Skip to main content

Survey Results

Course Survey Results

Anthony   Peruma   ICS691E, Fall 2022

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Course: ICS 691E - Topics in CS: Area 4
Department:   Information& Computer Sciences Crn (Section):   79928 (001)    

1.   Global appraisal: Overall how would you rate this INSTRUCTOR?

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor (1)  Poor (2)  Average (3)  Good (4)  Very Good (5) 
4.8 15 0.41   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3(20%) 12(80%)
2.   Considering everything, how would you rate the GA/TA’s sections of this COURSE?

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor (1)  Poor (2)  Average (3)  Good (4)  Excellent (5) 
4.14 14 1.03   0(0%) 0(0%) 6(43%) 0(0%) 8(57%)
3.   Considering everything, how would you rate the LAB for this course?

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor (1)  Poor (2)  Average (3)  Good (4)  Excellent (5) 
4.29 14 0.99   0(0%) 0(0%) 5(36%) 0(0%) 9(64%)

4.   What did you find most valuable and helpful about the instructor?
The instructor came from the private industry which gave us very insightful feedback on what is really happening in real software development jobs. It gave us a chance to learn what the best practices are and how those best practices aren't really being used in real life. This means the best practices are not really working and we need more research in software engineering that studies how developers actually develop software.
Constantly available and willing to work with us. Kumu dedicated time outside of class to meet with us weekly to ensure we were on track and asked relevent questions to help steer us during our project development.
Professor Peruma was very accommodating when it came to the project. If we needed help, he was available. He also tried to explain material in a way that is understandable to different knowledge levels of the topic.
Professor Peruma was energetic and optimistic. He offered many real-world stories to help make the concepts more memorable and easier to digest. Also, I knew before he agreed to teach at UH that we would be in good hands. I heard his first talk last year and felt like he really had his act together. He has both industry and research experience, he's an expert on code smells, readability, identifier naming, and NLP, and he's a great teacher to boot. I also appreciated that we got a chance to see what code is supposed to look like and learned many great tools to help us improve our own code.
He uses academics and industry knowledge.
He was willing to help and work with us and give us individual help on the project.
Dr. Peruma is clearly very knowledgeable about software quality assurance, and his industry experience makes him a useful contact for the points covered in class. Also he was always available to help and open to setting up weekly meetings to discuss project updates. He was a great professor.
the tools provided by the instructor are very helpful
Very willing to meet to talk about homework, projects, and other topics in the class. The instructor was also very approachable, informative, and knowledgeable about his area of expertise. Dr. Peruma was also willing to communicate at (almost) any time through discord and emails which was immensely helpful.
The most valuable and helpful thing about the instructor was their experience and knowledge. The instructor's past research and work experience played hand in hand with the curriculum being taught and made the class more engaging.
Very supportive with projects and knowledgeable in industry practices. Feedback on project milestones was detailed and helpful.
very willing to helps if needed
Expertise and focus of the instructor in software engineering field of research. Experience doing statistical analysis on datasets.
Professor Peruma is very knowledgeable in many different areas of software engineering and software quality assurance. He starts with the basics and builds upon them with examples, including our class assignments and papers to review. He is good at leading discussions, but also lets students ask questions and answers all questions seriously. So, we felt comfortable in talking with him and his industry experience gave us a fresh perspective compared to just textbook knowledge. His powerpoint presentations were well put together. He was always prepared for class. And his coding examples were relevant and presented in a way that was easy to understand.

5.   What did you find least valuable and helpful about the instructor?
The instructor speaks a bit too fast. This may not be an issue because we are all Computer Science students, so we understand what he is trying to say. The instructor also knows a bit more than what is taught in our software engineering courses so some of the terms that he uses gets lost.
NA. My favorite Kumu for ICS to date.
Can't think of anything.
There were not any issues that I can think of at this time. It's not always going to be for everyone but I really enjoyed learning about software quality assurance...oddly enough.
Nothing really
I do not have any complaints or things to change about Dr. Peruma's teaching style.
Overall, I don't think there were many 'least helpful' aspects about the instructor.
The instructor has industry experience and mentioned sometimes during lecture, but only at one company prior to academia which skews the industry perspective. However, the instructor seems to keep up to date with current trends.

