Teaching Evaluations

Math 165: Calculus I

• Alexander is one of the better teachers, he is really good compared to some (which are very poor) but using more time in Class explaining sections vs. having students working out problem could really help students understand better (student can do problems at home!)
• Quizes work excellent. In depth explanation is effective.
• I feel the homework and tests did not reflect what the course was to teach. There was too much analysis and theory and not enough practical exercises. I also felt the projects to be unfair in the expectations of our knowledge!
• I liked the way the quizzes figured into the grade, but sometimes (often) they were too long for the time allowed. I needed more time to think out my answers.
• The instructor made things seem harder than they were. I lost total interest in the class.

• This class was tough, but Mr Alexander was always excited to teach, willing to help and nice.
• Written reports required depending on a bunch of slackers.
• This class was difficult from the start. I think that the pace was way too fast.
• Sometimes he just does random problems on the board that confuse us. Also, sometimes the quizzes are not comparable to problems we do for homework.

• This course is best in a small section!
• I would say professor Alexander was very intelligent, but because of that, some of the ideas went over my head. It was kind of confusing at times.
• -Overall Prof. Alexander taught the class very well
  - One thing I would like to see is that when he goes over the answer to quizzes he does so when we have the quiz returned to us.
• LESS QUIZZES, + more -but shorter- tests
• This course is extremely difficult

Math 165H: Calculus I (Honors)

• I realize that Professor Alexander wanted us to know that mathematics is not a dictatorship, and thus he derived everything for us. However knowing how something is derived does not automatically lead to an understanding of how to use a formula, or what the formula means or why it works and without explanation practical uses for abstract formulas they are essentially just more clutter in my brain. To improve: explain how to use + don't be so abstract!
• Interest - The instructor was enthusiastic, however it was not catching with the class. I believe this class was a little hard for a Calc. 1 class where no one was expected to know Calculus coming in. I had 1 year of Calculus before this class, but the material was still difficult to me. However, Prof. Alexander did a good job presenting the material and he made himself readily available outside of class.
• It would be better if he would teach the actual metyhod and then the theory behind it. I wold understand it much easier.
• I do not feel that 165H is a good class for students who have no background in calculus prior to this class
• I liked the class, but the textbook almost never made sense. It wold have been helpful if we went over the basics a little more and could ask more questions in class.
• This course was supposed to be taught as if none of us had any previous knowledge to calculus, but neither the book or the instructor conveyed this. This was my first time taking a calc course and I struggled because of lack of instruction.
• Class work and homework were very different than questions or quizzes. There was far too little emphasis on knowing the basics of each section, and lecture was more something that Dr. Alexander found interesting instead of course material.
• The text was extremely difficult to understand. I learn best from reading, so the poor text made this course especially troublesome for me.

Math 165T: Theory of Calculus I

• The course was very interesting and helpful. Prof. was always interested to talk about math problems.

Math 166: Calculus II

• I quiz every friday is to much.

• quizes to hard
  grading to hard
  very bad about partial credit
• I recommend test instead of projects; I felt that the Projects were 2 long and having to work in groups made it hard when everyone wasn't on the same level.

• Alexander is not approachable. He keeps his door shut & lights off to make it seem like he isn't there. When asking questions he isn't good at explaining -- he assumes students know everything. Would be more helpful if he explained each step & did more than 1 example per section.
• Professor Alexander is probably one of the best math teachers I have ever had. It is truly amazing how well he knows the material.

• Often the quizzes had a difficulty level far higher than the normal work.
• Instructor was on e of the best that I've had. My only beef was with the computer enhanced part. It was useless. We did projects that were barely relevent to the material. Also grade needs to be based less on quiz average. 40% is to high.
• I believe the amount of information we were required to memorize was excessive. I believe some of the weekly quizzes unfairly represented the material we covered in class.
• It would have been nice to have some kind of happy median between 2 or 3 very challenging prob. and just doing what we "need to do" - i.e. recomended prob. Also it seems like more concentration on approaches to solving problems instead of theory behind them.
• Often the quizes had a difficulty level far greater than the normal work which was unfair for weekly quizes
• Very difficult to get help from during the week; Some quizes didn't accurately represent what the class was learning and working on.
• The class lecture was often times confusing and not useful. Most of the pratical learning came from the book which sometimes seemed to make lecture more confusing as he deried the Equasions we use.
• Do example with a little less theory behind them
  -- specific problems -- with lecture
• I'm not sure I liked having the class do problems on the board so much, I think more examples and lecture time would have been more helpful. During the chapters that we did sections out of order a few more subject headings on the board for our notes would help. You made a difficult class interesting to attend. Thanx.
• You make class very interesting. I would like to see more tests, more attempts to improve grade.

Math 166H: Honors Calculus II

• Would rather have tests than weekly Quizzes, especially have more different ways to up our grade, 40% based on weekly quizzes is too much.

