Report Course Evaluation, EDAN10

Basic facts

Course nameConfiguration Management
Course codeEDAN10   Course syllabus
ECTS credits7.5
Year201415
Study period the course was finishedHT_LP2
Programmeall
Registrated students55
Number and share of passed students     54 / 98 %
Number answers and response rate22 / 40 %
Number answers from males18
Number answers from females1
Study hours according the curricula
Lectures    28 h
Group work    14 h
Laboratories    12 h
Time with supervisor    2 h
Self study time    144 h

Summary of questionnaires

The CEQ-score span between -100 och +100, there -100 means that "I fully disagree to the statement" and +100 "I fully agree to the statement".

Presence at teaching

Part of teachingNumberShare
0-30 %1 5 %
30-70 %2 9 %
70-100 %18 82 %

Scales and questions

ScaleScoreStdDev
Good Teaching+5232
Clear Goals and Standards+4245
Appropriate Assessment+4230
Appropriate Workload-1440
Special questions
The course seems important for my education+6937
Overall, I am satisfied with this course+6937
Graf of scales and questions


Distribution of the answers from question 26:
"Overall, I am satisfied with this course"

     Graf of question 26
 NumberShare

Dissatisfied (<0) 0 0 %
Neutral (0) 3 14 %
Satisfied (>0) 18 82 %
No answer 1 5 %

Mean of CEQ-score+69
Standard deviation (StdDev)37
     

Distribution of the answers from question 17:
"The course seems important for my education"

     Graf of question 17

Mean of CEQ-score+69
Standard deviation (StdDev)37

Comments

Comments by the students' representatives

Studenterna har varit väldigt nöjda med kursen detta året, speciellt videopresentationerna har uppskattats mycket som ett sätt att lättare förstå delar av materialet. Även diskussionsföreläsningarna har uppskattats av många som ett sätt att förstå materialet bättre. Det har varit väldigt roligt att föreläsaren är engagerad och brinner för sitt ämne.

En del studenter har anmärkt på att litteraturen är gammal. Föreläsaren försöker hitta nyare källor men de täcker inte materialet lika bra och det är svårare att få tillåtelse att kopiera materialet. Istället hoppas han få tid att skriva om en av de mer kritiserade artiklarna som ersättning.

En del studenter anser också att arbetsbördan har varit väldigt hög, men föreläsaren har försökt få med så mycket att det täcker de 200 timmar kursen ska vara och känner inte att det finns möjlighet att minska delar av kursen då den då inte kommer uppfylla tillräckligt många timmar.

Att slides till videopresentationerna bör ingå i det utdelade kursmaterialet (nu fanns det bara på nätet) påpekades och föreläsaren har sagt att det ska finnas med nästa år så man kan skriva ner funderingar direkt.

En del klagomål kom in om att projektet hamnade lite konstigt på grund av den nya läsårsindelningen, men föreläsaren känner inte att han kan tidigarelägga det eftersom eleverna måste ha lärt sig alla väsentliga delar i kursen innan projektet kan påbörjas. Däremot ska presentationen av projektet komma tidigare.

Föreläsaren ska även göra om lite i labbhandledningarna för att få in mer om change set model och composition model.

Comments by the course leader

It is a great satisfaction to see that last year's good evaluation of the course have become even better on all parameters. It is particularly satisfying that students are very happy with the course and that they rate it as having "Clear Goals and Standards" and "Appropriate Assessment". It is no surprise that students also this year has a subjective feeling of a not "Appropriate Workload" (even if it has improved slightly from last year.

Digging deeper into the numbers it is possible to find things where good things can be made even better. For Good Teaching, question 18 gets the lowest rating (+33): Since money for teaching are being cut down more teaching staff feedback will not be possible - however, with a more consistent use of Student Peer Assessment more (student) feedback can be obtained for no or little teacher time. For Clear Goals and Standards, questions 6 and 18 get the lowest rating (+33): I will try to keep focus on what is expected from the student throughout the whole course and not just at the start (and end) of the course. For Appropriate Assessment, the ratings for questions 8 and 12 puzzle me since they seem to be in contradiction: Maybe I should make more clear that there are some basic facts, techniques and terminology you need to know (memorise?) to pass the course, but that you need to demonstrate a much deeper understanding if you want "to do well". For Appropriate Workload, ratings for questions 14 and 24 seem to be in contradiction: I try to make it clear that you do not have to "comprehend *everything* thoroughly" since the course covers many topics and in breath - apparently I have to try harder to be clear on that.

From my own evaluation form, it results that this year's two new aspects of the course (Introduction videos & Student Peer Assessment) was liked by most students (rating 3.58 and 3.60 respectively on a scale from 5 to 1). The Introduction videos are there now and are "optional" to use, so I will probably not spend more time and resources on "improving" that aspect (apart from giving printed hand-outs as suggesten by one of the student representatives) - if students don't find them useful they can just quit watching them. The Student Peer Assessments are a wonderful way of creating not just more feedback for students in a cost-efficient way, but more importantly to create occasions for more and deeper learning by reviewing someone else's work. There were some - more or less - constuctive comments from students that I will integrate with my own experience and reflection to improve and extend the use of Student Peer Assessment next year.

Comments by the programme director

Väl genomförd kurs. Propgramledningen ser inget behov av större förändringar.

How the questionnaires were filled in

By web forms.