Past SJSU Activities

Cay S. Horstmann

MS Writing Projects

• Sunita Rajain, A LTI Server for Composite Assignments, 2016 | Repo
• Hien Vu, An Online IDE for CodeCheck, 2016
• Hong Le, Interactive Computer Science Exercises in EdX 2016
• Kiruthika Sivaraman, Analyzing Automatically Assessed Programming Assignments in CS1/2, 2014
• Kiet Nguyen, Automatic Evaluation of Python and C Programs with codecheck, 2014
• Jesus Rocha, Dart: Declaratively Rendering 2D Sketches in Canvas, 2014
• Snigdha Mokkapati, Static Type Checker Tools for Dart, 2012
• Ashlesha Patil, Automatic Grading of Programming Assignments, 2010
• Sanuja Dabade, The ActiveLecture System, 2010
• Yue Chen, A Framework for Active Learning (Revisited), 2009
• Vikas Rao, Scala Server Faces, 2009
• Himavantha Sajja, Interactive Lecturing System, 2009
• Somiyajit Jena, Authoring and Sharing of Programming Exercises, 2008
• Sadiya Hameed, Java FX as a Domain Specific Language, 2008
• Sean Sharma, A Framework for Active Learning, 2007
• Tom Austin, Expanding the JavaScript Metaobject Protocol, 2007
• Chunming Dong, Programmer Error Handling in the GlassFish Application Server, 2007
• Philip Soares, Teaching Object Oriented Programming with Ruby (IIUM Macau), 2007
• Quy Nguyen, An Extension of the Model-View Controller Architecture In the Java Swing Text Editing Framework, 2006
• Xiaoheng Wu, Authoring XML Documents With XHTML and MathML Support, 2006
• Alexandre Alves, Implementing Native Properties in the Java Programming Language, 2006
• Ignatius Yuwono, An SVG implementation of a rendering peer for Java Swing, 2006
• Tong Ho, Modeling XML Documents for Interactive and Script-Driven Editors, 2005
• Swati Pathak, XML Editor Commands and Automation, 2004
• Nupura Pradhan, XML Authoring and Validation, 2004
• Atul Dedhia, An Aspect-Oriented Approach to Software Performance Analysis, 2003
• Aloke Bhatnagar, Custom Editor Construction Using the Java EditorKit Framework, 2003
• Gang Zhang, A Visual Approach to Literate Programming, 2003
• Nitin Vira, Analysis of Servlet/JSP Hosting Architecture, 2002
• Chunqiu Ji, A Web-Based UML Editor, 2002
• Jean Ro, A Web-Hosted Tool For Java Program Exploration and Debugging, 2002
• Loong Wan Kei, A Tool For Developing Online Quizzes for E-Learning, 2001 (IIUM Macau)
• Xuemei Zhang, Scripting Client-Side Java Beans, 2001
• Bill Situ, Automated Java Bean Testing Engine, 2001
• Haoqing Sun, Tag Libraries for Visual Beans in Java Server Pages, 2001
• Jing Nancy Zhao, Visualization and Annotation of Cross-References, 2000
• Bo Yang, Self-Organization of Web-Based Information Systems, 2000
• Jenrong Lai, Building a Web Annotation System, 2000
• Song Zhang, Using Java Reflection for Runtime Object Inspection, 1999
• Juyoung Lee, The Command Routing Pattern Using Multiple Inheritance, 1998
• Jiaoyang Zhou, Java Frameworks for Animation of Algorithms, 1997

Classes Taught

Following the shining example set by Mark Stamp, here are some student comments, selected at random (!) [I leave it to you decide whether that is an exclamation mark or the “not” operator].