• Honors should not be at 8 AM.
• Quizzes and tests are much easier than in high school. I expected the course to be harder.
• Sometimes Prof. Alexander needs to focus more on how to do the problems and less on how the mathematical mechanisms behind the problem work.
• Honors math shouldn't be at 8 a.m.
• The course should be offered at a time later than 8am.
• Good overall--projects are difficult but help is available.
• The instructor did a poor job of relating complex topiecs in easy to understand terms. Frequently stated that concepts would be better picked up through "experience" rather than teaching them outright. Made confusing jumps from one point to another in the course material. I learned a lot more from the book.
• I liked having Professor Alex for this course; however, when he teaches I feel that he inadvertently makes things more difficult to understand by over-explaining to the class. It's almost like he knows too much about math!
• He could spend less time doing proofs and more time doing practice problems.
• Really enthusiastic...but student who delays his work might have hard time only by class hours.

• I like 8:00 AM.
• I would appreciate an honors section that wasn't at 8 am.
• 8 AM classes shouldn't include math courses.
• The textbook skips too many steps in solving problems and is not always very clear.
  The CORDIC method project was more geared toward engineering -- didn't completely relate.
  Good overall!
• Prof Alexander is a great Prof
• The vast majority of the time, the proofs are hard to understand as explained by the instructor. At times, the course was unnecessarily difficult. More emphasis was put on proofs, which is good if the student understands how to do a problem, but if the student only has the proof, then understanding how to do the problem can be difficult. One gets bogged down in the proof, and looses how to do the problem.
• I like having Math at 8:00 AM, I think better. I really enjoyed Professor Alexander's class.
• Professor Alexander is a great teacher, but some of his outside work was a bit much. The outside homework sometimes was more difficult than necessary and just made me more confused rather than helping me learn. Also, the projects, although teams helped, but there were extremly difficult at times and did not help at times. Otherwise, he did a great job in teaching honors Calc II.

Math 201: Introduction to Proof

• Professor goes through materials so fast, hard to catch up.
• Often spoke in a confusing manner.
• List the averages on tests. Post grades.
• Excellent course. A little bit tougher and more in depth than expected but still very interesting.

• The class is only 2 credits, that's all I really have to say. I have a 5-credit Junior-level Physics class that was on par with this course. Oh yeah, I learned a lot, hell yes. I realize my DMACC class (no matter how rednecky that sounds), skipped a lot; but some quick suggestions:
  • make it more credits
  • cut down on the course load
• Many people learn by example. I think if there were examples of how to prove things it would have made the homework seem to make more sense.
• Why do math teachers need this class. This is my 2nd time taking it and I absoluty hate it. I study all the time and yet I'm barely passing w/ a C.
• Homework was a heavy load for a two-credit course
• This course should be worth 4 credits
• This class seemed to take as much work as an average 4 credit class!
• The problem with this course is mainly in the homework. I found that there wasn't enough time to adequately cover the material needed to complete the homework for next class period.
• I'd like to see solutions posted, never know the correct answers to questions.
• I didn't understand the homework was due every day so I spent the first few weeks not turning it in.
• More work than 2 credits: should be 10 credit class based on work compared to 4-credit classes taken. unfairly graded homework. final unreasonable for 2-credit class. homework load way too heavy.

• Dr. Alexander seemd to really enjoy teaching us. I think he did a good job for a class that could be really boring to teach.
• I am retaking this course. This semester has been much more productive. I have learned much more, and will take something out of this course, as opposed to last semester.
• The textbook was the worst text (as far as layout, readability, index, etc.) that I have ever had in a math class. Every time I read it, I came away more confused, not less.
• The course seems difficult for a 200-level, 2-credit course. The textbook was pretty useless, but coming to lecture was helpful. Group work was best. Good instructor.
• I enjoyed working in groups. Good interaction. Wasn't sure of grade would be.

Math 265: Calculus III

• Mathematica: Use Mathematica in class, do not just assign projects. Tailor the course to meet engineering students needs.
• Computer projects are too hard.
• Computer projects take too much time.

Math 265H: Honors Calculus III

• He is made so much of the subject more clear and I learn a lot.
• Dr Alexander would often end class late, making me late to my next class.
• Well instructed with lots of enthusiasm.
• I wish we had one exam during the semester.
  I wish you have shared something other than the course materials. All we know is that you're a great math professor, but something other than that. Anyways, thanks. I enjoyed it a lot. Have a nice summer.
• Prof. Alexander was very well prepared and enthusiastic. I loved this class and learned a lot. Homework, quizzes, and group problems were helpful, but we didn't have any tests.

• Didn't really teach the math, only proved Theorems/Formulas. Not a lot of emphasis on the actual material.
• The text book is confusing sometimes, and the solution manual does NOT provide much help. It would be of help if the department change the required textbook.
• Dr. Alexander was the best math teacher I've had for a long time.
• The quizes were very hard (the last 5).
• Prof. Alexander definitely knows what he is talking about, is a very smart man, + is excited to teach. However, I would have liked to have seen more examples/problems instead of just theory.
• The only thing I really didn't like about this course was the lace of exams. For me with calculus, most of the time I don't get it the first time around and often times even within a week I won't get it real well. But exams every 4 weeks or so give you time to digest the material, go back and review some of the things ... . Exams make you go back and review material from 4-5 weeks ago. I'm not trying to say the way we did testing/grading in this class was bad/unfair, I just know that last semester in calc II I didn't usually do too hot on the weekly quizzes but I got As on the midterm and final exams. I that that's honestly because it just takes me that long to process this stuff, but I know eventually I can get it.

