign ideas, but if ideas were not clear then the need to clarification then the idea reconstruction would overtake the ability to gain more materials and an understanding of what is necessary for the project. The overall disorganization and specification of the class created much confusion about the class as a whole and detracted from the learning experience and enjoyment. the online summaries The lack of timely feedback. I felt overwhelmed by the unfamiliar technical content of some of the articles. I had to read and re- read many articles.

51. My overall evaluation of this course is...

good. I highly recommend it to others in the future. Great class; interesting and eye-opening readings; usually inspiring discussion. Good teacher, would take more classes. Very good An interesting sounding class that needs more development and classification. Focus and key points of note are necessary to help facilitate growth and discussion in the topic and create a healthy learning environment for those who do not have a clear understanding of the topic. Overall, a good class that is shadowed by the flaws which dampen the experience. not bad, it was kind of hard at times but fun also. some topics were much more enjoyable than others Very Good!

52. Other comments:

next time, touch on activity theory and really bridge the gap of algorithms and programming by some sort of discussion or paper. Need to grade reactions every week or two, not once every other month... Need to reply to emails more promptly. Hope Dr. Suthers can offer this kind of class more often. Why the hell is google analytics scripts running!? Really, when I saw that I was tempted to stop the evaluation immediately. In fact, I dislike that very much considering there was a segment on online security/personal info. Freedom provides endless potential, but without guidelines one might get lost wandering the endless expanse.

Daniel Suthers: ICS 668, Spring 2011     Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Information& Computer Sciences
Course:	ICS 668 - Social Informatics	Crn (Section):	88615 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.67 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.33 6 1.21 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 4 (67%)

4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.33 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (67%) 2 (33%)

5. I learned to identify main points and central issues in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.33 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (67%) 2 (33%)

6. I learned to recognize quality work in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 6 0.55 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 3 (50%)

7. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.33 6 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%) 3 (50%)

8. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.17 6 0.75 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 3 (50%) 2 (33%)

9. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.33 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (67%) 2 (33%)

10. What things did you get from this course that will benefit you personally?

Exposure to lots of readings and theories. Summaries, reflections, and class discussions of readings definitely helped me to think critically about the material in order to prepare for the SI exam and further develop my research interests. The readings really help me to see what social informatics deal with and get interested in further learning in this area. As I have no previous knowledge about it, I found the course necessary and interesting for me. major theories in social informatics and how to apply them in research

11. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.67 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)

12. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 6 0.84 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 4 (67%)

13. The instructor frequently discussed recent developments related to the subject matter.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.67 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)

14. The instructor maintains an atmosphere of good feeling in class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)

15. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 6 0.84 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 4 (67%)

16. The instructor makes me feel free to ask questions.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.83 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 5 (83%)

17. The instructor seems well prepared for each class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 6 0.84 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 4 (67%)

18. Work requirements and grading system were clear from the beginning.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.2 5 1.3 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%) 3 (60%)

19. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 6 0.84 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 4 (67%)

20. The instructor makes the course difficult enough to be stimulating.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.17 6 1.17 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 3 (50%)

21. What did you find most valuable and helpful about the instructor?

how to critically analyze content and relate ideas to various theories discussed/presented in the field/course. Highly knowledgeable about the content area. His willingness to consider student generated ideas for seminar topics. He created an environment where students felt comfortable to participate in discussion. The class had more or a collaborative feel to it which helped with learning the content. Prof. Suthers' in class summary is very helpful for me as a non-native speaker. Also, the reading summary is really a good practice although it often took me many hours to write, it pays off, too. his teaching style and methods -- they stimulated me to be more analytical and critical about what i read.

