A290/A590
Tools for Computing/Topics in Programming:
Interface Design and Programming for the Web
with Visual Studio and Visual C#.

"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things,
not because they are easy, but because they are hard ..."

-President John F. Kennedy, Address at Rice University, September 12, 1962

Instructor: Jeff Whitmer

• Office: Luddy Hall 2050 (IF2050).
  
  
  • Office Hours:
    
  • By appointment only.
• Office Hour Special NOTES:
  • Any changes to my office hours will be posted here.
    • Tuesday, March 5, 2024: FIRST DAY THIS CLASS MEETS.
• Office: Luddy Hall 2050 (IF2050).
  
• Phone: 855-3974.
  
• E-mail: jwhitmer@indiana.edu.

MEETING Times:

MEETINGS: Tuesday and Thursday: 9:45am - 11:00am (sections 5518 and 6378)
Miles Brand Hall I W109

Spring Semester 2024 Students
Please note the following:
[Updated: 4/30/24]

• ACTIVE Course Engagement scores, Final Averages and Final Grades: are now posted on Canvas. Final Grades have been submitted to the Registrar and should be visible to you tomorrow, 5/1/2024.
  
  
• I have been able to modify the Canvas grading scale so it matches the modified grading scale explained below. This means your final average and Final Grade as displayed on Canvas are official and confirmed accurate and correct.



• A note on the ACTIVE Course Engagement Score: The A290 ACTIVE Course Engagement score represents my evaluation of your preparation and participation in the class meetings as well as your overall engagement in the course both in and out of class. Using every class resource to its fullest doesn't insure you will get a high score, but not using the class resources effectively and missing work consistently could mean you'll get a low score. ALSO NOTE that you cannot expect a high engagement score if you missed a substantial number of class meetings. You were all advised of the possible consequences of chronic absenteeism/missed work on the first day as well as several times during the course. You can not be engaged if you are not "present." I tried to reinforce this point by stating multiple times this would be a "100% in person course." Most ACTIVE Course Engagement scores were in the 90s, with a few in the 80s and 70s. The class average was 91.63%. This means virtually all of you were active and engaged most of the time.
  
  Here are a few additional details on Final Grades. Grading Scale Adjustment: While the performance by the class as a whole was very good and I could have stayed with the original grading scale, I realize a variety of issues could have arisen with Visual Studio, so I decided to make an adjustment in the grading scale. The original scale used was, 90-80-70-60 with the top and bottom 2.5% being the +/- grade. I decided to drop the entire range by 5 points for the top 3 grades, i.e., A, B, C.. This makes the new scale 85-75-65-60 with the top and bottom 2.5% still representing the +/- grade. NOTE: Any average below 60 was still a failing grade. Almost everyone worked hard and I think that is reflected in the final grades each of you. Again, I think most of you were actively involved and this is reflected in the scores and grades.
  
  Remember, your final average was based on the following "weights" for each course component as published on the website the first day of class:
  
  Attendance: 5% (.05)
  Assignments/Programs: 25% (.25)
  MINI/CAT/JIT/Quiz: 10% (.1)
  Participation: 10% (.1)
  Final Project: 50% (.50)
  Together, these add up to 100% and if you multiply your averages by these percentages, you will get your final average. NOTE: While final averages are published to 2 decimal places, they are stored and calculated to 6 decimal places.
  
  A NOTE ON "BORDERLINE" GRADES: After the new grading scale was set and initial final grades were determined, several students were on the "borderline" for a higher grade. PLEASE be careful to note that "borderline" in this course means within .1 -.2% (tenths of a percent), NOT within 1-2% (full percent). For each student, I looked carefully at every aspect of the course, from projects to attendance to assignments at least once, if not twice. If the work was of consistent quality in all areas, the higher grade was probably given. HOWEVER, if there were one or more areas where the scores/averages were consistently lower, or if there was missed work, then the higher grade was not given. Just so you are clear, since I have taken the time to review all this information already, unless you find a mathematical error in your averages, I will not be open to a request for a grade change.
  
  The final distribution of grades was: 1 A, 2 A- 1 B+, 2 B, 2 B-, 0 C+, 0 C, 0 C-, 0 D, and 3 F. Overall, this means there were 3 A, 5 B, 0 C, and 3 F. Thanks to everyone for their hard work. I hope you found the course interesting and useful. Best of luck in the future to each of you.
  