Math 267: Elementary Differential Equations & Laplace Transforms

• He's very all over the place, hard to follow his methods. Terminology used just confuses me. Quizes directions are not explicative of what the problem actually is. Overall ~ very hard to understand what exactly is happening.
• Tests were way too difficult -- didn't cover general concepts. Instead were over specific procedures that you were expected to memorize.
• I found that Alexander was a difficult teacher to learn from. He assigned a lot more work than other Math 267 prof., for example we were assigned 3 seperate projects and no other 267 class got a project. It seemed that we was too worried in the theory behind the math that he couldn't teach the material. He just made the class more difficult than it had to be.
• Very good instructor, but I thought the pace of this section was extremely rigorous compared to those of my peers in other 267 sections.
• The textbook has too much theoretical info + not enough practical.
• The textbook was at tmes very hard to understand.
• The class would be better if instructor covered a greater bredth of material within each chapter.

• More energy than any other teacher. Great!
• Prof. Alexander was an excellent teacher - so enthusiastic + knowledgable + willing to help in any way. He made this a fun + enjoyable class. I had transfered in because my previous teacher had been difficult to follow + understand. I was so pleased that the choice worked out so well. Now, as for the computer enhancement ... that didn't happen too frequently. The projects were sporadic + rather invonvenient. We learned the probram only in bits + pieces + didn't end up applying it behond the projects. We were only able to spend 3 class periods in the Matlab. Prof. Alexander was a great teacher, but the computer enhancement did not enhance his teaching.
• Wish that would go over assigned problems when no one gets how to do not just say to figure it out. Was avaible for students. The quizzes were a good idea instead of just having 3 tests.
• I enjoyed this course. The material was presented in a very efficient way. The use of Matlab was well integrated.
• Prof. Alexander often overexplained things without enough background information on the topic.
• Roger was a good professor. He definetely knew his material. He could've made the group projects more fun and not so difficult. The projects almost required that you be an 'ace' with the matlab computer program.
• The textbook for this class is by far the worst I have encountered. It was absolutely incomprehensible. The difficulty and expectations of this class seemed unfairly high. I love the format of the class, homework on the board and friday quizzes, but the quizzes seemed a little too difficult. I recall one that required two "tricks" that we had not seen before. The class moved very quickly, lecture was excellent, but it was just too much material. My major complaint about this class, was the lack of computer time contrasted with the difficulty of the projects. I really was looking forward to a lot better integration with the course. With 1 day in 2 weeks in the lab, even, the projects would have been wonderful, but three days a semester is ridiculous.
• The "computer enhancement" of this course left a bit to be desired. Rather than doing three intense projects, I would have preferred 1 day every 2 weeks or so spent in the laboratory learning how to render the actual homework problems in Matlab. Otherwise, Dr Alexander was an excellent teacher who made 267 a worthwhile class.
• The computer part was okay, but could explain a little better.
• Not explaining the homework assigned made it diffucult to understand exactly what was expected. Also, not every one has had Math 265 and some of us last Calc class was 3 years ago.
• The computer assistance only confused me. The projects seemed a bit difficult for this class.

• What is with the projects? -gateway exam?
• I didn't like his syllabus. It wasn't fair that we had to take a gateway and do math projects when no other classes did.
• I believe this section is far harder than others of the same class, but the grading policy does not reflect this.
• The textbook for this course - Boyce & DiPrima - was extremely unhelpful and I must believe that a better Differential Equations text exists.

  Group projects need to have different group selection process. Often 1 or 2 members did all the work.

• This is first course at this university I have taken where the textbook did a very poor job a describing concepts. I found myself amazed at the complexity with which even the simplest of concepts was presented. I would strongly encourage the department investigating finding a better text.
• Have office hours at some other time than right after class.
• • Shouldn't assume that the student knows the material.
  • The book is hard to read (is representative of the material)
  • didn't feel comfortable in the front of class
• The textbook was of very little help. It had few examples and the examples that it did have weren't very useful.

  Projects were too long + time consuming. Spent more time on the project than homework.

• The projects weren't really useful in this course. Didn't like the way we were assigned groups, should have been able to pick our own groups. Some of the projects weren't graded fairly, when one member did all the work, the entire group got the same grade.

  Also, the book was very hard to read + was unclear on most of the time. It didn't help me learn at all as the material was never explained clearly. I hope this book won't be used again.

• This was my least favorite course at Iowa State. I disliked the professor, the texbook, and the course as a whole. The professor had enthusiam but his course was extremely boring. His teaching stiyle I didn't like either. He had people put problems on the board and I thought this was a bad use of class time. Having students teach the class does not help others students learn. The projects he gave were overly difficult and he gave us no lienieicy when one of our group members did not contribute to our group. The texbook was horrible.
• the only problem with the teacher is he would leave a lot of steps out due to the fact it was "easy" to see the result.
• The quizzes were good. The projects were too hard and took too much time. The prof knew the info well, but he should've explained everything by using step by step instructions.