22. Please list your suggestions for improving the course and/or the instructor's teaching style and methods.

since the course requires the students to read, and understand/apply research methodologies throughout the course, it would be extremely helpful to discuss the various types of research and analysis methods and how they are used in research in the beginning of class. emphasis on project types and areas from the beginning of course. I found this course to be extremely reading heavy, even after the weekly reading assignments were reduced so that we could work on our final projects. I would have also appreciated more feedback in regards to our grades for our weekly reading summaries and participation. I feel that this class could benefit from having more structure, or varying it occasionally so that it isn't always a class discussion on the readings. I enjoyed having guest lecturers and being exposed to other points of view. There's not a whole lot that I would improve. I enjoyed how the class was structured so that we were able to focus on our papers towards the end. I also enjoyed the special topics that were student generated. perhaps the amount of weekly assignment -- i see great benefits of weekly assignment. it did help sharpen my thought. but it took me so much time to complete.

23. What two or three single words best describe this instructor?

a great researcher and analyst Knowledgeable, Current, Resourceful encouraging, constructive, invested enthusiastic, concise, caring, insightful, open-minded knowledgeable supportive dedicated (himself to teaching for students' best interest)

24. My overall evaluation of this instructor is....

A professor who is easy to communicate with and a source of inspiration to become a good researcher and critical analyst. great nurturing teacher who truly cares about student needs. Excellent instructor. He invested a lot of his time and energy to this class. Unlike some other professors, teaching is only something they are required to do after tenure were granted. I really appreciate Dr. Suthors' effort to make this course challenging, yet enjoyable. A great instructor! excellent. he's one of the best teachers i've ever known.

25. The writing assignments helped me understand the course content.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 6 0.55 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 3 (50%)

26. Reading assignments seem carefully chosen.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 6 0.84 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 4 (67%)

27. Reading assignments require a reasonable amount of time and effort.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.67 6 1.37 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 2 (33%)

28. The assigned readings were instrumental in the development of my knowledge of the subject matter.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 6 0.55 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 3 (50%)

29. The course is so conducted that I know on a daily/weekly basis what is expected of me.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.67 6 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (33%) 4 (67%)

30. The projects were valuable in understanding the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 6 0.55 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (50%) 3 (50%)

31. The instructor gave fair and consistent grades.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.67 6 0.82 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%)

32. Online communication with class members and the instructor helped me to learn course materials in an effective manner.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A   4.17 6 0.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (83%) 1 (17%) 0 (0%)

33. Which aspects of the course did you like the best?

discussion style class Variety of weekly discussion topics see above comments. In-class discussion, really inspiring. Its wide range of topic coverage and its pragmatical value for CIS area exam. discussion in class -- improved my understanding about weekly topics

34. Which aspects of the course did you like least?

an absence of a structured summary (in every class) of theories and key ideas to look for the following week. Course structure time-consuming weekly assignment

35. My overall evaluation of this course is...

I learned a lot of valuable and interesting theories related to the course field which could also be applicable to other fields of study. Very interesting class, and provided a great overview of a variety of topics. helpful. Excellent, beyond my expectation. useful and inspiring excellent

36. Other comments:

lot of information to read, gather and make sense.

Daniel Suthers: ICS 668, Fall 2009     Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Information& Computer Sciences
Course:	ICS 668 - Social Informatics	Crn (Section):	79096 (001)

1. Course

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required   1.22 9 0.44 Freq(%) 7 (78%) 2 (22%)

2. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 9 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (100%)

3. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 9 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (100%)

4. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 9 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (100%)

5. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.56 9 0.73 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 2 (22%) 6 (67%)

6. I developed the ability to carry out original research in this area.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.22 9 0.83 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 3 (33%) 4 (44%)

7. I learned to recognize quality work in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.56 9 0.73 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 2 (22%) 6 (67%)

8. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.67 9 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (33%) 6 (67%)

9. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.22 9 0.83 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 3 (33%) 4 (44%)

10. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.89 9 0.33 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 8 (89%)

11. What things did you get from this course that will benefit you personally?

The range of topics was broad, but the readings and discussion allowed a deep discussion of a variety of different theories, techniques, and research methodologies. I earned valuable insights into an area of computer science that I had not really experienced before but will be needed for my current research. I will be able to be more sensitive to the human side of computing when designing systems after taking this course. I learned how to personal reflect on a class session. I also learned how to summarize, review, and critically analyze an academic paper.