• Spring 2018 CS152
  • Very responsive to questions on piazza. The material helps build up problem solving skills and teamwork, though it can be quite challenging.
  • Excellent assignments/lectures. I learned a lot through the course of the class because I was forced to push myself.
  • I appreciate that this class uses programming projects, because I think I (and many/most people) learn best from doing, rather than from just talking about concepts.
  • Although this helped with making me a better programmer, it forced me to sacrifice work from other classes.
  • He seems to enjoy the subject, so it's fun going to class.
  • The instructor answers questions that students have. [Pheew—passed a low bar here.]
  • Some work requires modifying or using the instructors code, which can require some deciphering.
• Fall 2016 CS151
  • Knows literally everything about what he teaches. He wrote the textbook and designed a program for students to build off of for a group project. Also a very funny guy.
  • If a program runs on my computer but not on another, without any sort of feedback it's hard to know what didn't work on the other computer. [I didn't have a grader, so I know the feeling from grading the homework—it's hard to know what worked on their computer. I think students learned a lot from using Git and automating builds so they work on every computer.]
  • 90% of the class does not read the textbook, should acknowledge that and teach accordingly.
  • If you're a student who only cares so much about grades and just want to pass classes and get a degree, this Professor is not the one. But if you're a student who actually wants to learn something interesting and your GPA is already a mess, I highly recommend this Professor.
• Spring 2016 CS49J
  • Very effective assignments that help you learn the course contents. (That seems to be a shared sentiment—“Used assignments that enhanced learning” was rated 4.8 out of 5.)
  • His class is a bit difficult although [sic] he already mentioned it on the first day of class.
  • The quizzes are challenging but unnecessary.
  • It's very self-directed which I somewhat like.
• Fall 2015 CS46B
  • Vague. [Unfortunately, no more detail was provided. Several other students complained about vague assignments, which is odd, given that the assignments are very specific and enforced by an autograder that students can run as often as they like. Perhaps the problem is that the assignments leave it to the students to figure out how to solve them.]
  • The philosophy of "figure it out, if not, ask for help" is really something not many other teachers utilize.
  • It is very rewarding when one completes his assignments.
  • The class size is massive and he is very strict, leading to frustration. [Indeed. There were over 150 students in the class, for which I was paid just a little more than teaching a class with 30 students, and I did not have time or resources to make allowances for late homeworks, submission errors, and the like.]
  • I believe it is better for this class to have a smaller size.
  • Needs to appoint way more tutors than 2 or 3 in CS club if he himself knows assignments are challenging. [I wish I could “appoint more tutors”. Several years ago, the course was changed from small classes to a large lecture, in exchange for lab assistants, tutors, and mentors. This semester, the department refused to pay for tutoring or mentoring, and a small handful of student volunteers did what they could. ]
  • Highly responsive to student questions, took student feedback and altered homeworks/exams accordingly.
  • Professor Horstmann teaches very poorly and does not offer any help.
  • Is very responsive if you have any questions.
  • How am I suppose to learn when all I'm worried about is my grade? [Many students who want to be admitted into the CS major are only admitted as undeclared. This semester, the university raised the GPA for changing into the CS major to 3.45.]
  • This course was taught well through diagrams and pictures. The video lectures were helpful too. [I posted screencasts of all lectures on Youtube.]
  • You should use visuals in your class to help us understand complex ideas.
  • His class definitely didn't feel like an 'intro' class. [Many students expected this to be “introduction to programming”, but that was the preceding class.]
  • Gave very difficult homework assignments especially at the beginning of the semester. [The hard assignments were at the end, but by then students had caught up with basic programming.]
  • Knew his stuff. [These days, so many courses are taught by adjunct instructors, some with more knowledge than others, and students have evidently learned not to assume that professors know their stuff. At the beginning of the semester, participants completely ignored my responses on the discussion board. It took about 6 weeks before they started acknowedging my suggestions as possibly trustworthy.]
  • Enforces original work. [There was rampant, shameless cheating on the first sets of homework assignments. Many students were plainly astonished that I didn't go along with the normal practice of accepting group work as individual work. I had to send about 20% of the class to the lugubrious antechambers of the Student Conduct office.]
  • Grading system is weird. [Lots of students were very upset about a 3% grade for participating in the discussion group, which some tried to game with spam comments. The other weird part is that I stuck to the university letter grade definitions: A = excellent, B = above average, C = average, etc.]
• Spring 2014 CS46A (Online)
  • The online version of this class was not a great idea. No support for students entering in the computer science major.
  • It was an online course and it could be more effective if it were person to person, but overall very well taught.
  • Although (!) this was an online class, the course was made to be very interactive and engaging.
  • Should not give too much tough midterm or final. This doesn't help much instead make student more depressed and feel more stressed.
  • Homework assignment instructions are too vague. [This was a recurring comment, and somewhat surprising to me given that the autograder gave very specific feedback.]
  • I think Dr. Horstmann should have a meeting once a week with their students for online class to see how they are doing and ask if students have any questions. I mean we had piazza, social networking site, where we posted our questions and students would help each other. Meeting once a week would help even more and students will have their answers immediately.
  • Lecture videos on Udacity make it easy to work at your own pace and at your own convenience. They are also easily revisited and allow me to get away with not taking notes (!).
  • -Very knowledgeable. -Very reasonable at grading. -Helpful, provided you ask in advance. (!)
  • I wish that the forums were managed better. Instructors never stepped in regarding spam on the forums which was a consistent problem. Many people posted regarding their own issues in a panic before assignment deadlines, without regard for whether the topic had already been addressed or answered elsewhere. This was the cause of the spam and it was quite a chore to wade through. In addition to basic etiquette, I hope in the future that a "read first" mentality is encouraged to a "panic and post" one.