Math 273: Introduction to Scientific Computing

• Text was riddled with errors and not very helpful in addressing problems. The assigned homework was extremely difficult and not very useful in aiding the understanding of the subject
• I believed that the homework was far too difficult for an introductory course. The material in this class is not amazingly interesting or easy.
• As far as I know this class was far off base at all times. I didn't learn what I expected. The practicality of the course was very small. The teacher's over use of his own intrests and studies hurt the class a great deal. I wanted to learn to use matlab not how to solve problems of theoretical mathematics. I fell that this class could be used greatly by the EE department as supplement if restructered.
• Prof. Alexander shows an excellent knowledge of both mathematics and Matlab. But, I don't feel that in any way that this class could be labeled as "Introduction to Scientific Computing". If this class is to be continued as it currently is, it should not be taught to engineers and labelled as "Matlab for math majors". The tests and homework dealt with too much math and math theory to be considered intro to scientific computing. Also, there were no questions on either test that we have had that even had anything to do with Matlab. This class was not beneficial to my educational career as an engineering student.
• The assigned Homework did not seem appropriate to the material covered in class. The book didn't help with the Homework.
• I feel that course adequately covered the Matlab materials, however I think some of the other more indepth mathamatical materials may have been better suited to another course.
• Good
  • Made himself very available outside the classroom.
  • Policies were well known.
• Bad
  • Needs to ask questions to the students to make sure they are comprehending.
  • I would have liked to see 3 problems worked for every concept, 1 easy, 1 medium, 1 hard.
• This course took too much time outside of class (for a 3 credit class). Some material we were tested on wasn't in book. Teacher was very resourceful - but talked "above" most of the class. Some of the homework had no references other than class - and class reference wasn't thorough enough. Course required knowledge of previous courses - some of which was never taught. Teacher emphasized theory more so than using MATLAB.
• This class shouldn't be part of the EE curriculum. It has no clear application to engineering problems. The text is truly horrid; barely readable except for those who are adept at ComSci + Math. I felt homework sets were too lengthy at times. This class should be given as a short course or applied in segments in other courses as the functionality is needed. Matlab itself is as crude, non-user friendly, + inapproachable as it is powerful. Alexander gets too excited about math + needs to stict to basics a bit more. Grading scale is bad; we should be compared to our peers, not some predetermined standard.
• • Math 265 should be a pre req for this class
  • The time devoted to this class should be for a 5 credit hour class or more.
  • Alexander expected us to have already compleated higher level courses. He did not treat this as a second year math class.
  • The tests and homework were not even comparable to the other sections of Math 273.
  • Alexander explained material "over our head" when asked about problems.
  • Did not have an intro to Matlab. He treated this as an Advanced Calculus class.
  • The pricipals needed by the EE department for the use of Matlab were not met. This class did not teach us what we needed to learn!
• The prerequisits for this class are not appropriate! Diff. Eq. and Linear systems should be required. His presentations cover the math behind the software, not how to use the software to find solutions. I was very disappointed with this class.
• The two sections of math 273 don't seem very balanced. The other section looked like the material was a lot easier.
• A lot of the homework was very difficult to complete.

• I was expecting a course in the methods of use for MATLAB, not a course on advanced concepts applied to MATLAB. I thought the course could have also been taught better with a more well-written book.
• This class is not cool at all. The book is extremely hard to follow, & the instructor does not go over basic concepts. It felt as though it were Matlab II. I do not know anything substaintially more now than I did when I started this course. It blew.
• Rotten text. I hope Van Loan burns!
• The book was worthless. Homework was way too hard and poorly stated.
• The instructor's enthusiasm made a difficult subject palatable.
• If you want me to learn anything, use a textbook that teaches me something
• I liked using MATLAB, but some of the homeworks were very difficult and were hard to answer. And the number of credit hours was under rated this should be an 4 or 5 credit course.
• He expected us to know to much that we had never been taught before expecially about differential equations. The wording for the homework problems was often confusing.
• Lectures in the math lab aren't as effective as the ones in class.
• I believe that this course was useless for me to take. The course did not cover the basics of MATLAB. The course was more like a math analysis course that was way above my level of understanding. I do not believe that I retained any useful skills in using MATLAB that would help me in my future as a E.E. student.
• A lot of material to cover in a short time. More time should be spent developing and explaining the algorithms involved.
• This course really needs to be revised and taught by someone else if this course is still in the EE program. The instructor communicates above the students and everything is given in terms of variables. There needs to be examples with real numbers in order to learn. I have learned more on my own than in class.
• If the idea of this course is to learn about matrices, I have not. If the idea is to learn about optimization, I learned that in Calc 3. If the idea is to learn about Matlab, I taught myself.
• This course is redudant & impractical in every sense of the word(s)
• Matlab is a great tool! The curriculum as far as algorithms etc go was terrible. I don't think I'll us any of it again (except for the Matlab). The book has a terrible index! Make this 2 different classes.
• The book is horrible and extremely difficult to comprehend
• I feel that the course was designed for EEs; especially homework. Other majors do take this course! Overhead projector use was purposeful, however in larger classroom, a much larger size is desirable. Textbook was extrely challenging. Going over contents in class helped much.
• Professor Alexander was very enthusiastic about teaching + always had an open door if any help was needed. However, the lectures in class could be confusing + many times one felt lost - not knowing how to ask the question to make it clear.
• Can't the Math department get their silly little act together enough so that the bubble sheet question numbering matches this form? I guess not. How typical. I don't see how this course is supposed to relate to engineering at all. The focus is too much on theory or non-real world problems.

