Skip to main content

Survey Results



Course Survey Results


Anthony   Peruma   ICS691E, Fall 2023

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Course: ICS 691E - Topics in CS: Area 4
Department:   Information& Computer Sciences Crn (Section):   79257 (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) 
4.33 6 0.82   0(0%) 0(0%) 1(17%) 2(33%) 3(50%)
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) 
3.8 5 0.84   0(0%) 0(0%) 2(40%) 2(40%) 1(20%)
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) 
4.0 4 0.82   0(0%) 0(0%) 1(25%) 2(50%) 1(25%)

4.   What did you find most valuable and helpful about the instructor?
Availability, taught the subject matter, has experience in the subject matter, actively tries to improve software engineering in the department (i.e., Industry Talks)
The instructor was very motivated in teaching and working with students. He made sure students were keeping up with the course but also allowed flexibility.
He was always there for meetings and discussions.
Knowledgable, friendly, and flexible
hands-on assignments
He was very personable, understood the topics well, often referencing research that he was personally involved in that related to the topics we were learning. It was helpful that he would engage with the class by getting them to answer questions, rather than it being a one-way discussion or lecture.


5.   What did you find least valuable and helpful about the instructor?
Nothing
Nothing
Not a good speaker
NA
Sometimes it was difficult to hear what was being said, for instance if they were sitting at the table during paper presentations and speaking towards the front of the room or the presenter, rather than the rest of the class

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) 
4.5 6 0.84   0(0%) 0(0%) 1(17%) 1(17%) 4(67%)
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) 
4.5 6 0.55   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3(50%) 3(50%)

8.   Which aspect of the course were most valuable?
Everything is generally of equal importance. If an hierarchy of importance must be given; Research Paper Writings and Assignments tend to rank higher as they provide an opportunity to solidify learned topics.
The topics taught in this class. The topics are prevalent in real-world software engineering practices.
Presentations
Assignments on testing, hands-on coding experience during class, and new testing tools introduced
Familiarization with the different tools that we could use


9.   Which aspect of the course were least valuable?
Everything was useful, even revisiting some fundamental software engineering topics were a useful refresher.
None, all were essential in practicing software quality assurance.
Lectures (not all)
NA
N/A


10.   Other comments?
If anything, perhaps performance testing would have been nice.
Have lectures the late morning rather than early morning (e.g. 10 AM or 11 AM)

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) 
4.5 6 0.84   0(0%) 0(0%) 1(17%) 1(17%) 4(67%)
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) 
4.33 6 0.82   0(0%) 0(0%) 1(17%) 2(33%) 3(50%)
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) 
4.17 6 0.98   0(0%) 0(0%) 2(33%) 1(17%) 3(50%)
14.   The instructor treated students with respect.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
4.67 6 0.52   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2(33%) 4(67%)
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) 
4.83 6 0.41   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 1(17%) 5(83%)
16.   This course challenged me intellectually.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
4.33 6 0.82   0(0%) 0(0%) 1(17%) 2(33%) 3(50%)
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) 
4.0 6 0.89   0(0%) 0(0%) 2(33%) 2(33%) 2(33%)
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 6 0.0   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 6(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) 
4.33 6 0.82   0(0%) 0(0%) 1(17%) 2(33%) 3(50%)
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 6 0.0   0(0%) 0(0%) 6(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?
Useful, majority are straight forward and easy to read.
Yes, the papers further expand knowledge of the topic. They were easy to read and understand. The papers were great for generating discussion which promoted critical thinking.
The research paper i have presented were pretty new to me as I didn't have any idea about test smells. Through the paper presentations I realized there are so many aspects where software quality works. The papers were understandable and at the same time for the first paper I struggled as the topic was entirely new I had to look for other papers and the terms that were used in the paper. But after doing some reading on those topic it was a good experience. More industry oriented research would be better.
Some papers were easy to read. They expanded my knowledge. I would have preferred if the class included more papers that matched with interests of the majority of students (e.g. Do a pre-survey of student interests and if the majority are interested in ML, include more papers on SE in ML)
The papers did expand my knowledge of the topic and some were easy to read and understand but some others were long.
Most of the papers were easy to understand. It was interesting seeing the topics that we were learning being applied to large open-source projects or their practices in industry settings. It would be interesting to review any studies that focus on entry-level programmers and their biggest issues in transitioning from academia to the industry, or something of that nature.


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?
Definitely useful, however the research paper readings provided more knowledge, comparatively, against the research paper writings.
Yes, the project improve my knowledge/experience. I like the practicality of the project. The project process was structured to be realistic as possible in mirroring workplace software engineering projects.
I didn't enjoy my project at all. It's completely on me. I couldn't find the perfect project that would excite me.
Yes, the project helped me to improve my knowledge. However, it would have been better if instructor meetings were less frequent (rather than weekly, have it every other week). It was overwhelming because in certain weeks there was no significant progress from the prior week.
I think the project helped me understand different areas of research in computer science, and that we don't necessarily need to develop something new to contribute to the literature. Doing studies on the impact of tools or practices provides valuable insights on how to become better developers and to improve teaching practices


24.   What skills and knowledge did you gain from the course that you think will be most useful in your future career?
Unit Tests, Test Smells, Examining Test/Code Metrics (e.g., LOC, cohesion), and more specific topics of software engineering. Furthermore, the most important aspect of this class is the research paper writings. As it provides an opportunity to write a research paper.
Knowledge on software quality assurance topics such as unit testing, smells, antipatterns, etc.
The course introduced software testing tools that are used at the industry level, That was the best part for me.
Learned about test smells, and different testing tools for quality assurance of source code
Knowing about various coding practices and tools to maintain quality assurance
Learning more about proper unit testing and utilizing tools for quality metrics and smell detections