• Fall 2013 CS175/286
  • Arranged cool presentations by guest speakers. [Thanks to the guest speakers! They really were great.]
  • Strong knowledge of the subject. (A graduate student)
  • He was extremely clueless about iOS and even most HTML5. (An undergraduate student)
  • Prompt response to questions. (A graduate student)
  • Please give more helpful answers than "Google it" or "Look it up on StackOverflow". (Several undergraduate students) [I tried to train students in the skill of finding answers. The undergraduate students complained bitterly, while the graduate students seemed to realize that this is necessary for survival in today's tech world.]
• Spring 2013 CS185C/286
  • He not only teaches us about the topic at hand,  but adds in information on why it's important to learn.
  • I think the labs are very helpful and the instructor strikes the balance between lecture and lab times.
  • Teaching was awesome. Professor's insight into the subject is amazing. [Glad to hear that, because for a good part of the course, I was about a week ahead of the students in learning the material.]
• Fall 2012 CS46A
  • Intuitive ideas for solutions. [I spent a lot of time explaining the process of coming up with solutions, using pencil and paper, manipulating physical objects, and so on.]
  • Lectures are recorded (very helpful!)
  • Attempts to employ [ouch!] cutting edge technology
  • Brings humor and clear concise concepts in lectures
  • Talked very loud. [That was listed as a strength.]
  • Unexpected homwork with lesson. [There were weekly programming assigments, apparently unexpected by this student.]
  • Powerpoint. [Listed as a strength. I don't use it. I use HTML Slidy.]
• Spring 2012 CS46B
  • He is short, concise, and to the point. [At 180 cm, I didn't think I am all that short.]
  • Piazza was a good idea. [That's the discussion group software. It was a good idea.]
  • Piazza was super amazing.
  • The Desire2Learn forum is garbage and nobody every uses it. [It is.]
  • Slides were not sufficient for study.  [Did the student expect to learn the material from a bunch of slides? I thought that's what the book was for.]
  • It is great how you post the lecture screencasts online.
  • Netbrat was beyond convenient. [That's the software for checking student homework. Students can submit their attempt as often as they like, and some do. I had over 50,000 submissions in the semester.]
  • Reading and quiz before lectures is great. [Several students said that, and I was surprised—I thought students would hate that.]
  • I liked the clicker questions. [Another suprise. I thought students would hate them.]
  • Interactive, supportive, cool-looking.
  • Realizes when he made a mistake.
• Fall 2011
  • CS46A
    • What is taught in class is only a fraction of what needs to be known in order to complete the homework assignments. [That's sadly so in CS1—many students are disappointed when they find it's not “plug and chug”]
    • Looks like Robin Williams. [No idea who that is, but my wife says it's a compliment.]
    • Takes a long time to respond to email. [So true—I answer questions on the forum, which had about 800 messages.]
    • Doesn't lecture too much.
    • He mostly wanted us to use the book for learning instead of giving examples.
    • Test review is different from exams. [Did the student expect them to be identical?]
  • CS252
    • His lectures are clear, concise, and insightful. He also digitally records them which is a dream for myself.
    • His lecture/lab format is effective.
    • Assumes the everyone is doing well but in fact that is not his fault, rather students who don't ask questions
• Spring 2010 CS46A
  • He attempts to inform his students how to start things off for programming
  • Be more easy, seriously.
• Fall 2009
  • CS46A
    • Responded to all my questions whether it was in class or online.
    • The instructor has high expectations for the students. (This was listed as a weakness.)
    • I liked how materials were accessible online. Also, email communication and google groups were very helpful.
  • CS252
    • Videos were very helpful
    • Too much assignments & so little time. (The class had 5 assignments.)
    • Instructor made me feel there was aways [sic] something more important than class. (Ouch—that hurts, particulary considering how much time I spent coming up with interesting assignments.)
• Spring 2009
  • CS160
    • I don't know what I would've done going into my first industry job without this knowledge
    • Sense of humor. Focuses on practical stuff. Apparently actually uses feedback to improve course
    • Some of these tools should really be taught in an earlier class. I wish I had known about CVS/Subversion from day 1 of my education. It would have been much easier to collaborate throughout my academic career rather than sending zip files through email.
    • Either there is a gap between this course and its prerequisites or the instructor's course plan has a problem
    • I would recommend keeping a closer eye on project work
  • CS286
    • While taking this course I strongly felt I am a real graduate student
    • Unlike other classes he teaches only 30 mins and we practice 45 mins
    • Professor also clearly likes to try new things which keeps things highly interesting