• Why am I taking this class? I haven't quite figured it out yet. If the purpose was solely to teach me how to use Matlab, this class goes entirely overboard. The section on optimization seemed applicable toward my future as an electrical engineer, but most everything else covered in the course seems better geared toward a Math or Computer Science major. In addition, the course seemed incredibly difficult for a 3-credit 200-level math course. I felt like both the book and the lectures demanded a much deeper prerequisits knowledge of math than I have received up to this point at Iowa State. Also, the homework problems were ridiculously difficult and took entirely too much time to complete.
• Dr Alexander's enthusiasm for the subject is commendable. He brings alot of passion into the classroom. However, I found the course to be akin to drinking from a firehose. Too much material in too little time. There was no attempt at student interaction other than going over section outlines. These section outline reviews were more threatening than informative. I never knew where the course was going or what it's purpose was. I still don't know why a computer has to use floating point arithmetic. I'll stop now because I don't wish to be perceived as a whiner, but I could go on.
• Overall, I think there was way too much work involved for a 3 credit hour class. I'm not complaining about have to do more but if I am going to have to spend 15 or so hours on 1 project, then the class should be worth more than 3 credit hours. In addition, I feel that the information in the class is presented at a graduate level. The information was difficult and not made very clear by the instructor.
• I recommend replacing this course with strictly a linear math course, such as Math 310. The concepts of the Van Loan book are good, but fails to present them in a efficient manner. The tests were not a good representation of what I learn in class!
• The book is incredibly difficult to understand. The material covered by this course is largely unnecessary in the world today with current computer technology. Many techniques are not needed and optimization not necessary as much to this degree. It should not be required for EE.
• This class sucks.
• This course did not teach me anything. What a waste!
• Course is very dry and not very clear at all. Very technical. Usually I left class room very unclear about material.
• It seemed there was a lot of background information I was assumed to know even though I had never learned it. Give more examples to explain the steps and mathematics.
• The hw assignments were way too hard! And graded too harshly.
• • material covered seems to be of little or no use in practical applications
  • too much math theory
  • course description did not accurately describe what was covered
  • text was not very helpfull _ was very difficult to follow at times
• I thought the tests + homeworks were very hard + time-consuming.
• Material and course way too difficult for what was needed.
• The homeworks were way to involved for a 3 credit class I spent an average of 13+ hours on each homework and still did badly.
• He was not accessable after 2:00. This was hard for me since I have class from 8-2.
• Exams were nothing like previous exams posted on WWW.
• He posted homework late and was not available.

• Prof Alexander did an excellent job of explaining a topic that is difficult to understand and not usually interesting. He had a strong enthusiasm for the subject even at 8 in the morning.
• I felt the exams and homework were very difficult compared to the level of the course. The instructor does a good job of teaching the material, but the exams do a very poor job of covering what was taught.
• Many times it felt as if this course was Math 307 with MATLAB added in for fun. The textbook was not very useful & I feel a better one could be found.
• The problem is not his knowledge but the way he tries to convey it to the class. I expected more on the programming aspect rather than the Math.
• There are not enough info about using matlab, and too much info about matrix and different method. Before take this class I was expected to learn how to use matlab, the course it's not what I expected.
• Course was very heavy in the math analysis and light in applications. Matlab is a great tool; I would have appreciated learning how to use it more rather than learning how it solves certain problems. Instructor was very good overall.
• lectures need to be more fast paced sometimes it was difficult to pay attention because we seemed to be repeating the same material homework required too much time to accomplish in a satisfactory manner maybe have more shorter assignments
• Dr. Alexander is an incredibaly intelligent professor who is always excited for class. However, his tests and homeworks were entirely too hard and did not relate well to the material presented in class. Often times I would not even know where to start. After talking with Dr Alexander about the problems I would often be even more confused.

Math 301: Introduction to Abstract Algebra

• Because of Alexander, I am much more confident in mathematical theory. He always helped and explained things very clearly and his tests were great with great review sessions.
• Excellent instructor.
  I would go out of my way to get R. Alexander as my instructor again.
• I thought Alexander was good at addressing questions that were posed by the class and was respectful to the students.
• Good Job in A complex class.
• Good professor, taught a difficult subject well. Very accessible, encouraged class participation.
• The book was difficult to read + understand.
• I feel that Alexander has a very fair grading system!
• Good communication skills. Difficulty in communicating ideas.
• It was a difficult class, + I felt as though too much was assumed. What was taught as being "obvious," was not. --Not to me, anyway, + at least five others in the class that I know of.
• The text is horrible. It makes no sense.
• Very enthusiastic about material. Once-every-two-week homework system a bit strange (1-a-week better). Only 2 exams also different, but good.
• I feel that the grading is very inconsistent among students in the class. I feel that the book is not very helpful with the homework. The notes we take in class are very scattered and most of the time do not help us to understand the exams. I wish the teacher was available more for office hours, but I feel he makes adequate time for his students. The course is very difficult, and I hope that a generous curve is offered.
• I felt that his presentation could be improved by not speaking soo abstractly. I realize this is "abstract" algebra but I think this is new for most of us. I was confused basically the whole year. Could be me, could be Alexander. Improvement on both ends.

