CSE 240 Instructor Evaluation Spring 2004
22568 YINONG CHEN
30569 YINONG CHEN
47400 YINONG CHEN
94661 YINONG CHEN
36/48 75.00%
PART 1: STUDENT EVALUATION OF THE COURSE
1
Textbook/supplementary material in support of the course.
12
5
17
4
7
3
0
2
0
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Very Good
12
33.3
 
4
Good
17
47.2
 
3
Fair
7
19.4
 
2
Poor
0
0
 
1
Not Applicable
0
0
 
 
Avg
4.14
 
 
2
Value of assigned homework in support of course topics.
25
5
9
4
2
3
0
2
0
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Very Good
25
69.4
 
4
Good
9
25.0
 
3
Fair
2
5.6
 
2
Poor
0
0
 
1
Not Applicable
0
0
 
 
Avg
4.64
 
 
3
Value of laboratory assignments/projects in support of the course topics.
18
5
9
4
1
3
1
2
7
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Very Good
18
50.0
 
4
Good
9
25.0
 
3
Fair
1
2.8
 
2
Poor
1
2.8
 
1
Not Applicable
7
19.4
 
 
Avg
4.52
 
 
4
Reasonableness of exams and quizzes in covering course material.
16
5
16
4
3
3
1
2
0
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Very Good
16
44.4
 
4
Good
16
44.4
 
3
Fair
3
8.3
 
2
Poor
1
2.8
 
1
Not Applicable
0
0
 
 
Avg
4.31
 
 
5
Weight given to labs or projects, relative to exams and quizzes.
15
5
17
4
0
3
1
2
3
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Very Good
15
41.7
 
4
Good
17
47.2
 
3
Fair
0
0
 
2
Poor
1
2.8
 
1
Not Applicable
3
8.3
 
 
Avg
4.39
 
 
6
Weight given to homework assignments, relative to exams and quizzes.
21
5
13
4
1
3
1
2
0
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Very Good
21
58.3
 
4
Good
13
36.1
 
3
Fair
1
2.8
 
2
Poor
1
2.8
 
1
Not Applicable
0
0
 
 
Avg
4.50
 
 
7
Definition and application of criteria for grading.
17
5
17
4
1
3
1
2
0
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Very Good
17
47.2
 
4
Good
17
47.2
 
3
Fair
1
2.8
 
2
Poor
1
2.8
 
1
Not Applicable
0
0
 
 
Avg
4.39
 
 
Overall Course Avg
4.41
PART 2: STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR
8
The instructor was well prepared.
26
5
10
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Almost Always
26
72.2
 
4
Usually
10
27.8
 
3
50% of the time
0
0
 
2
Occasionally
0
0
 
1
Almost Never
0
0
 
 
Avg
4.72
 
 
9
The instructor communicated ideas clearly.
14
5
15
4
5
3
2
2
0
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Almost Always
14
38.9
 
4
Usually
15
41.7
 
3
50% of the time
5
13.9
 
2
Occasionally
2
5.6
 
1
Almost Never
0
0
 
 
Avg
4.14
 
 
10
The instructor or assistants were available for outside assistance.
22
5
12
4
1
3
1
2
0
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Almost Always
22
61.1
 
4
Usually
12
33.3
 
3
50% of the time
1
2.8
 
2
Occasionally
1
2.8
 
1
Almost Never
0
0
 
 
Avg
4.53
 
 
11
The instructor exhibited enthusiasm for and interest in the subject.
24
5
12
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Almost Always
24
66.7
 
4
Usually
12
33.3
 
3
50% of the time
0
0
 
2
Occasionally
0
0
 
1
Almost Never
0
0
 
 
Avg
4.67
 
 
12
The instructor's approach stimulated student thinking.
18
5
13
4
2
3
1
2
2
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Almost Always
18
50.0
 
4
Usually
13
36.1
 
3
50% of the time
2
5.6
 
2
Occasionally
1
2.8
 
1
Almost Never
2
5.6
 
 
Avg
4.22
 
 
13
The instructor related course material to its applications.
19
5
15
4
1
3
1
2
0
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Almost Always
19
52.8
 
4
Usually
15
41.7
 
3
50% of the time
1
2.8
 
2
Occasionally
1
2.8
 
1
Almost Never
0
0
 
 
Avg
4.44
 
 
14
The instructor's methods of presentation supported student learning.
18
5
11
4
5
3
2
2
0
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Almost Always
18
50.0
 