    • It is always a good exercise to give a presentation. However most students presentation skills and some students understanding of the material presented was very poor. [Sigh—it was.]
• Fall 2008
  • CS152
    • Some slides seem vague in details. [Like this comment]
    • 30 minute lectures/45 minute labs so we had more hands on experience
    • Can use classtime to lecture more or cut back labs to once a week
    • Perfect combination of lecture/lab (hands-on) to maximize learning
    • Lecture doesn't leave enough time for labs.
    • Uncanny ability to make something as boring as Prolog interesting and fun
    • Strengths: Knowledge of subject. Funny! German! Passion for teaching. Deals well with students. Does not criticize.
    • Labs, discussions, projects, all add up to very fun class
    • Class participation + technical bloopers fun [What bloopers???]
    • Smartboard + notes very useful
    • Smartboard [in MH225] is cool, but only he has the balls to use it in his class
  • CS160
    • I was left to figure out a lot of things on my own. While that is conducive to learning, it is a bit more like a job than a class.
    • Only teacher I've ever had that's made me do real amounts of non-trivial work for CS
    • Made me realize how little other CS classes prepared me for real work (no scripts, unit tests, IDEs, debuggers, etc. until now)
    • It was one of the best classes I had. I had an opportunity to learn real stuff and write code, learn new dev environments
    • Very hands on, learning through experience. Very different from listening to lectures.
    • Clearly excited to be doing this; not boring at all.
    • This is one of the most intensive 3 units available at SJSU
• Spring 2008
  • CS40
    • The instructor knew what he was talking about. He made computer science very instersting [sic].
    • Charismatic, smart, funny, expert in area of study
    • CAY HORSTMANN IS A GENIUS !! (no, seriously...) [I don't know the significance of that parenthetical remark.]
    • He is very amusing during anonymous review of students answers.
  • CS252
    • Very concise lectures—no extra fluff
    • Labs were great
    • Encouraged students to attend technical conferences
    • Professor Horstmann was a great teacher for this class because he really tried to push students to learn the challenging concepts.
• Fall 2007
  • CS40
    • Use of technology was good
    • This class was easer [sic] to understand cuz he use a powerpoint presentaion [sic]. (I didn't.)
    • The instructor kept the class interesting and was very interactive with the class. The labs were very productive and informative. Good hands on expirience [sic].
  • CS185C/252
    • Excellent diversity and coverage of topics. Good balance of theory & code. Presentations well-organized and paced.
    • Great knowledge/enthusiasm. Good use of humor to create atmosphere.
    • Loved the labs, stretched what I knew. Perfect course for me since I was using the software in the project for my thesis.
    • Gives good attention on [sic] every student.
• Spring 2007
  • CS252
    • Always goes straight to the point of a particular topic
    • The labs built into the classwork really helped build and solidify the concepts that were under discussion
    • Sometimes labs take a lot of time to teach some basic concepts. Other times, labs are great. Keep experimenting with different approaches. I appreciated it!
    • Gives very very [sic] challenging assignments
• Fall 2006
  • CS160
    • I felt like I am much more ready to enter the industry now. Prof. Horstmann really did an excellent job of creating a real world environment.
    • Challenges sudents to come up to speed with the industry which is rare in this department.
    • He expects from every student that he/she knows the basics of programming. [Emphasis added. This was listed as a “weakness”, which is a bit surprising for a senior level course.]
    • Too much focus on tools. More coverage of theoretical Software Engineer principles and practices would have been benificial. [A weakness, and a reasonable criticism.]
    • Hands-on learning.
    • Was very reasonable when grading assignments and tests
    • Cool room! [The incubator room.]
    • For those students with other classes, this one by far took the most time + work. [I suspect that was true even for those students without other classes.]
    • Required Java [Another surprising “weakness” in a course with three semesters of Java-based prerequisites.]
    • Instructor was tough but fair. Homeworks were very instructive and used tools that were cutting edge.
    • I got hives on my arms due to what the doctor said was allergies or stress, and I think it was stress from this class.
• Spring 2006
  • CS46A
    • Canceled several classes. [This was listed as a “weakness”; maybe the student enjoyed the classes, or maybe the student just wanted to say that I am a lazy S.O.B.]
    • Made us work hard. [This was listed as a “strength”.]
    • Good balance of lab and lecture; was more entertaining than some other instructors. [Emphasis added.]
    • Please change the book. It not that book is no good. Its because in the book its hard to find complete examples that makes it hard to understand. By the way book is great if person attends all the classes. [Emphasis added.]
    • Knows all the material and the book very well (of course, being the author of it)
    • Knew exactly how to fix any errors.