6.   The instructor is fair and objective in evaluating students.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
4.87 15 0.35   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2(13%) 13(87%)
7.   The instructor is well prepared and organized.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
4.93 15 0.26   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1(7%) 14(93%)

8.   Which aspect of the course were most valuable?
Having the instructor there for answering our questions.
The final project/paper. Additionally, assignment one was a great introduction to testing and assignment two was a great introduction to metrics.
I found that the most valuable part of the course was the project. It pushed me to really think about what I was researching and how it applies to QA.
The overall structure of the course was really nice. I liked how organized everything was and that Professor Peruma was still flexible to students' needs and he tailored the pace of the class based on what I think was the overall vibe of everyone. The most valuable part of the course for me personally was working with a team to write a paper. In previous classes, I didn't have many great experiences working together on teams, but this semester I felt fortunate. We each had our own skill that contributed and we learned from each other, no matter the outcome. There is always room to improve but I felt pretty good about what we learned and accomplished in the class.
Project + coding assigments
The professor is extremely knowledgeable on the topic and is very organized. He explains in a very simple way the complex topics.
The instructors lectures, homework, and term-long project were the most valuable.
software quality issues and countermeasures. This really helps me improve my own coding activity
The semester projects and the in-class lectures about quality assurance.
The most valuable aspect of the course was the discussions with the instructor.
Assignments and activities were very valuable. I took away most from the topics on testing, test smells, and proper naming of methods and variables.
Paper reviews, presentation, project, assignment in this order
This course helped us to understand why best practices in software engineering are important. We often hear that sloppy code or unreadable code is bad. But this course helped us understand where/how we can improve our code. And introduced us to methods of testing our code and the pros/cons of going back and fixing things about our code (e.g. refactoring). Although this type of knowledge is useful for undergraduate students, I found it to also be useful as a graduate student. It was good to have a graduate course dedicated to this topic because these are fundamental concepts to all programmers - especially if we want to work in larger projects and in industry. In addition, these topics of quality assurance cannot be sufficiently covered in just a few lectures as part of an introductory course. So, I recommend that this course continue to be offered to graduate students in the future.

9.   Which aspect of the course were least valuable?
None, the class was very well structured.
The least valuable aspect of the course was not related to the content but was related to the classroom itself. The classroom is one of the worst I've been in at UH so far. The lighting was terrible and the other class behind us had a chalkboard which made it very distracting. Some students even thought it was construction work at first because it was so loud.
I would say to present papers, but it necessary to read papers and present them since we will do the same thing for our project.
Maybe the paper presentations/reviews.
I feel the student presentations for the research papers were the least valuable, but not by much. They were still great.
Paper presentations and discussions were least helpful if the presentation wasn't good or when I didn't read the paper.
Lectures in comparison to other aspects of the course

10.   Other comments?
I would take additional classes from this instructor.
This course directly improved my performance and professional knowledge in my career. I took lessons each week and was able to apply this learning to my work projects.
These survey questions are going to give me grammar nightmares. Other than that, I appreciate the opportunity to speak up and provide feedback and I would definitely take Dr. Peruma's class again if given the chance.
Thank you.
Thank you for the great semester!
The only other suggestion for the course is to provide more hands-on activities with the tools presented or about the lecture.
I think by nature this class needs hands on things to do to really reinforce what is being taught in lecture. I would have preferred less paper reviews and more smaller assignments to practice what was taught in class such as finding test/code smells, fixing identifier names, and more unit testing while looking at a real code base. Glad I took this course and the professor is part of the ICS department. This is an interesting field of research that has high impact for many developers.
I appreciate the time and effort Professor Peruma put into this class. I felt I learned a lot and it is one of the more informative courses I have taken in my graduate career.

11.   The instructor was open to comments and questions.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Rarely (1)  Sometimes (2)  Frequently (3)  Generally (4)  Almost Always (5) 
5.0 15 0.0   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 15(100%)
12.   The course was a valuable contribution to my education.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
4.8 15 0.41   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3(20%) 12(80%)
13.   I learned a lot in this course.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
4.73 15 0.46   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 4(27%) 11(73%)
14.   The instructor treated students with respect.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
4.87 15 0.35   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2(13%) 13(87%)
15.   The instructor demonstrated knowledge of the course content.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
4.93 15 0.26   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1(7%) 14(93%)
16.   This course challenged me intellectually.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
4.53 15 0.64   0(0%) 0(0%) 1(7%) 5(33%) 9(60%)
17.   The instructor both sets high standards and helps students achieve them.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
4.87 15 0.35   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2(13%) 13(87%)
18.   The instructor was available for consultation.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
5.0 15 0.0   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 15(100%)
19.   Considering everything, how would you rate this COURSE?