4
Usually
11
30.6
 
3
50% of the time
5
13.9
 
2
Occasionally
2
5.6
 
1
Almost Never
0
0
 
 
Avg
4.25
 
 
15
The instructor's grading was fair, impartial, and adequate.
25
5
10
4
0
3
1
2
0
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Almost Always
25
69.4
 
4
Usually
10
27.8
 
3
50% of the time
0
0
 
2
Occasionally
1
2.8
 
1
Almost Never
0
0
 
 
Avg
4.64
 
 
16
The instructor returned graded materials within a reasonable period.
21
5
14
4
1
3
0
2
0
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Almost Always
21
58.3
 
4
Usually
14
38.9
 
3
50% of the time
1
2.8
 
2
Occasionally
0
0
 
1
Almost Never
0
0
 
 
Avg
4.56
 
 
Overall Instructor Avg
4.46
OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE COURSE AND INSTRUCTOR
17
Overall quality of the course and instruction.
15
5
16
4
4
3
0
2
1
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Excellent
15
41.7
 
4
Very good
16
44.4
 
3
Good
4
11.1
 
2
Fair
0
0
 
1
Poor
1
2.8
 
 
Avg
4.22
 
 
18
How do you rate yourself as a student in this course?
9
5
20
4
5
3
1
2
1
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Excellent
9
25.0
 
4
Very good
20
55.6
 
3
Good
5
13.9
 
2
Fair
1
2.8
 
1
Poor
1
2.8
 
 
Avg
3.97
 
 
GENERAL INFORMATION
19
Is this a required course in your program of study?
2
2
34
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
2
No
2
5.6
 
1
Yes
34
94.4
 
20
What are the average hours/week spent studying for this course?
1
5
4
4
13
3
17
2
1
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
1
1
2.8
 
4
2
4
11.1
 
3
4
13
36.1
 
2
8
17
47.2
 
1
16
1
2.8
 
21
What is your class standing?
2
5
3
4
19
3
11
2
1
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
Graduate Student
2
5.6
 
4
Senior
3
8.3
 
3
Junior
19
52.8
 
2
Sophomore
11
30.6
 
1
Freshman
1
2.8
 
22
What % of the class meetings have you attended?
1
5
1
4
1
3
9
2
24
1
 
 Response
Count
Per
 
5
10 to 29
1
2.8
 
4
30 to 49
1
2.8
 
3
50 to 69
1
2.8
 
2
70 to 89
9
25.0
 
1
90 to 100
24
66.7
 
23
What did you like most about this course?
 
Homework assignments were very related to what was going on in 
class.  I really liked how there was almost always somebody on the 
discussion board to reply to a question right away.  I also like how 
not too many people ever showed up for the lab, so the TA could get 
to all of my questions.
 
I love the use of the discussion board for assignments, being a CS 
student I often work on assingments at strange times and it was 
great to be able to see some of the questions other students were 
asking, it helped wonderfully in being able to successfully complete 
them.  I also liked the fact that we were not required to go to the 
lab, I prefer to work on my programming assignments from home and 
with the use of the discussion board I didnt really need the extra 
assistance.
 
C-programming.
 
Instructor wrote his own book which only covered the material we 
needed to know, so we didn't waste time reading fluff that was not 
required.  PowerPoint slides posted before presentations was also a 
nice thing.
 
Learning the different languages was interesting.
 
Learned many useful languages.  Not terribly difficult.
 
Some of the topics were new to me, and caused me to think about
software engineering in a new way. Some of the concepts (especially
logic programming) were a little difficult to grasp at first, but they
were eventually cleared up.
 
I appreciate the emphasis of programming that must be done in the 
class and how the grading scale reflects that emphasis. Programming 
is that, we program and should not be tested to extremes on paper but 
by our code. It's more realistic in real world applications. I hope 
this never dissappears from the class. 
 
Assignments
 
I liked so many things about this class. However, if I have to narrow 
it down, I'd have to say that I liked the C/C++ programming best and 
also learning about static, stack, and heap memory. Also, found the 
method taught in class for creating recursive procedures (i.e. size-n 
problem.. ) very helpful. Dr. Chen's sense of humor was very funny 
too!
 
I liked the how the assignments applied towards the material from 
class.  It reinforced the ideas taught in the lectures/slides.
 
Interesting material. Prolog and Scheme were languages I wanted learn
and C++ was something that would help me out a lot.
 
The resource is available online, a lot of resources.  Very 
accessible, I like that.  And the discussion board realllllly helps!
 
Great instructor. I would love to see him teach higher level courses.
 
Increased understanding of many types of PL's.
 
Excellent class and teacher.  Many people try to blaim the difficulty 
of the material on the teacher - but Chen is an excellent teacher, 
and you learn the material well.
 
