|
Course
Evaluations Tracker : School
Wide Evaluation
| |
COURSE: C S 200 SECT.
0001
TITLE: FOUNDATIONS OF
COMPUTER
SCI.
SESSION: Spring,
2002
INSTR: EVANS
DAVID |
Frequency Count: 6
Expected Count: 9
Response Rate: 67%
|
| # |
Item |
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
TOT |
MEAN |
STD |
| COURSE
|
| 1 |
How
challenging was the subject matter? |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
4.667 |
0.516
|
| 2 |
How well
were the objectives of the course
accomplished? |
5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
4.833 |
0.408
|
| 3 |
How
reasonable was the required level of effort for
the credit hours received? |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
6 |
3.500 |
1.378
|
| 4 |
How useful
were the homework assignments in helping you
learn the course subject matter? |
2 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
4.167 |
0.753
|
| 5 |
How helpful
was the textbook in increasing your
understanding of the material? |
0 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
3.000 |
1.095
|
| INSTRUCTOR
|
| 6 |
How well was
the course material organized and
developed? |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
5.000 |
0.000
|
| 7 |
How
knowledgeable of the subject matter was the
instructor? |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
5.000 |
0.000
|
| 8 |
How prepared
for class was the instructor? |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
5.000 |
0.000
|
| 9 |
How
accessible for individual assistance was the
instructor? (excluding Teaching
Assistants)? |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
4.667 |
0.516
|
| 10 |
How fair was
the grading policy? |
1 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
4.167 |
0.408
|
| 11 |
How adequate
in response to in-class questions was the
instructor? |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
4.667 |
0.516
|
| 12 |
How
representative of the major points of the course
were the quizzes? |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
4.000 |
0.894
|
| 13 |
How do you
rate this instructor as a teacher, relative to
others in this School? |
5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
4.833 |
0.408
|
A=5=Well above
average B=4=Above average
C=3=Average
D=2=Below average
E=1=Well below average
| |
|
| Summary of
Comments: Standard
Items |
| |
| Q1: |
Write any general comments in the space
below:
|
| Comment1.1 |
CS 200 is
possibly the most comprehensive,
interdisiplinary course that I have taken in the
last four years. Professor Evans reliance on a
conceptual approach to computer science is far
superior to the vocational instruction found in
CS 101 and 201. As a COgnitive Science major I
have often wished that there would be one single
course that could bring the five aspects of the
major (cognitive psychology, computer science,
philosophy, linguistics, and neuroscience) into
a cohesive whole. CS 200 is the best example Ive
seen yet. It is a terrible mistake that the
class does not satisfy the majors CS
requirement. |
| Comment1.2 |
Dave was
an awesome instructor and was always willing to
help. I learned a whole new meaning of computer
science (its the best subject!), it was overall
a very very interesting class, except all those
hours in the lab ate away my time for other
homework. |
| Comment1.3 |
David
Evans is the best professor Ive had at the
University since starting last fall. He is
extremely intelligent, but willing and able to
communicate at the students level. He pushes us
to levels we think we cannot reach and surprises
us when we do reach them. His class is not only
one of the most representative of the liberal
arts, but it teaches us how to think in ways I
never have and covers topics that graduate
students are probably learning. Keep the class,
and keep Dave! |
| Comment1.4 |
The
material seemed pretty hard for a 200 level
class. I was only able to do most of it when the
TAs walked me through it. |
| Comment1.5 |
I have
learned more in this class than in any of my
other classes, and I can easily say that this
class balances practical and intellectually
interesting material better than any other I
have taken.
|
| |