|
Course Evaluation
CSCI 384 .10 : Computer Network Defense
Instructors:
C. Toombs (primary),
B. Pittack
Survey for Term Fall 2007
(November 28
- December 12, 2007 )
Participation: Primary Course Shortened Set
Results: 11
out of 19 eligible students
evaluated this course.
About the course
About the instructor
[679]
8. Overall rating of the instructor
| (1) Poor
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
2 |
|
18% |
18% |
| (3)
[3]
|
1 |
|
9% |
9% |
| (4)
[4]
|
5 |
|
45% |
45% |
| (5) Excellent
[5]
|
3 |
|
27% |
27% |
| Mean: ** |
3.82
|
[132]
9. Was knowledgeable about the subject and course material.
| (1) Not at all knowledgeable
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
[3]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (4)
[4]
|
4 |
|
36% |
36% |
| (5) Very knowledgeable
[5]
|
7 |
|
64% |
64% |
| Not applicable / No opinion
[x]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| Mean: ** |
4.64
|
[134]
10. Accessibility outside of class.
| (1) Not at all accessible
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
[3]
|
3 |
|
27% |
27% |
| (4)
[4]
|
2 |
|
18% |
18% |
| (5) Very accessible
[5]
|
6 |
|
55% |
55% |
| Not applicable / No opinion
[x]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| Mean: ** |
4.27
|
[133]
11. Enthusiasm for topic/subject.
| (1) Not at all enthusiastic
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
[3]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (4)
[4]
|
2 |
|
18% |
18% |
| (5) Very enthusiastic
[5]
|
9 |
|
82% |
82% |
| Not applicable / No opinion
[x]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| Mean: ** |
4.82
|
[135]
12. Designed and used fair grading procedures.
| (1) Not at all fair
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
1 |
|
9% |
10% |
| (3)
[3]
|
1 |
|
9% |
10% |
| (4)
[4]
|
2 |
|
18% |
20% |
| (5) Very fair
[5]
|
5 |
|
45% |
50% |
| Not applicable / No opinion
[x]
|
1 |
|
9% |
10% |
| Mean: ** |
4.22
|
[136]
13. Provided adequate feedback on exams/papers/performance.
| (1) Not adequate
[1]
|
1 |
|
9% |
9% |
| (2)
[2]
|
1 |
|
9% |
9% |
| (3)
[3]
|
2 |
|
18% |
18% |
| (4)
[4]
|
5 |
|
45% |
45% |
| (5) Very adequate
[5]
|
2 |
|
18% |
18% |
| Not applicable / No opinion
[x]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| Mean: ** |
3.55
|
[681]
14. Use this space for any comments you may have about the course, the instructor, readings, etc.
- The lower rating for this class wasn't the amount of work. It was the fact that the lectures did not prepare me in the least bit for the homework.
- This course was a great culmination of all the theory and practices taught in the prerequisite courses. The hands-on labs were very involved, and the lessons taught real-world network defense with highly-detailed technical explanations. It's a shame that the course could not have been longer so we could have both covered and had more time to work on the labs.
That said, there were some areas that I felt needed to be commented on. The class material often favored Linux rather than Windows, which was a slight
learning curve for myself but was obviously a challenge for several of my teammates. I appreciated the offer by the professors to give a quick Linux tutorial during the first week, but it would not be enough to prepare students for later labs. I did enjoy that they took the time to evaluate useful tools on both platforms, so on most of the work we could use the environment we felt most comfortable with. I have added several of the tools they covered to my personal toolkit to deal with computer ch
- Christopher Toombs
Brad Pittack
Both have very good knowledge of the subject matter. Moreover, they are seasoned instructors I have ever come across.
- There are too many topics covered in this course. Need to cut back on a couple of topics so students have a chance to get a better grasp of what is being taught overall.
- Insufficient equipment for labs/final exercise. access from the internet (or private vpn) would allow students to work at their own pace instead of rushing during class. As a side option to the final attack/defend lab, perhaps a capture the flag type exercise/competition that requires knowledge of various network & security topics to succeed such as how to overflow a buffer or take advantage of a vulnerability. Each flag could be a code that can be verified online. Sort of like mini versions of the homeworks done all term long. Students could work in teams of 2-4 instead of 6-7 (logistics). Maybe require student presentations.
- This was a very worthwhile course which definitely challenged me and retained my interest. For the past 2 years I have been "detached" from the hands-on, in-the-trenches realities of computer network defense for my job, and this course gave me a fresh perspective on what CND really entails. My only complaint would be that the instructors didn't give very much "heads up" with regard to what kind of equipment/software would be required for the various labs. The wireless lab in particular stands out as an instance where they should have explained exactly what hardware/software/OS would be required to successfully complete the lab in class. I also find it interesting that, for an undergraduate class at Virginia Tech, each student was issued a laptop, PDA, and wireless AP for a wireless networking class, but a $3k CND graduate class at GWU had no extra resources available for the students and the lab equipment seemed rather outdated...
- It took too long to get back our grades. Some labs could use some improvement. Sometimes assignment requirements are unnecessarily vague. overall, excellent course
Department-Specific Questions
|