12. The instructor is enthusiastic about the course material.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 9 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (100%)

13. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 9 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (100%)

14. The instructor frequently discussed recent developments related to the subject matter.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 9 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (100%)

15. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.78 9 0.44 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 7 (78%)

16. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.67 9 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (33%) 6 (67%)

17. The instructor makes me feel free to ask questions.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.67 9 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 1 (11%) 7 (78%)

18. The instructor seems well prepared for each class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.78 9 0.44 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 7 (78%)

19. Work requirements and grading system were clear from the beginning.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.89 9 0.33 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 8 (89%)

20. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.56 9 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (44%) 5 (56%)

21. In general, the course was well organized.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.78 9 0.44 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 7 (78%)

22. The instructor makes the course difficult enough to be stimulating.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.67 9 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (33%) 6 (67%)

23. What did you find most valuable and helpful about the instructor?

The in-depth knowledge and related research experience of Dr. Suthers was the #1 reason this was an effective course. He is extremely knowledgeable about this field and has a lot of practical experience in research. He makes the class atmosphere casual and comfortable but expects a high level discourse which ensures a stimulating discussion every meeting. He was extremely into the subject we studied and had extensive experience in doing research, therefore he was very knowledgeable about the field.

24. Please list your suggestions for improving the course and/or the instructor's teaching style and methods.

Some of the papers were a little boring. I think the class should be restructured so that research methods and terminology are intermixed with current issues throughout the year. That would help very much in terms of making the class more engaging.

25. What two or three single words best describe this instructor?

enthusiastic, knowledgeable, professional knowledgeable, interested, enthusiastic Enthusiastic, helpful, and well experienced.

26. My overall evaluation of this instructor is....

I have never seen such an excellent instructor who always tries to find ways to be inclusive to different types of students. The instructor is very supportive to your personality and deliver what a students need. Outstanding. Addresses concepts that are difficult and beats them into submission. I really liked having this instructor and feel he genuinely increased my ability to become a researcher. The instructor was very enthusiastic about the course and subject. He was strongly committed to making the course as interesting and helpful as possible. He was always prepared for class and prepared to help any student who needed it outside of class.

27. Assignments are relevant to what is presented in class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.56 9 1.01 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 7 (78%)

28. Reading assignments seem carefully chosen.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.56 9 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (44%) 5 (56%)

29. Reading assignments require a reasonable amount of time and effort.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.56 9 0.73 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 2 (22%) 6 (67%)

30. The assigned readings were instrumental in the development of my knowledge of the subject matter.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.67 9 0.71 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 1 (11%) 7 (78%)

31. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.78 9 0.44 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 7 (78%)

32. The course is so conducted that I know on a daily/weekly basis what is expected of me.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.67 9 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (33%) 6 (67%)

33. The projects were valuable in understanding the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.78 9 0.44 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 7 (78%)

34. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.78 9 0.44 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 7 (78%)

35. Online communication with class members and the instructor helped me to learn course materials in an effective manner.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   N/A   4.86 9 0.38 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 6 (67%) 2 (22%)

36. Which aspects of the course did you like the best?

the possibility to discuss "special topics" and the readings at least for the special topic sessions. This was a very well structured course that covered a wide range of related topics. It was great when the theory covered early in the class came through in studies where one would not expect it. I found the in-class meetings with the informal discussions the most enjoyable. I liked the end of the semester when we could cover current issues in the field. I found that very relevant to my understanding of the broader subject of computer science.

37. Which aspects of the course did you like least?

the assignment of posting "reflections" by 2 days after class: I'd rather post reflections when I really want to discuss something. Maybe a certain ammount of online contribution could be required without timing limits? disCourse. Primarily because it was so darn slow. I was quite frustrated with the students who didn't participate in class. I felt somewhat uncomfortable having a discussion with the professor and other class members while a few people sat there and watched us. I disliked the lack of any technical work. I was hoping to learn more about computers, but the class didn't cover and technical subjects.