  
• Final Project Phase 3 scores posted and emails sent, OFFICIAL Final Project Total scores posted Final Project Phase 3 and OFFICIAL Project TOTAL scores are posted on Canvas. Everyone should have received an email with their Phase 3 score and some comments. This was a very good set of submissions for the most part. Most showed a good deal of effort and learning on your own, as well as a clear understanding of what was expected. However, a few students seemed to lose sight of the fact this was a course on web-based C# programming and ACTIVE Server Pages, as well as web-design and that 50% of their Phase 3 score was based on "Programming Components." Some submissions were closer to just a plain website that could have been created with almost any tool, omitting some of the requirements for the Final Project to using C# code, event handlers, and ASP-based controls. Hence they did not do very well on some of the Programming components because there was very little to grade. Some relied on resources not available on every computer. The overall average on Phase 3 was 87.91. This is very, very good for the class as a whole. Scores on Phase 3 ranged from 98.25 to 73.75 out of a possible 100, with 4 in the 90s, 2 in the 80s, and 2 on the 70s. Three student never submitted and were not included in this average. Final Project TOTALS were a bit lower, but still very good, with an overall average of 79.20. The overall Final Project scores ranging from 90.68 to 64.23 with 1 in the 90s, 3 in the 80s, 3 in the 70s, and 1 in the 60s. Many of these lower scores were a consequence of very low scores on Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 or not submitting one or both of these components at all.
  
  NOTE:. Remember that the Final Project TOTAL was calculated as
  
  (Phase 1 + Phase 2) x .3 + Phase 3 x .7 = some value less than 100.
  
  ALSO REMEMBER that your Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 scores are still visible, but have now been declared "Not part of the final grade" so I could replace them with the one OFFICIAL Final Project TOTAL.
  
  ALSO ALSO NOTE: The current final averages and any potential final grades on Canvas are in no way accurate. The Final Grading Scale as not been set, and not all course components have been recorded.
  
  Active Course Engagement Scores, Final Averages, and Final Grades will be posted by the end of tomorrow Tuesday. Please be patient and allow me time to consider these rather than contacting me with concerns that are not well founded at this point. I appreciate your cooperation with this.
  
  
• CAT 4 and Attendance scores posted. MINI/JIT/CAT and Attendance Averages confirmed correct: Just a quick note to let everyone know I have posted the CAT 4 scores and confirmed the MINI/JIT/CAT averages on Canvas match my records. Overall, the class average for MINI/JIT/CAT was 83.27% with 2 averages of 100, 3 in the 90s, 1 in the 80s, 1 in the 70s, 1 in the 60s, and 3 below 50. As noted at the beginning of the course, missing one or two of these small point value assignments would have minimal impact on your final average, but as some of these very low averages reveal, some students missed a very substantial number of these assignments which will impact final averages.
  
  The Attendance data on Canvas is also confirmed accurate, keeping in mind that values are rounded up or down to display only whole numbers. A 71.43 would display as a 71 and an 85.71 would display as 86. The precise, accurate values are still maintained in my records for the Final Average calculations.
  
  As per Course Guidelines, every student was entitled to 1 "undocumented" excused absence and I went through and applied this policy for everyone who was eligible. Keep in mind this reduces your total possible Attendance points, so each remaining meeting was worth a little more. The Attendance average for the class was 84.67 with 5 100s, 1 in the 90s, 0 in the 80s, 2 in the 70s, 0 in the 60s and 3 below 40.
  
  

Graduate Associate Instructors (AIs), Spring 2024:

Abhijith Dameruppala

Email: adameru@iu.edu

• Office Hours/Appointments: No formal office hours. Preferred appointment times available and appointments strongly encouraged.
  PREFERRED Appointment times:


• Thursdays: 3:00pm - 5:00pm and Fridays: 3:00pm - 5:00pm

Prajwal Kaushal

Email: prkaus@iu.edu

• Office Hours/Appointments: No formal office hours. Preferred appointment times available and appointments strongly encouraged.
  PREFERRED Appointment times:


• Tuesdays: 1:00pm - 3:00pm and Fridays: - 10:00am - 12:00pm

Sai Sumanth Muvva

Email: saimuvva@iu.edu

• Office Hours/Appointments: No formal office hours. Preferred appointment times available and appointments strongly encouraged.
  PREFERRED Appointment times:


• Wednesdays: 10:00am - 12:00pm and Fridays: 1:00pm - 3:00pm