• This course contains very difficult material, but Dr. Alexander did a very good job of explaining it in an understandable way. He is a very good teacher.
• Alexander often moved through the material like a robot. He showed enthusiasm at times but he moved so quickly and talked only in mathematical language without effectively covering the material. Furthermore, the homework was a disaster. There was little feedback on assignments, and group assignments were horrendous. It is extremely difficult getting busy schedules to mesh and very little is actually learned. Alexander attempted to use a surrogate teacher though.
• It seemed that Professor Alexander was more concerned with getting through the material than giving us an understanding. He went rather fast. However I loved his Enthusiasm.
• The pace at which material was presented was at first too slow, but then far too fast. Also, homework problems were often too intense. The idea of group homework assignments did not work well - usually one person per group did all the work.
  • Group assignments were not particularly useful.
  • Instructor's enthusiasm was enjoyable.
  • Instructor sometimes seemd ill-prepared, in that he rarely used notes to present his lecture, and therefore tended to sacrifice ORDER of presentation. It was confusing at times.
• It's easy to forget things. It would be helpful to periodically restate old definitions we haven't seen in a while before proving theorems with them.
• I think the group homework thing should be done away with. Also, there is a point where you should stop trying to evoke a response from a clueless student.
• He is a really good professor. It would be nice if we got a rough idea of where we stood in the course, the grade we were getting at a specific time.
• He needs to spend more time explaining the material than just proofing Thms. The grading was difficult to understand and became less clear as the class went on.

Math 307: Theory of Matrices

• This class is ridiculously boring. All the material is theoretical which has no application to real life.
• A monkey could teach this class better. Thank god for the book! Totally objective grading practices too.
• The instructor teaches very poorly. He makes the course overly complicated when the material is not that difficult. His tests do not cover the material we have homework over and do not relate to the book. Class taught very poorly.
• The instructor went a little fast in class it was difficult to take notes at the same rate.
• Excellent instructor. He is always very motivated and seems excited to teach.
• I was very pleased with the teaching ability of prof. Alexander. He is very intelligent and can illustrate the content very effectively in class.
  My only complaint is that the homework problems covered much more theory than computation--the problem being it's hard to know if enough answer is presented when answering a theory question, whereas it's easy to know if you answer a computation problem completely or not.
• Smart person. Very Knowlagable. Hard to understand.

• Use of time was poor. Very knowledgeable on topic but making things understandable was lacking. Hard to follow along on the board. The participation points was not well thought out.
• Did not use class time well. Ran over by 5 min. almost every day.
• I felt the instructor's grading was subjective. Eg. members of a group done assignment receiving different grades for the same answer.
• I found this course to be informative but extremely dry & remedial. I was amazed at the lack of common knowledge from classmates. The instruction was well done. I just wish it wasn't so heavy in proofs & definitions.
• Mr. Alexander was very enthusiastic about teaching, and very helpful when asked questions. It may be useful to post homework solutions on the website so the students can better understand the material.
• It would be nice if solutions to hmwk / Test problems were given after assignment to facilitate the learning process.

  Liked student use of board.

• I think this class needs to be more consistent over seperate sections + instructors. Level of difficulty is unfairly different.
• Book was of little use and did not provide good examples. Class was all theory and no application, and instructor had a hard time with applying what is going to the real world.

• The textbook problems and even the test problems were so difficult - it was hard to transfer what we learned to the problems, I did not like the book.
• The homework was very difficult + never seemed to actually relate to what we covered in class or what the book covered.
• The examples that were presented in class were understandable, whereas the HWS & exams focused more on theory and less applied ideas. I felt things covered in lecture were somewhat easier than the things that we were graded on.
• Lots of pep good teacher; didn't like going to board; need more profanity
• Very enthusiastic about teaching.
• Very animated and professional instructor.
• The website was helpful!
• The homework was too hard -- it confused people more than it helped them.
• The book problems and test probs too difficult - hard to apply what was taught. Book was hard to understand.
• I would have liked to have more than 2 test during the semester. Grading was somewhat harsh concidering we only had 4 questions per test
• give more examples problem

• For the most part, I'm pretty happy w/this class. Few suggestions
  • I think Dr. Alexander spends too much time with trivial/easy concepts and too little time w/harder concepts.
  • I do not like the book's explanations very well.
  • I wish I could see how matrices are used in the real world a little better.
• Good instructor -- It's not his fault the class is really boring.
• The istructor refused to post homework solutions for students to check thier work. He made the comment, If you have questions you could call him, this is not an option for those of us in Cedar Rapids. I don't think my employer would appreciate the phone bill or my time wasted trying to get in touch with the instructor.

