Feedback of the Python workshop conducted at Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering, Sriperumbudur, Tamilnadu, India from 22nd April to 23rd April, 2010.
Around 22 faculty members, 6 professionals and 30 students attended the workshop.
Day 1

1. Range of topics covered:
   • 49.32% of the people felt that the range of topics covered were very relevant.
   • 43.83% of the people felt that the range of topics covered were relevant.
   • 5.48% of the people felt that the range of topics covered were somewhat relevant.
   • 1.37% of the people felt that the range of topics covered were not relevant.
2. Depth of coverage
   • 13.69% of the people felt that the depth of coverage was too detailed.
   • 84.93% of the people felt that the depth of coverage was detailed enough.
   • 1.37% of the people felt that the depth of coverage was not at all detailed.
3. Effectiveness of methodology
   • 39.73% of the people felt that the teaching methodology was extremely effective.
   • 58.9% the people felt that the teaching methodology was effective.
   • 1.37% the people felt that the teaching methodology was ineffective.
4. Pace of coverage
   • 2.74% of the people felt that the pace of coverage was too fast.
   • 39.73% of the people felt that the the pace of coverage was fast.
   • 53.42% of the people felt that the the pace of coverage was just right.
   • 2.74% of the people felt that the the pace of coverage was slow.
   • 1.37% of the people felt that the the pace of coverage was too slow.
5. Applicability
   • 31.5% of the people felt that they can apply what they have learnt immediately.
   • 49.32% of the people felt that they can apply what they have learnt somewhat immediately.
   • 15.07% of the people felt that they cannot apply what they have learnt immediately.
   • 4.11% of the people felt that they might never use what they have learnt.
6. Choice of Problems:
   • 47.94% of the people felt that the problems were very interesting.
   • 46.57% of the people felt that the the problems were interesting.
   • 4.11% of the people felt that the the problems were somewhat interesting.
   • 1.37% of the people felt that the problems were not interesting.
7. Choice of Exercises:
   • 50.68% of the people felt that the exercises were very instructive.
   • 43.83% of the people felt that the exercises were instructive.
   • 4.11% of the people felt that the exercises were somewhat instructive.
   • 1.37% of the people felt that the exercises were not instructive.

General Comments
1.We want to know why python?
2.Great!
3.Topic coverage and presentation methodology is excellent.
4.Most useful in computation.
5.It was very useful to us like engineering students.
6.It was very useful to improve my knowledge.
7.As a whole too good, encourages us to learn more.
8.Very good presentation. Very interesting and informative. Thank you!
9.It is really good and I could know the pros of python.
10.Very useful, helpful in research activities.
11.Need some hours extra – can extend to two days more with more exercises.
12.That was very good.
13.OK.
14.Good.
15.Excellent.
16.Good.
17.Good so far.
18.Good.
19.Useful.
20.Useful.
21.Coverage of topics with hands-on experience is very impressive.
22.All sessions are excellent.
23.All sessions are excellent and useful for beginners like me. I enjoyed all sessions a lot.
24.In general today's sessions are superb.
25.Good.
26.An overview of python can be given at the earliest.
27.It is very interesting and will be useful.
28.Thanks for coming.
29.Thanks for coming.
30.It is very useful and glad to learn a new language. It would be easy if it is little slow.
31.It was really good and understandable.
32.It was interesting that you never made a sleep.
Day 2

1. Range of topics covered:
   • 20.69% of the people felt that the range of topics covered were very relevant.
   • 65.52% of the people felt that the range of topics covered were relevant.
   • 10.34% of the people felt that the range of topics covered were somewhat relevant.
   • 3.45% of the people felt that the range of topics covered were not relevant.
2. Depth of coverage
   • 10.34% of the people felt that the depth of coverage was too detailed.
   • 79.31% of the people felt that the depth of coverage was detailed enough.
   • 10.34% of the people felt that the depth of coverage was not detailed enough.
3. Effectiveness of methodology
   • 27.59% of the people felt that the teaching methodology was extremely effective.
   • 68.97% the people felt that the teaching methodology was effective.
   • 3.44% the people felt that the teaching methodology was not very effective.
4. Pace of coverage
   • 17.24% of the people felt that the pace of coverage was too fast.
   • 31.03% of the people felt that the the pace of coverage was fast.
   • 44.83% of the people felt that the the pace of coverage was just right.
   • 6.90% of the people felt that the the pace of coverage was slow.
5. Applicability
   • 24.13% of the people felt that they can apply what they have learnt immediately.
   • 41.37% of the people felt that they can apply what they have learnt somewhat immediately.
   • 31.03% of the people felt that they cannot apply what they have learnt immediately.
   • 3.45% of the people felt that they might never use what they have learnt.
6. Choice of Problems:
   • 10.34% of the people felt that the problems were very interesting.
   • 79.31% of the people felt that the the problems were interesting.
   • 10.34% of the people felt that the the problems were somewhat interesting.
7. Choice of Exercises:
   • 17.24% of the people felt that the exercises were very instructive.
   • 72.41% of the people felt that the exercises were instructive.
   • 6.90% of the people felt that the exercises were somewhat instructive.
   • 3.44% of the people felt that the exercises were not instructive.

General Comments
1.Good tutorial sessions. Could have been better if demos were shown for specific applications like image processing.
2.In general it is good.
3.Good and useful.
4.Very good slides, demos on Mayavi and SAGE were interesting. Programming exercises were really good.
5.Enjoyed both day1 and day2 sessions, specially the Mayavi tool.
6.We learned basics of Python.
7.It was very useful to learn new language.
8.Great!
9.Informative/Excellent.
10.Good/Excellent -> expect again with demonstrated SAGE into workouts.
11.Very eager to use such type of tool to teach our students.
12.Pretty good expecting similar kind of programs in coming years.
13.More sessions can be conducted.
14.Good.
15.Good.
16.Good workshop very interesting.
17.Very useful.
18.Good.
19.It was very good and informative.
20.Good.
21.In future we will surely use this.
22.Good.
23.Good.
24.Very Good.
25.Good.
26.We got some idea about python.
27.Overall this workshop is very useful as we have learned a new tool.
28.Useful.
29.Mayavi was new method, we had new idea about. Unable as it was not installed, would like to know about it more.
30.First day class is very interesting and we learned more. In second day, not that much. We Like work in Mayavi but not able to do that.
31.Very nice.
32.Good methodology of teaching, more of theoretical so bit sleepy.
33.This session induced us to learn more.
34.Very informative.
35.Good.
36.Excellent.