Skip to main content

Survey Results



Course Survey Results


Anthony   Peruma   ICS615, Spring 2025

Campus: University of Hawaii at Manoa Course: ICS 615 - Software Quality & Maintenance
Department:   Information& Computer Sciences Crn (Section):   89050 (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) 
4.59 17 0.51   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 7(41%) 10(59%)
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 0.77   0(0%) 0(0%) 3(21%) 6(43%) 5(36%)
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) 
4.31 13 0.75   0(0%) 0(0%) 2(15%) 5(38%) 6(46%)

4.   What did you find most valuable and helpful about the instructor?
The instructor made time for individualized meetings with groups to go over and review progress
The instructor was knowledgeable, organized, and approachable. He encouraged critical thinking and class participation, especially during paper discussions, which helped clarify complex topics. The regular feedback on project progress and open-ended assignments allowed us to explore ideas creatively. I also appreciated the instructor’s effort to relate theoretical concepts to industry practices.
Organized
Very understanding and willing to answer questions. He gives good real world experience stories that are missed from other computer science courses.
Instructor was very easy to reach out to and communicate with. Instructor very prompt with class schedules and made sure students were on the same page for any assignment deadlines/meetings
knows his stuff
By having weekly meetings with the instructor, this provided meaningful advice and guidance through the semester-long project, which was greatly appreciated.
Meeting with the instructor weekly build a bond and I got to know my instructor better.
He cared about helping students learn and find job opportunities
very willing to help students and groups


5.   What did you find least valuable and helpful about the instructor?
While overall effective, sometimes the pace of technical explanations during class was a bit fast, especially when introducing tools or code examples. A few sessions could have benefited from more in-class demonstrations or visual aids, especially for students without a strong software background. However, these were minor concerns in an otherwise well-taught course.
The least helpful is that he was checkout on his phone during our mandatory meeting which would require us to repeat our question or what we were going over. The helpful is that he was willing to give feedback and guide us in the direction that we need to go.
N/A
idk
n/a
Talks too quietly even if a small space he will often whisper
He was always helpful
nothing

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 16 0.82   0(0%) 1(6%) 0(0%) 5(31%) 10(63%)
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) 
4.81 16 0.4   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 3(19%) 13(81%)

8.   Which aspect of the course were most valuable?
The combination of research paper reviews and the practical semester-long project was the most valuable. It created a strong balance between academic rigor and real-world application. Learning to use security analysis tools and conducting structured experiments taught me how to design and execute a small-scale empirical study.
Reading research papers and presenting
The lectures were pretty valuable
The course was challenging and made it so that you really do have to research on the provided class topics in order to present and talk about the topic to your peers. The class was also in-person which made communication easy.
making people more aware on software quality and assurance. it is annoying to read code that has poor quality.
Guest speakers and weekly meetings
The different ways to evaluate and improve software
Most valuable thing about the course was learning about the academic paper research process.
I think all of it is very valuable
research paper reviews


9.   Which aspect of the course were least valuable?
Some of the assigned readings felt slightly outdated or too narrowly focused. A broader mix of technical and high-level papers including those covering modern practices like GitHub Actions, fuzz testing at scale, or ML-based testing could make the course more aligned with current industry trends.
the TA
Some of the topics that were covered were not very valuable.
I disliked the group member aspect of the projects because sometimes it feels like you'd get stuck with members that don't work on their parts promptly.
homeworks were a chore and did not feel interesting. more annoying to do than actually learning about stuff.
Group members
n/a
I didn't really take away much from the professional roles like QA, testing, developer phases and I couldn't correlate the code smells to real world experiences either. Even professionals are unfamiliar of what code smells are.
I dont have a super strong coding background so a lot of the more technical things taught in class were difficult for me to follow along with.
nothing


10.   Other comments?
Overall very interesting and challenging class that will have you broaden your current knowledge and perspective on software engineering
idk
I would have liked more extra credit opportunities. Sometimes, I find the professor to be a bit intimidating. But I think he's a kind professor.