38. My overall evaluation of this course is...

excellent good and interesting enough to me but a student with no backgrounnd of study may struggle and be overwhelmed by all the theories and approaches through the reading assignments Outstanding. Made me interested in many more things than I can possibly study or research. Great course. Not the usual computer science class which was hard to get used to but I learned a lot. I thought the course was very interesting and I believe the knowledge and skills I gained from it will be very helpful into the future.

Daniel Suthers: ICS 667, Spring 2009     Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Information& Computer Sciences
Course:	ICS 667 - Advanced HCI Design Methods	Crn (Section):	88882 (001)

1. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)

2. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)

3. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)

4. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%)

5. I developed the ability to solve real problems in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%)

6. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)

7. I developed skills needed by professionals in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%)

8. I felt that this course challenged me intellectually.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)

9. Which aspects of the course were most valuable?

By covering a variety of practical and theoretical foundations for HCI, the course avoided "how to create a pretty web page" by asking why techniques were good/bad. We covered both pragmatic and theoretical aspects of HCI design methods. As a system designer and developer I have been exposed extensively to the technical aspects of system design but not the "human" aspects of system design. This aspect of system design is often ignored or omitted and can determine the success or failure of a system regardless of the technical quality of the system. This ICS class provided me the framework to understand and directly address the human aspect of system design.

10. Which aspects of the course were least valuable?

The after-class online reflection posting assignment: although it originated some interesting discussions, it was mandatory and therefore sometimes writing it and reading others' posting was time consuming with no additional value. escalation of the amount of writing beyond what we could effectively discuss

11. What things did you get from this course that will benefit you personally?

The Raskin and Krippendorff readings were excellent, albeit very different, and forced me to think about HCI in ways I had never considered. Some of the discussion material in class bordered on highly conceptual philosophical concepts which at times was difficult for me to understand. However that was a limitation of my knowledge and experiences. Gaining experience and knowledge in these aspects of system design will be beneficial for me when I am involved in future system design projects.

12. The instructor gives clear explanations.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)

13. The instructor appears to have a thorough knowledge of the subject.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)

14. The instructor is sensitive to student difficulty with course work.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.0 4 1.41 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 2 (50%)

15. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)

16. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.25 4 0.96 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 2 (50%)

17. The instructor was easy to talk with and available for consultation.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.25 4 0.96 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 2 (50%)

18. The instructor makes me feel free to ask questions.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)

19. The instructor seems well prepared for each class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)

20. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)

21. In general, the course was well organized.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)

22. The instructor makes the course difficult enough to be stimulating.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)

23. What did you find most valuable and helpful about the instructor?

Dr. Suthers' ICS background, HCI teaching experience, and strong research background were evident in his understanding of the subject matter and the diversity of the topics covered in the class. He stimulated students to participate in the design of the course. Instructors knowledge of course material and content

24. Please list your suggestions for improving the course and/or the instructor's teaching style and methods.

It might be interesting to do more experimental activities, maybe optimizing the time for in class discussion, which fortunately touched many tangent issues, however sometimes for too long. Maybe it would be fruitful to stimulate more the overall online discussion instead of assigning a mandatory personal reflection posting after each class, i.e. it could count positively if after class the student answers her/his or others' previous posts on the light of eventual thoughts emerged during the class meeting. The week's rhythm would be: (1)personal reading (2)posting online of personal thoughts (3)class meeting (4)distributed online discussions. The first day of class seemed very unstructured however this was a non issue for the rest of the course. sympathy

25. What two or three single words best describe this instructor?

knowledgeable enthusiastic engaging knowledgable and experienced in human computer interaction theory challenging, knowledgeable

26. My overall evaluation of this instructor is....

Excellent. Top 5% of all instructors I've taken courses from. excellent A

27. Assignments are relevant to what is presented in class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)

28. Class assignments provided an effective aid for learning the subject matter.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)

29. The assigned readings were instrumental in the development of my knowledge of the subject matter.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.25 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (75%) 1 (25%)

30. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.75 4 0.5 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)

31. The course is so conducted that I know on a daily/weekly basis what is expected of me.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 4 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%)