Committee Work

• Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Committee, Fall 2006 - Spring 2010
• Chair, Ad-Hoc Assessment Committee, Fall 2005 - Spring 2006
• Graduate Coordinator, Fall 1997- Fall 2003, Spring 2006 - Spring 2010, Fall 2011 - Spring 2014, Fall 2015 -
• Chair, Graduate Curriculum Committee, Fall 1997 - Fall 2003, Fall 2005 - Spring 2010, Fall 2011 - Spring 2014, Fall 2015 -
• Retention, Tenure, and Promotion, Fall 2010-Spring 2013
• Post Tenure Review Committee, Fall 2005 - Spring 2008, Fall 2015-Spring 2016
• Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, Fall 2000 - Spring 2001, Fall 2012 - Spring 2013
• Software Engineering Task Force, Fall 2002
• Course Committee, Programming and Software Engineering, Fall 2001-Spring 2006 (Chair Fall 2004-Spring 2006), Fall 2009-Spring 2010
• Course Committee, Systems and Architecture, Fall 2013 - Spring 2014
• Course Committee, Introductory/Administration/Database, Fall 2004 - Spring 2005
• Course Committee, Algorithms, Data Structures, and Theory, Fall 2008 - Spring 2010 (Chair Fall 2009-Spring 2010). Fall 2013 - Spring 2014
• Course Committe, Programming, Algorithms, and Theory, Chair Fall 2015 - Spring 2016
• Course Committee, Software Engineering and Databases, Fall 2017-Spring 2018 (chair)
• Departmental Lecturer Evaluation, Fall 2015-Spring2017
• Computing Resources Committee, Fall 2012 - Spring 2013
• College Sabbatical Leave Committe, Fall 2013 - Spring 2014
• University Retention, Tenure, and Promotion, Fall 2015-Spring 2017
• Post-Tenure Review, Fall 2017-Spring 2018

Service Awards

• Assigned Time for Exceptional Levels of Service to Students, Spring 2016
• Assigned Time for Exceptional Levels of Service to Students, Fall 2017
• Central RSCA award, Fall 2017