I really enjoted the labs.
 
the quizzes and tests 
 
Discussion board
 
I gained a better appreciation of C++ programming. I liked the 
contrast of the different programming languagesand how each solved 
the same problem.
 
The opportunity to expand my knowledge in computer science and learn 
more languages.
24
What did you like least about this course?
 
Maybe some in class assignments to keep the dozing students involved 
and awake.
 
In general, using Scheme and Prolog.  I don't like them as much, but 
that's probably because I'm used to the other imperative languages 
(Basic, C, Pascal, Java).
 
Homeworks were a bit vaguely written.  A lot of the times student's 
didn't know what they were supposed to do which resulted in flooded 
discussion boards.  One had to be created for each assignment, since 
there were so many questions.
 
Teaching from slides.  Lectures were almost unnecessary.
 
N/A
 
I wouldn't say that I didn't like, but my professor's english is the 
only attribute that is inhibiting him from being an outstanding 
instructor. I just can't follow his logic due to his inability to 
express his english in clear and concise thoughts that I can follow. 
He has put so much effort and work into making this class successful 
for myself and hisself, and it hurts to see that he is being held 
back by his english. Due to this one inability, I felt it 
significantly held me back from learning at my full potential.
 
Quizzes
 
The lab instructor for the Thursday morning lab repeatedly showed up 
at 9:00am or later - even though the lab was scheduled to start at 
8:40am. In addition, he did not offer much help overall. He was more 
interested in his own schoolwork or chatting on AOL's IM than helping 
students. In my opinion, this was very inadequate. When learning new 
programming languages it can be almost impossible to figure 
everything out from the lecture only. I think the lab should have 
been of more help for the finer details. I believe that is why 
students stopped going to lab - not as much because they wanted to do 
the assignments from home - but because the lab instructor did not 
offer the level of help required to make it worth going to the lab. 
However, overall, my learning experience was not affected by the 
quality or ability of the lab instructor. I managed to find the help 
I needed elsewhere (i.e. online discussion boards, fellow students, 
and Dr. Chen office hours.)
 
Some of the slides were difficult to undersand.
 
instructor's teaching style (using slides) didn't really hold the
interest of students in the class.
 
I am not sure that there is anything I disliked in this course
 
Prolog is simply not a most wonderful programming language.  I like 
it but not nearly as much as the others.
 
I am sorry but the female TA that you had in the lab was the worst 
TA I have ever had at ASU.  She was never prepared and could never 
answer my questions.  One time she told me to rewrite my entire 
project b/c she could not figure out the problem, I went to the next 
lab and met with the male TA and he figured out my problem in a 
matter of seconds.  
 
the obscurity of the instructions on the homework.  Also hard to 
understand what he was saying in class.  Was not very nice if i had 
questions outside of class
 
The quizzes seemed to be obscure and confusing. Not enough time for 
midterm examination.
25
Comments
 
Great class, I enjoyed learning all the languages, maybe some time 
down the road the class could include some appelet programming or 
something.
 
Overall good course.  C programs a bit too low for my experience 
level, but probably just right or too high for others who have never 
used C.
 
Overall it was a pretty good course.  I found the Logical and 
Functional paradigms inefficient and useless in real world 
application versus the imperative/object oriented paradigms, but it 
was nice to see the other paradigms and think differently.
 
Sometimes the homework assignments are a bit confusing.  That is, it 
is unclear what is required.
 
Overall, I enjoyed the class, I think that Dr. Chen should remain in 
control over the content of the course; however, maybe another 
instructor could be used to teach the class. 
 
I am a little sad the class is over - I feel I have learned a great 
deal. Thanks.
 
I think it would help if during class the instructor would talk more 
about the assignment from lab.  I also think that it would help if 
the student had to write more code in the C/C++ part from scratch 
instead of modifying given code.  For me this seems to be a better 
way to learn.
 
Keep up the good work. I love the class and your teaching style is 
excellent.
 
Dr. Chen has a LOT of enthusiasm.  That is good.
 
Great class and teacher.
 
I really thought that this was class was very good, but the female 
TA that you had in the lab did not have a clue.  If she didn't have 
your answer key she couldn't help.  The only way she helped is by 
showing me the answer key.  I thought that was ridiculous.
 
I think that his lectures are hard to follow because he takes a long 
time to say most things.  Also sometimes he teaches the slides like 
he has never seen them before.
 
Sometimes it was difficult to understand what Dr. Chen wanted in the 
assignments. This may be a language problem and trying to change the 
assignment from semester to semester so they are not the same.