What are the major strengths and weaknesses of the instructor?
1. The instructor is animated and keep class and the material interesting.
2. He through a lot of material at us but I don't think he related it. I think he views this as a "weed-out" course to get rid of inadequate students.
3. The instructor is knowledgeable on the subject but I did not like the way the notes were structured. It would be nice if all the information was in one central location without having to click on other items for more info.
4. Very knowledgeable about the material, and effectively presents information. More examples would be great. Really, especially of automata.
5. I think he is extremely intelligent and likeable. However he is also kind of all over the place when it comes to the code.
7. The instructor communicates very clearly. this is especially useful for remote students, me. To me, it appears that Prof Riely is very passionate about the subject, which I really enjoy and appreciate, but sometimes goes off on tangents and runs out of time for the planned lecture. Perhaps we need to have several more lectures to cover everything. To summarize, Prof Riely is a very good instructor. this is the third consecutive class I've taken of his. I would most definitely appreciate his that much more if I were there in person. One criticism, might be more a remark on the technology than the instructors, is that it's hard to follow when the instructor is tracing through notes on the WBs or monitors. Perhaps some kind of laser pointer that's saved on the recording would help with this.
What aspects of this course were most beneficial to you?
2. The instructor is knowledgable.
3. This class is a good base for computer science majors. It helped reinforce core concepts that programmers should know.
4. Functional programming languages, higher order languages, regular expressions, all were items which helped strengthen my know knowledge of C#, especially since Microsoft seems to be focused on this at this time with lambda expressions, anonymous functions, etc.
5. The realm of knowledge was not something I had much exposure to before.
7. all the topics discussed thusfar have been beneficial to me. I would've have liked to spend more time on SML or perhaps Scala, whichever is picking up steam on the outside.
What do you suggest to improve this course?
1. Update the lecture notes and material. The notes were from a year ago so the dates were off.
2. Better room, it was inadequately mic'd. I had to use very expensive boosting headphones in order to hear the instructor.
4. Again, the beginning was rough for me, not really sure if the class should be improved. More examples are better than less.
5. If teaching ML, need many more real world examples of actual syntax being used.
6. Less concept, more useful stuff
7. Eventhough we had weekly assignments I feel that I would've benefitted from my examples.
Comment on the grading procedures and exams
1. Test feedback not received in a timely manner, or at all.
2. Exam was a "memory-tester" many different concepts with one page of notes. I think the instructor views this course as a "weed-out". Keep the already knowledgable students and "weed-out" the rest.
3. Grading was fair and impartial. The instructor took the entire class's performance into consideration.
5. No complaints.
7. the grading thusfar has been fair.
2. The instructor was enthustistic but presented a lot of material at a lightening-fast pace.
4. Funny, professor, kept me interested in the class.
5. Learned a lot and liked the class a lot.
7. I would most definitely take this professor's class again.