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) 
4.88 17 0.49   0(0%) 0(0%) 1(6%) 0(0%) 16(94%)
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) 
4.53 17 0.51   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 8(47%) 9(53%)
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) 
4.47 17 0.62   0(0%) 0(0%) 1(6%) 7(41%) 9(53%)
14.   The instructor treated students with respect.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
4.53 17 0.62   0(0%) 0(0%) 1(6%) 6(35%) 10(59%)
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) 
4.76 17 0.44   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 4(24%) 13(76%)
16.   This course challenged me intellectually.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
4.24 17 0.9   0(0%) 1(6%) 2(12%) 6(35%) 8(47%)
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) 
4.53 17 0.51   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 8(47%) 9(53%)
18.   The instructor was available for consultation.

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Strongly Disagree (1)  Disagree (2)  Neutral (3)  Agree (4)  Strongly Agree (5) 
4.59 17 0.71   0(0%) 0(0%) 2(12%) 3(18%) 12(71%)
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) 
4.59 17 0.51   0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 7(41%) 10(59%)
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 17 0.0   0(0%) 0(0%) 16(94%) 1(6%) 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?
The papers were interesting to read and used techniques that were easy to understand to those new to reading research papers. I would be interested in seeing more empirical papers about the cost of not maintaining code and the practical and financial consequences, if any.
The research papers selected throughout the semester provided a comprehensive look into real-world challenges and solutions in software quality and maintenance. Some papers especially those discussing static analysis tools, bug prediction models, and security practices significantly expanded my understanding of how theory translates into practice. While a few papers were quite technical and dense, they were overall manageable with some external reading. I would have appreciated the inclusion of more papers on software testing automation, CI/CD pipeline integration, and emerging topics like AI-driven software maintenance.
Good
I really liked reading the papers I think there was a good wide range of topics.
Some research papers were quite interesting, but some were not so much. They helped me understand the landscape of research in software engineering.
The research topics made me have another perspective of just how vast software is. There were so many things I was unaware of such as my own group research topic on software bill of materials. The research papers weren't too hard of a read since a lot of them were interesting. Maybe more topics on things such as AI, Cybersecurity, and even Networking; only because I'm interested in these particular topics
tbh was not that interesting for the most part.
Yes the research papers were well selected and easy to read. They expanded my knowledge
I feel that the research papers that were selected were in correlation with the lectures given throughout the semester and greatly expanded my knowledge. Some papers build off of each other, giving a sort of narrative that helped me understand the process by which some topics within software maintenance were advanced. I have nothing that I would add.
I thought the papers were good. A few of them seemed slightly out of date compared to newer research or industry standards. The topics themselves were good, but the papers could be updated
The research papers selected throughout the semester were insightful and helped deepen my understanding of the topic. Most were well-written and fairly easy to follow.
These papers didn't really expand my knowledge on the topic. I think I got more information from your lectures instead. The papers were easy to read and understand.
The paper helped to understand state of art topic in software engineering
They were easy to read and i think they were all interesting. I personally enjoyed learning about best practices that reflect real work studies.
The research papers selected throughout the semester were relevant and aligned well with the course objectives. They helped broaden my understanding of key areas in software quality and maintenance, especially in topics like defect prediction, refactoring, and testing strategies. Most papers were accessible and well-structured, which made them easier to engage with. In the future, it could be interesting to include more recent papers on AI-assisted code maintenance or DevOps practices to reflect evolving industry trends.


