 |
Analysis |
|---|---|
| Evaluation | |
| Exam | |
| Home page | |
| ISIS | |
| Plan | |
| Syllabus |
Course analysis
The course evaluation was carried out in connection with the exam using a paper form. The evaluation form contained seven questions. The answers received are summarized and commented below.
The codes used are as follows:
A) Lectures; B) Discussion sessions; C) Workshop; D) Assignments; E) Project; F) Exam; and G) Textbook(s) and other teaching material.
Statistics
* Number of active participants: 18* Number of students who passed the course: 16
* Number of participants who filled in the evaluation form: 12
* Distribution of the grades:
| 12 | 10 | 7 | 4 | 02 | 00 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Question 1
What were the two most valuable course components for your learning? Why?
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| A |
+ good teachers + Sune's and Jesper's lectures + new and different view + Sune's lectures were excellent |
|---|---|
| B | |
| C |
+ good articles found + broad view on the subject + we learnt from working with it |
| D |
+ you get to work with the things you learn + we learnt from working with it + the independent work and to get feedback about it is the best way to gain knowledge + weekly assignments were good |
| E | |
| F | |
| G |
Question 2
What were the two least valuable course components for your learning? Why?
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| A |
- Lars' lecture was not very good - lectures were mostly good but I learned more from other things - Lars' lecture did not contribute much to my learning. It was I am afraid the way the presentation was held was the problem, the contents was interesting, but not the way it was presented. The idea of having an actual team/project leader hold a presentation is good. |
|---|---|
| B | - unfortunately not that fruitful |
| C | - drop the workshop |
| D | - sometimes the descriptions were not clear enough for me |
| E |
- did not correspond well with assignments - I would like to have the project defined better; otherwise it is good |
| F |
- I do not like oral exams - evaluation did not match the project formulation - I have not gained knowledge, but it was interesting |
| G |
- we did not really use Wiegers' book - these are theories; it is better to work with them than read or hear about them - the textbook is ok, but I did not have to use it very much - Jyrki's book |
Question 3
What do you think about the exam format and teaching formats in general?
+ both are OK!
+ they are good
+ format fine
+ I liked it; it was like a realistic business situation
+ worked out well and the exam form based on assignments was good
+ I think it is useful and effective
+ it is really different from Hungary; this was my first oral exam,
but I think it is better
+/- I think the exam format and teaching format were in general good. I
would prefer bigger assignments
- too much Danske Bank
+/- great, but too much about Danske Bank
Question 4
What is the contribution of this course to your professional competence as a software developer?
+ helped to identify aspects of requirements development
+ better insight into the problems of getting the real
requirements
+ new tools
+ it gave a really good insight into requirements
+ it has given me insight into how projects are run in the early phases
and it will probably get me focus more on this phase in projects
+ rather important as this gives an idea of how development is done in
practice
+ I understood some background process and got to know some good
methods
+ I learned how to develop requirements specifications
+ it is of great use
+ I have already started using it; mostly I work on creating and
developing new innovative projects
+ I became connected with requirements development
+ have learnt about how to do requirements
Question 5
Do you have a message to any particular member(s) of the course team (Georg, Sune, Lars, Jesper, Jyrki)?
- remember to check the discussion forum frequently
- assignments need to be more precisely formulated
Question 6
Do you have any proposals how to make this course better?
* more feedback on assignments
* better info on the usage of the ISIS
* I felt that it might be an idea for Georg/Jyrki to hold maybe a
concluding 10 minutes with a comparisons to what is done in Danske
Bank to what is written in the textbook to give two points of
views on the same issue.
* I would make bigger assignments that go into more details...
* more lectures on theory
* less useless guest teaching
Question 7
What is your overall evaluation of the course?
4 (extremely good);
3 (very good);
2 (good);
1 (okay);
0 (don't know)
-1 (poor);
-2 (bad);
-3 (very bad);
-4 (extremely bad);
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -3 | -4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Corrective actions
* Try to support the oral communication
better with written material.
* Improve the quality control of the assignment formulations within
the course team.
Comment
The feedback from the students is self-explanatory. This is an important course. It gives insight into how big projects are run. We have not been able to provide this kind of course before. Our external teachers did good work (in spite of criticisms levelled at Lars). I thank them and Georg for doing most of the work. Also, I thank those who took the course and in particular those who provided this feedback for us.
Copenhagen, 21 November 2008
Jyrki