  The amount of time required to complete the assigned homework problems was unacceptable. Maybe he does not realize that most of us have other classes and full time jobs.

  I did not feel the material he covered in the lectures helped much with the type of problems assigned as homework.

  About the book, I've never seen one where techniques to solve problems at the end of the sections was covered in the next section. Very poorly laid out.

• I feel the instructor attempted to cover too much material. This did not allow much time for asking questions or showing further examples on the board. In addition, the homework problems assigned were extremely difficult.

Math 317: Theory of Linear Algebra

• Nice guy, enthusiastic, 10AM is too early though.
• I thought Roger was very good at explaining the info. Also, he was willing to see me outside normal Office hrs.
• The binding on the textbook is terrible. Mine broke in 2 weeks.
• Best Professor ever! Always on time, preared, knowledgable, never condescending, and clearly explained all topics.
• Tests are not related to materials.
• This class was difficult for me. I should have gone into office hours more, but I really didn't like it. I think Alexander is a brilliant man. I think he kind of moves too fast in office hrs. I need time to process, and the office hr intimidated my thinkg.
• Dr. Alexander is a wonderful professor--he explains everything clearly & is very approachable to ask questions. He is very organized and kept the cours on track with the syllabus. He handled disruptive students in a tactful manner.
• The last 1/3 of the class could have been slower. I think you went to fast in covering the material and I just got really lost on linear transformation and everything past that.
• The proff. clearly enjoys his job, makes class more bearable.

• Homework problems on board made me feel uncomfortable and on the spot sometimes when I really didn't understand things. Sometimes I felt that the tests should have been more representative of the practice tests.
• A lot of energy for 9 AM.
• Only thing I thought was sometimes we move on with material and we sometimes don't really understand what we just went over until later. Good job overall though, very knowledgeable, I learned a lot.
• The in class group problems were helpful, by forcing us to work on them. The excitement about that the Professor had made class more enjoyable.
• Dr. Alexander seems to enjoy helping the class learn the material. Not very many profs are like that. I appreciated his help very much.

Math 414: Advanced Calculus

• Dr. Alexander is simply perhaps the finest math professor I've ever had. Could not have been more clear, helpful, or enthusiastic.
• Dr. Alexander frequently took 2 weeks to return assignments, which is way too long.
• Excellent. I really blew the course.
• Excellent class, very good teaching technique.
• Alexander is brilliant, but 2 things:
  • HW needs to lag more behind the lecture so there is more time to do it.
  • The group stuff at the brd was not so enjoyable.
• Very good instructor, very difficult course.
• This course is pointless for someone who wants to teach middle school math, like myself. This policy of requiring advanced calc. for Math teachers needs to be changed.
• interesting course, I learned a lot. text was pretty good. I liked working in groups at the end of the semester.
• Gave study guids that did not accurately represent the exams. Treats some students unfairly. Stood at front of class for most of this evaluation.
• Tests solly evaluated our ability to memorize proofs. I did not like the content of this course.
• This is the way math should be taught.
• Good math teacher, could tell he was interested in the subject.
• Homework load was heavy. But
• I think the professor can teach very well. His explainations are clear and understandable.
• • It would be helpful if HW was posted on the web
  • I did not find group work useful.
  • Otherwise, an excellent class!
• Dr. Alexander is an excellent professor, perhaps the best Math professor I have had. He explains the material clearly and is always willing to help and answer questions.

Math 415: Advanced Calculus II

• Working in groups is helpful. I liked a mixture of types of test/homework assignments.
• Good course, but I wish Dr. Alexander would ask for questions more often and sometimes it seemed that he would figure things out on the fly which made some things confusing.
• In class exams for this course does not help. Many questions require lots of thinking - so exams should be take home or of longer than 1 hr.
• Not enough points on graded material. With only a 4 pt scale, a problem was either perfect (A+), or C (75%) or F (50%-0%). I would have liked to get B's on some of my problems.

Math 471: Computational Algebra

• He should be more lenient in the final grades.
• Almost too much material to be covered in a 3 hr course. Not enough time was available to experiment more with methods learned. Instructor was very helpful with many office hours.
• I believe Mr. Alexander is a highly intelegent individual, and I appreciate the way he can come down to the level of undergrads to make them understand. I also believe he takes care in using mathematical terms so that exact meaning is achieved. VERY FAIR GRADER. Admits when he's made a mistake.
• This was a very informative course. I realise now the vastness of this subject and feel that I only have a basic understanding of the material. I think this course should be split into 2 semesters in order to spend more time on each topic.
• This course wasn't what I expected from reading the catalog description. I expected it to be more similar to Math 473. Too much was tried - either give all theory or all programming, or cut down on what is covered so that both theory & programming can be done with reasonable time devoted to both.
• There were times when I suspect he thought that this was the only class I was taking. Maybe the other students in class don't have to work to pay for school but I do and I think maybe this is something to consider.