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?
The project was valuable to those pursuing a career in research and helped lay the ground work or create lessons learned for future work. However for those geared more towards a practical goal, the research is less engaging and the final product may not be fulfilling. Future projects could include developing tooling and frameworks to help produce higher quality software that would provided practical experience in software development and CI/CD for those less interested in research.
The SBOM-focused semester project was a highlight of the course. It provided hands-on experience in software security, dependency analysis, and vulnerability detection using tools like Syft, TruffleHog, and Bandit. Through this project, I developed a better understanding of real-world software supply chain risks and how to evaluate open-source applications. One area of improvement could be a more structured milestone timeline to help students pace their work. What I liked most was the flexibility to explore and compare different tools and methodologies—it made the learning process engaging and practical.
Good, wasn't sure how to begin
I liked how the project was structured, in another class we had a "semester" long project but it was mainly us trying to get things done in one week. I think it did improve my knowledge about the topic I was doing the project on which corresponds to quality assurance.
It helped me realize that I do not really like doing research. Possibly it could be the topic that I am researching isn't very interesting, but I am glad that I got the experience to do research.
The semester long project did expand my prior knowledge on software engineering and quality assurance. Areas of improvement could be possibly having more than one medium to gather data for my particular semester project topic on SBOMs. I liked that it challenged me to do research and learn about this niche topic on software bill of materials. I also appreciate the fact that there is an opportunity to have your research paper published.
pretty fun. it made me more knowledgeable on my topic but i don't think i find it particularly helpful. it was fun to work on and helped me learn some coding stuff. there are things we could've done to improve the project for sure, like the mistakes we made earlier on resulted in us having to mark it as a threat to validity.
Lack of communication within groups makes it challenging to work on the project together.
The semester-long project greatly improved my knowledge of software engineering from a research perspective. However, hearing other projects being presented also improved my knowledge of software engineering from an industry perspective as well. I like that the projects were simple in concept, but time needed to be put into it to truly understand as a researcher to get meaningful results.
I enjoyed the project overall. I was good to work in a group of 4 or 5 because it never felt too overwhelming.
The semester-long project allowed for an in-depth exploration of a single topic, which I appreciated. However, I don’t feel it significantly improved my understanding of quality assurance. Many groups faced major challenges and some even had to pivot entirely from their original ideas. Overall, the project felt overly demanding and could benefit from clearer structure and more focused objectives.
The semester long project was intensive. The project improved my skills in writing academic papers and conducting research for them. I enjoyed the project and learned a lot from this experience. It expanded some of my knowledge on software engineering and quality assurance, specifically in the code comment area.
I think the project was a good experience and definitely improved my knowledge in software engineering. I learned how to organize team research and I liked the consistent guidance. Our project didn't work out how we had hopped and we had to change the methodology and I would go back and restructure everything to optimize time if I could.
The semester-long project was a good learning experience. I appreciated the opportunity to conduct research to address real concerns in the industry. One area for improvement could be providing earlier checkpoints or more structured guidance to help teams stay on track. Overall, I enjoyed the collaborative aspect and the depth of the project.


24.   What skills and knowledge did you gain from the course that you think will be most useful in your future career?
Developing a project with the end goal of a paper from start to end.
This course helped me develop critical skills in code quality evaluation, secure software practices, and static/dynamic analysis—all of which are essential for roles in software development and DevSecOps. The experience with SBOMs and security auditing tools has made me more confident in handling real-world applications where dependency management and vulnerability assessment are crucial. Additionally, learning how to read and critique academic papers has improved my ability to understand and apply new research quickly.
how to read and write papers
I learned that I need to brush up in a lot of computer science concepts and learned best practices for software engineering. These skills are very applicable to my internship and future jobs.
research skills such as gathering data from published papers
at least general knowledge and being aware of software quality and assurance principles.
I greatly benefitted from the guest speakers coming to give presentations. I like that they were from two very different fields and were able to give advice or information from different worlds withing software engineering.
Writing papers and doing research based on surveys, I'd like to do more of this in my future career.
I think I learned a lot about the functionality and importance of code quality. It was something that was never focused on before in any of my classes.
This course helped me develop a stronger foundation in software quality assurance. I also gained experience with tools and techniques to test code. These skills will be directly applicable in roles that involve software development, testing, or system maintenance.

25.   To what extent did this course help or make you more competitive when applying for a job?

Mean N-Size Std Dev   Nothing (1)  A little (2)  A moderate amount (3)  A great deal (4) 
3.25 16 0.77   0(0%) 3(19%) 6(38%) 7(44%)