32. The projects were valuable in understanding the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   5.0 4 0.0 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%)

33. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   3.67 3 0.58 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 0 (0%)

34. My overall evaluation of this course is...

Excellent. I am glad I took it, although I was wary before taking the course that it would be too detailed/in-the-weeds w.r.t. computer programming that I would not get the breadth of material and topics that interest me. very good

Daniel Suthers: ICS 491, Fall 2008     Back to top

Campus:	University of Hawaii at Manoa	Department:	Information& Computer Sciences
Course:	ICS 491 - Special Topics	Crn (Section):	78169 (003)

1. Class Level (pick one)

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Freshman   Sophomore   Junior   Senior   Grad   Other   4.13 8 0.35 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7 (88%) 1 (13%) 0 (0%)

2. Course

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Elective   Required   1.63 8 0.52 Freq(%) 3 (38%) 5 (63%)

3. The instructor demonstrated knowledge of course content.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.75 8 0.46 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 6 (75%)

4. The instructor fulfilled the goals of the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 8 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (50%) 4 (50%)

5. The instructor communicated effectively.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 8 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 2 (25%) 5 (63%)

6. I gained a good understanding of concepts/principles in this field.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.29 7 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 3 (43%) 3 (43%)

7. I deepened my interest in the subject matter of this course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.29 7 1.11 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) 2 (29%) 4 (57%)

8. The instructor was effective in meeting the objectives of the course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.25 8 0.89 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 2 (25%) 4 (50%)

9. The instructor is willing to meet and help students outside class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.38 8 0.92 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (25%) 1 (13%) 5 (63%)

10. The instructor makes me feel free to ask questions.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.63 8 0.74 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 1 (13%) 6 (75%)

11. The instructor seems well prepared for each class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 8 0.53 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (50%) 4 (50%)

12. The instructor presented the course materials in a clear and organized way.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 8 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 2 (25%) 5 (63%)

13. In general, the course was well organized.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.38 8 0.74 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 3 (38%) 4 (50%)

14. My overall evaluation of this instructor is....

Very knowledgeable in his study of work and it shows in the lectures. Excelent instrutor There was very little feedback from the instructor as to how we were doing in this course. very good. a little late at times...but is very enthusiastic about the subject very helpful teacher, thank you! but also too much reading!! Dr. Suthers is a really nice guy, and makes his class very interesting. He picks lots of topics for reading and discussion which are surprisingly contemporary. The discussions often have us analyzing popular web technology and video games in ways that gave me a much deeper insight into the psychology of designing and interfacing with technology. Being an actual researcher in this field was probably a major factor in all of this, because he is well versed in all of the current literatur and is also very excited to talk about these topics, which got me excited to learn it as well.

15. Assignments are relevant to what is presented in class.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.5 8 0.76 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (13%) 2 (25%) 5 (63%)

16. The instructional materials (e.g., texts, handouts, etc.) were relevant to course objectives.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.63 8 0.52 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (38%) 5 (63%)

17. Grades are assigned fairly and impartially.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree   Disagree   Neutral   Agree   Strongly Agree   4.13 8 0.99 Freq(%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (38%) 1 (13%) 4 (50%)

18. My overall evaluation of this course is...

This course has deepened my interest of this area of computer science. Excelent Instructor I learned some things. I think there is plenty of room for improvement in the presentation and organization of this course. very good. the final project could be easier, especially for undergraduates. In my opinion a reasonable paper length would be less than 10 pages because of time constraints. I would suggest Maximum of 5 pages and a minimum of 3 pages that would be the best range. good!! There was a lot of theoretical information. If there was more of an emphasis on applicable material, I think it would better enhance the learning in the class. This is a really great course and I think I learned a lot in it, even though it doesn't have a whole lot to do directly with my field of study (embedded systems). The instructor made it really interesting, and so I think I learned a lot. It was kind of disappointing though that this was the only human-computer interaction (HCI) related course available this semester, especially since there appears to be many faculty members with HCI experience. The actual HCI course was not available this semester at all, and could probably be a prerequisite for this course.