• Best math course I've had. I liked the homework sets, although I'd prefer less theory.
• Information was presented like a broken firehose; spewing in all directions w/no way of stopping it. Generally good instructor, horrid course.
• The material in lecture seemed very clear when presented, but when applied to homework, projects and tests it made little or no sense at all. The book was not much more help. Perhaps a book on matricies would be helpful, as much of the course required a background in matricies.
• My first semester at ISU and one in an alien country was sure to require major adjustments and acclimitation on my part. However M471 was handled superbly and I could settle in very quickly and felt extremely comfortable too. The coursework was interesting and helped me getting familiar with matlab too. On the whole it was an enriching course.
• The text was not as accessible as would be desired. The sections seemed to be written in reverse order, from specific to general. The authors relied too heavily on examples to elucidate their rather poorly organized explanations. A text which had more motivating discussion, and a better, more direct writing style would be much more useful. Also, one which concentrated on algorithm development might be preferable. The lack of coding in the class was somewhat disappointing, and it would be nice if the class had a library of functions that the students could use, instead of the Matlab package. Matlab doesn't provide a method for computing from within your own code.
• 1) The text is awful. It's hard to understand, poorly organized, and lacks clear examples. Get a different book.
  2) I appreciated your office hours, e-mail responses, and preparation for lecture. You're clearly brilliant, + your lectures + question responses reflect that.
  3) The course is too difficult. I would rather cover less material + understand what I cover. The difficulty is further shown by the number of drops + poor grades. Please come down a bit!
  4) More frequent, less lengthy HW assignments would help. I like to do HW on things as I go.
  5) Course prereqs are inappropriate. Math 267 does NOT teach linear or matrix algebra.
  6) If you hold to the 85-70-55 grading scale, that's too tough. The people in here are generally good students, + there should be mostly A's, B's + C's here.
• Need to provide a computer in the classroom for Matlab examples.
  Too much emphasis was placed on algorithms and not how to use them in class, while the homework and exams emphasized using the algorithms in a more specific manner.
  Instructor assumed much higher level of math knowledge in students than prerequisites warranted.
• Inappropriate course prerequirements. Instructor assumed knowledge of linear algebra much higher than the course indicated was necessary. Lectures were almost non applicable to homework. Book was practically useless. Did not seem relevant to lectures and homework.

• Pause once & a while during lecture so those writing can catch their breath.
• Sometimes the lectures moved a little to quickly for me to take notes and follow along. It would help if the instructor would write headings on the board before covering material instead of just heading into the material. Very knowledgeable about subject matter.
• The textbook is very hard to understand.
• 75 minutes may be too long for a class of this caliber. Having it meet three times per week for 50 minutes would increase retention. Professor Alexander showed great interest in the material and was very helpful during office hours. More detailed examples in the text would be helpful.

• We didn't use a specified text but texts were provided to us which were helpful. The course also proved usefull in my own majors course work.
• Great course. Dr. Alexander did an excellent job of instruction. Only criticism is the lack of a textbook. Maybe Dr. Alexander should be given sabatical to go write a nice textbook.
• It would have been nice to have a good textbook which covered the material.
• Very knowledgeable and precise. Sometimes hard to follow the lecture, but exams are very well correlated to the ability of students.
• You should get rid of some material in this course and spend more time on the rest. I think the covered material is way too muich. Also, we needed more time and examples on the subject. I think I didn't get a lot of stuff.

Math 473: Introduction to Scientific Computing

• He is one of the best math professor in Iowa State University. (As he is a good teacher) I was lucky to have a class with him.
• after taking this course I still have no idea why this is a required course, I also don't understand how this will affect me in the future. This class sucked.
• Too much homework. I have to spend more than 20 hours for just a homework.
• The instructor is excellent in lectures. However, too much homework and assignments for this section have been given. If the instructor had wanted to give this many assignments and/or projects, more time must be allocated. This course by far exceeded 3 credit hours. It was more like 4.
• Your projects were too difficult, and you graded to harsh. The homework was good.
• You need to take a more simplistic approach. Must of the time I felt as a fish out of water. A better idea of what to expect on tests is also needed. (Maybe weekly quizzes would help.)

Math 481: Numerical Solution of Differential Equations

• Course was well taught, topics were clear + understandable. I felt that more practice problems of didiculty similar to the exams would have been useful. Grading near the end of semester seemed to take longer than it should, with 2 homework assignments unreturned by the end of semester. But overall, Dr. Alexander did a really good job with this course.
• The instructor was always enthusiastic and showed genuine interest in the material. The course outline was followed closely and I knew what to expect on a daily basis. The example scripts on the course website were very useful and easy to understand.
• I really liked the class. However, I spent an enormous amount of time on the homework. I think you could spend a little more time on how to write more efficient Matlab code.
• I thought Dr. Alexander was an exceptionally good teacher and was available for help. The idea of partners was great for homework. However, even working w/another person we spent 30+ hours a week on the homework. I feel the homework was a little too time consuming but Dr. Alexander was fair on grading late homework. Overall this was a good course except the gap between homework problems + exam question varied greatly.
• Professor was slow to return homeworks.