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Very Poor (1)  Poor (2)  Average (3)  Good (4)  Excellent (5) 
4.73 15 0.46   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 4(27%) 11(73%)
20.   What was the format of this class? online synchronous (class scheduled for particular days and times) online asynchronous (class conducted online - no scheduled class meeting)

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Online Synchronous ()  Online Asynchronous ()  In Person ()  Hybrid: In Person and Online Synchronous ()  Hybrid: In Person and Online Asynchronous ()  Hybrid: Online Synchronous and Asynchronous ()  Other () 
0.0 15 0.0   0(0%) 0(0%) 15(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

21.   If you answered 'Other' for the question above, please specify.

22.   Please share your thoughts on the research papers selected for presentation and review throughout the semester. For instance, did these papers further expand your knowledge of the topic? Were they easy to read and understand? What other topics/techniques would you have preferred to be included in the reading list, and why?
Yes, the papers that I read throughout the semester was easy to understand and allowed me to further expand my knowledge around the topics of software quality. The papers were very interesting and were relevant to the class. If I were to pick additional papers to add to the class, I would have wanted to read more about standard models that developers use to write code. Perhaps papers referring to architectures in software engineering.
I found the research papers selected were great. There were a variety of topics and quality/impactfulness in the papers. The papers did expand my knowledge and in some cases influenced me to further research the specific topic beyond the paper itself. None.
Some research papers were easy to read and understand, but I can't say that for all of them. These papers did help to understand different concepts that were discussed in class. I'm not sure what other topics or techniques I would have wanted to be included in the reading list, but I would've liked it if some topics had gone a little more in depth.
The research papers were all excellent choices in my opinion. They offered insight into the weekly topic and made it much easier to absorb the material each week. I am a slow reader, but I appreciated the chance to annotate and review several papers. I enjoyed my classmates' critiques and that we all engaged in the discussions. In general, the publications were easy to understand when coupled with the course material, but a couple of them were quite long. I guess it comes with the territory but again, I had a hard time getting through a few of them to the end. I think it is sometimes a good idea to select our own paper to present from a group of well-known journals or conferences. It would force us to branch out a little more but we were limited on time and I think we covered a broad range of topics.
The papers were well-chosen and presenting them help us to get used presenting papers.
The papers were interesting and on point for the subject.
I enjoyed the research papers and feel that they covered a wide variety of topics. It would be interesting to explore more software engineering practices as well as quality assurance papers, but I also understand that that is out of the scope of the class.
the research papers are very interesting to read and expand my knowledge of software quality. Most of the papers are easy to read and understand.
The selected papers definitely expanded my knowledge when it comes to software quality assurance and software engineering. I hope these papers are kept and used in future classes because I thought there were great overall. Even if some papers had some very obvious flaws, being able to identify those flaws is still a learning experience.
I thought the research papers selected for presentation and review fit perfectly with the curriculum for this course. I liked how some of the papers were by Dr. Peruma, so it allowed for different insights during the discussions about them (e.g., why was X done that way). The papers did further expand my knowledge of the topic and were usually supported by the lectures. They were easy to read and understand. I think early in the semester, I would have preferred readings that focused on the impact of bad coding practices to show the importance of software quality and set the tone of the class.
The research papers were helpful to get insight into what software engineering research and publications look like. The topic of the papers were rather specific, which made them less relevant to get a broad understanding of the field.
The paper did expand my knowledge of the topic, but not all of them were easy to read for me. I preferred maybe students have there own choice for papers related to the topic.
I thought the research papers for this class were interesting and opened my eyes to the field of software engineering research. Papers were technical, but not too technical like some machine learning papers. The papers I enjoyed the most to read or presented on were ones that were most applicable to me as a developer. For example, the paper on "What makes a good commit message", "How do I refactor this? An empirical study on refactoring trends and topics in Stack Overflow", "On the Naming of Methods: A Survey of Professional Developers". I personally prefer papers such as these where there are some conceptual takeaways. I think there could have been a little less machine learning papers since not all students in the class are machine learning/data science focused. Instead, papers on software development lifecycle and testing. Overall good variety of topics.
Yes, I found the papers and the order in which they were presented to be very useful in gradually building my knowledge in software quality assurance. There were many topics covered, but I did not feel that any of them were rushed. Some papers were difficult to understand but the professor did an excellent job of answering questions and leading the discussion to make sure we understood key points. I didn't feel like there needed to be additional topics - many of the topics were on issues that were new to me. So, I felt the pacing was good.
Yes, the papers somewhat expanded my knowledge on the respective topics. I’m not someone who learns through reading—I learn better through seeing and doing, so the research paper format is probably not the best learning technique for me.

