$title="Mathematics for Computer Science"; $image="group_tara1.jpg"; $head="
|
";
$filename="/var/www/html/courses/eval_explanation";
$fd=fopen($filename,r);
$contents = fread($fd, filesize ($filename));
$head.=$contents;
fclose($fd);
$head.="
|
|
|
Quantitative Evaluation:
Qualitative Evaluation: The students were asked to evaluate not only on the program content but also the faculty and staff with whom they interacted. Lectures (Tara): Overall the lectures were very clear. Tara effectively met the challenge of teaching an audience with an extremely wide range of mathematical sophistication (we have Ph.Ds in engineering and students who last saw math at age 15 in high school). Most of the students agree that Tara did a fine job of presenting the material. She not only laid out the material in an organized fashion but she was also very receptive to questions and provided helpful and responsive answers. Recitations (Shai): Most of the students feel that the lecture/recitation format as it is envisioned is sound. They liked the change from Tara to Shai. Shais informal recitations were useful, not only for addressing questions, but also for introducing interesting applications of the material. The recitations were enjoyed by most of the students for their informality and their interactivity. Problem Sets: Regarding problem sets, the general impression was that they were more difficult than the exams. They were hard, they required a lot of conceptual exploration, and they encouraged explaining things back and forth. They were challenging enough that people who had already some understanding of the subject had to think in order to finish them, but were not so challenging that the beginners had no hope of finishing. Exams: The exams were a little bit on the easy side conceptually and did little to distinguish the top students. This is partly because many of our students have studied this material at the college level before. None of the students who were seeing this material for the first time, had this particular complaint. Books/Texts: The Quick Calculus book by Daniel Kleppner and Norman Ramsey was well received, but the Matrices and Transformation by Petfrezzo was unanimously criticized. In particular, it was missing treatment of certain topics completely, and it was too detailed in other places. They did find the reference text, Introduction to Linear Algebra by Gilbert Strang, to be valuable, but Strang is too theoretical for our treatment. Relation to Computer
Science: Most of the students were not sure how Calculus fits into computer science. To them, it just seemed merely a traditional prerequisite to any kind of engineering discipline. They felt that Linear Algebra was more directly correlated with computer science. Teaching Assistants
(Mike, Dimitri, Ben and Rif): According to the students, the TAs were excellent, and often conducted mini-lectures to re-explain lecture and section material. So helpful were those lessons that the class now has a calculus and linear algebra toolkit that includes things with names like Dimitris Method and Rifs Explanation. System Administration: It was generally felt that though the computer support was adequate for the math class (which was all done on paper), but this level of computer support will definitely be inadequate for next months curriculum. Most helpful staff: Though the entire teaching staff was stellar, Dimitri and Ryan were singled out as exceptionally helpful teaching fellows and received major thumbs up. Future changes to
the course: There should be more exploration of the concepts such as differential equations, linear programming and game theory. |