Evaluations CS3432 Assembly Language Programming Fall 2001

• I think the class was fun, the teacher was organized and had a variety of ways to explain the concept. In class quizzes and assignments could have been returned more timely. I think the robots could have been utilized earlier so that we could feel more comfortable. The lab should not have been in the open lab, as students would interfere or try to compete for computers.
• Dr. Teller and I agree that this was a problem. We tried to address the turn-around time during the semester by rearranging grading committments with Mike (the TA). We are continuing to work to address the grading issues.
• We did not use the robots earlier in the course for two reasons: First, the robots were not available. They were delivered to us in October, and we needed time to learn about them ourselves. Second, you needed to know what assembly language programming is, what the instructions for the 68HC11 do, and how to write and debug assembly language programs before attempting to control (and possibly damaging) the robots.
• We agree that a closed lab would be preferable to using the open lab. However, the scheduling of facilities is out of our control.
• The format of the course is outstanding. Complimented with the teaching style and challenging but rewarding assignments help me become a better student in approaching problems. This class has been well taught by Dr. Roach. In teaching this course Dr. Roach geared the problems to self learning. This style is the most productive style in learning a subject. Both instructors are great as well as the course.
• He is a very enthusiastic and energizing instructor. He has the ability to make a potentially very boring subject very interesting. I am very glad that he was one of the instructors for this course. A+ Labs: The only problem was having a different partner for every lab. I understand that the students that didn't have as good of a grasp needed to be paired with students that did- but after the first test, regular partners should have been made.
• Our intention behind having students paired with different partners is to provide students with the experience of working with as many other people as possible. This experience provides an opportunity for students to learn to accomodate different styles of interaction. There are other strategies for assigning lab partners, and we will consider them in the future, keeping in mind our goal of developing professionals who can work in diverse environments.
• In the early morning labs (7:30 AM) that I attended, there were difficulties with some students arriving on time and others arriving late. (Some of this was due to the difficulty crossing the bridge from Juarez.) Mike and I tried to deal with this in a reasonable way. In the end, the people who arrived on time ended up working together and the late arrivers worked together.
• The class is excellent, but in the testing you could be more leneant in the grading if students generalize the answer. Dr. Roach, the stress is out of this galaxy.
• Dr. Roach provides a good balance of serious instruction and a little bit of humor. While a little intimidating at first, I quickly learned that he wasn't.
• I liked how Dr. Roach explains course materials, especially on how cpu works and how to build algorithms. His availability outside of his office hour was excellent. It really helped me a lot.
• 1) He is a good professor, he is also willing to help his students even though he is busy. He will stop doing whatever he is doing and help the students. 2) He will make sure you understand the material before letting you go. 3) This class is a little bit too much work. I understand is a 4 credit hour class, but most of the time it is overwhelming. This class requires lot of thinking. So it will be easier for students to manage this class if the workload is not that much. 4) I like working in groups but different partners everytime when working in labs may not be such a good idea. It is because some people just like to show up late or don't even show up in lab session. 5) He is very approachable and friendly.
• See my response to the third comment on this page.
• I have nothing but praise for Dr. Roach. I really enjoyed this class and his philosophy of teaching. He made class challenging, which is good. I particularly liked the statement he made one day-"I promise I will give you a 1,000 line assembler program to write." Some people may see him as a hard-***, but its that attitude that brings the quality of my education up and I thank him for that.
• Is ok, but sometimes makes me feel like I was not listening. I try to listen, but ideas are so new is hard to understand completely.
• Keep up the good work, and try not to be too harsh on the students when lecturing.
• Dr. Roach availability is incredible, I have never been helped by a professor as much as he helped me. It is really nice to have the professor walk into the lab and see what you are doing. Eventhough he does not give you a direct answer he will not leave until you have your question answered.
• Dr. Roach and Dr. Teller are very good professors. Mike is an excellent TA. I wish Dr. Teller could teach us in a more effective way explaining things more specifically instead of pushing everything upon to us and making us confused.
• When professors lecture they tend take things for granted. For example, in the beginning of the course we used a UNIX based computer. Very few people knew what UNIX was, much less know how to operate one. Yet we were supposed to know how to e-mail first assignment to the TA, with no explanation of how to do it. The same concept applied to some of the homework assignments. While I understand that some things I much figure out the answer to, I also understand that you need to show students by example and tie it all together before you ask the students to implement something. Enough of the learning by discovery method.

o I have had several of my former students contact me after graduation and tell me that they wished they had known more about the Unix operating system when they started their jobs. Experience with Unix is also a great asset when studying operating systems and when designing user interfaces. (Not every interface has to use a mouse.)

We did not assume that you knew anything about Unix when you started. The purpose of the first few lab sessions was for you to learn how to use Unix. When we wrote procedures for those labs, we did forget to include a section on using the mail tools. (This has been addressed in the lab procedures in use currently.)

While we did not assume that you knew anything about Unix, we did assume that you had (and still have) the capability to learn new things without our having to provide you with every detail. We also assumed that you had a fundamental understanding of materials covered in prerequisite courses, topics such as recursion, parameter passing, and hand tracing. We firmly believe that the most essential skill of a competent computer professional is to be able to find information, discover techniques, and find solutions to problems independently. We did not ask you to invent technology; we did ask you to think about what you were doing.

As an example, when we purchased the robots, we spent a great deal of time learning how to use them. This required investigation, experimentation, trial and error, and on some occasions creativity. This situation is very much like the very common occurrence of having an employee install and test a new software or hardware product. We want our students to be able to go out into the workforce and be able to tackle projects such as these.

• I think some parts we passed or missed could be more important for the practical use. Also, we could have learned bit more about hardware. It would be helpful for better understanding. About the group work I don't think it actually worked. I think the base group was supposed to be responsible for the final project.

o Dr. Teller and I covered the material that was appropriate for the course. We did this with an understanding of the entire curriculum in Computer Science at UTEP. This curriculum was developed to meet the needs of our students and takes into account the recommendations of the ACM, the IEEE, the Accreditation Board of Engineering Technology, our Board of Advisors, the faculty of the department, the College of Engineering, and the UT system. Dr. Teller and I invested a great deal of time and energy deciding what to include.

Having said that, we are also open to suggestions about content that students need, but do not receive while studying as undergraduates. You suggest that learning more about hardware would have helped. Can you explain this? What is it that you wanted to know that you we did not cover? Is it something that is covered in a different course? Is it something that is specific to the 68HC11?

o The base groups were established in lecture and had three members each. The project groups were established in the labs and had two members each. The base groups were not responsible for the final project. There was one student who completed the project on his own. I don't understand how you have confused these two groups.

I disagree that the group work was unsuccessful. In my observations in the labs, I saw students explaining program behavior to their partners. These students were explaining behavior not at the level of registers and bytes, but at a much higher level of abstraction, the level of robot operations. Getting students, particularly assembler students, to use abstraction to help manage complexity is difficult. Yet these students were forced to do exactly that simply because they had to explain their ideas to someone else.

o This idea of abstraction is so important that I will not allow students in the future to complete projects individually. I not only believe that the groups work, I believe it is one of the essential elements of this course.

• This is the first class I've taken which I've found interesting because its something we applied: it wasn't just theory it was hands-on experience, it was something USEFUL, something I could relate to the "real world". In a nutshell everything was a OK!