23.   Please share your thoughts on the semester-long project. For instance, did the project improve your knowledge/experience in software engineering and quality assurance? What are the areas of improvement? What did you like about the project?
I'm not sure if structuring the phases linearly as the paper is written is the right way to write the paper. I think following this format gives the students the wrong impression on how papers should be written, considering this is the first time students have ever written a "conference-ready paper". I think that we should have a phase where we experiment with different tools and try different things before we start writing the paper. We should maybe start with a related works and methodology. Or maybe the students could focus just on the methodology/results/discussion section more and continue to write additional content if we are thinking about writing the paper for a conference. But, again, the class was fine just the way it is. No need for major changes.
Yes, the semester-long project was great because it kept me engaged and focused on how to incorporate the topics and methods taught in class. Additionally, the tools provided by Kumu were vital in helping to complete our research papers. My areas of improvement requires experience in writing papers like this. I appreciate the exposure to LaTeX as it is a tool that will be used for my Thesis.
I enjoyed the semester-long project. Given that it was spread out the semester it allowed me to think more about what the end goal of the project would be. It also allowed for more in depth analysis of the data, which is hard to do with shorter projects. I do think that the project helped to improve my knowledge of software engineering and quality assurance. I can't say that it helped with improving experience. The project was mostly informative of how quality assurance is now and how we should be improving it for tomorrow.
The semester-long project was great. One, I had an excellent team and I felt many of the students in the class put forth a solid effort to do a good job, which is not always common. I think it had a lot to do with Dr. Peruma's teaching style and openness to share and collaborate on work with students to make sure we were all on the right track. Moreover, the feedback is not always easy (because it can be time-consuming) but it was very beneficial in helping us meet our goals and complete the final report. I was a little surprised by the tempo of the project, but the checkpoints and sequence really made sense, especially for someone highly disorganized such as myself.
I had a lot of fun working on the research, it gave me more confidence to do research besides learning more about my topic.
It definitely increased my knowledge and gave me experience and exposed me to new ideas and methods.
The project was very good at improving my knowledge of the project area in software quality assurance. I also think it is very useful to have a long project on an actual research question such as this. This would have made the project more difficult, but it may have been interesting to evaluate our final project code on testing and code quality metrics as well.
the project helps me to learn more about software engineering and quality assurance. Also, it gives me a taste of how a quality paper should be written and organized. Maybe papers from each team can be viewed by other teams to learn more about other topics.
I thought the semester-long project was great, it should definitely be used in future classes. The only area of improvement I would suggest is to have the 'recommended' project topics have a bit more diversity in addition to quality assurance to relate to the different interests that students have.
I thought the semester-long project brought me valuable experience. It was a great way to understand the process it takes to do a project and write a research paper. It improve my knowledge of software engineering and quality assurance a bit, however, it just depends on the project topic. I got to learn various techniques to gather and analyze data that I can use in the future. Having weekly meetings with the instructor was helpful.
I learned a lot through the project and enjoyed working in my group. It was good to have deadlines spread throughout the semester and having weekly checkins with the professor. The topic of the project helped with applying data science methods, but less with learning more about quality assurance.
The project did not improve much on my knowledge of software engineering and quality assurance much, but it did improve my skill in writing conference papers and machine learning. I like the project giving us many different kinds of tasks and learning opputinies.
I would not say that the project improved my knowledge/experience in software engineering and quality assurance but added to it. I liked how there was a coding aspect to the project, and it felt like we are adding to software engineering research by doing the project. Having the initial list of projects to choose from was helpful so we don’t waste time thinking of something. I would say that since we are focused on results to write about, we would not prioritize software quality to be honest and stick to habits we have as developers. If the outcome of the project was to implement quality assurance, I do not think we would have met it as a class. I enjoyed working with others and learned from them as well. The professor's attentiveness and mentorship throughout the project was big help as well with the weekly meetings.
The semester long project was a good practice in applying some of the knowledge that we learned. I felt that the pacing of the deadlines for the project were very reasonable and felt that we had ample time to clarify things with the professor. The professor shared with us some code that helped us get started with our project. It was useful to see his code because it was well-written and he approaches steps in a methodical fashion. So, it gave us a good idea of how quality code can help move things along more quickly and yield good results.
This is my first experience with performing research, so it’s nice to finally have research under my belt and to have more confidence in myself.