Report Course Evaluation, EDAN10
Basic facts
Course name | Configuration Management |
Course code | EDAN10
Course syllabus |
ECTS credits | 7.5 |
Year | 201718 |
Study period the course was finished | HT_LP2 |
Programme | all |
Registrated students | 71 |
Number and share of passed students | 71 / 100 % |
Number answers and response rate | 23 / 32 % |
Number answers from males | 18 |
Number answers from females | 1 |
|
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 teaching | Number | Share |
0-30 % | 0 | 0 % |
30-70 % | 4 | 17 % |
70-100 % | 17 | 74 % |
Scales and questions
Scale | Score | StdDev |
Good Teaching | +38 | 50 |
Clear Goals and Standards | +17 | 49 |
Appropriate Assessment | +15 | 47 |
Appropriate Workload | +1 | 41 |
Special questions | | |
The course seems important for my education | +59 | 55 |
Overall, I am satisfied with this course | +43 | 62 |
|
|
Distribution of the answers from question 26: "Overall, I am satisfied with this course"
| Number | Share |
|
Dissatisfied (<0) | 3 | 13 % |
Neutral (0) | 3 | 13 % |
Satisfied (>0) | 16 | 70 % |
No answer | 1 | 4 % |
|
Mean of CEQ-score | +43 |
Standard deviation (StdDev) | 62 |
|
|
|
Distribution of the answers from question 17: "The course seems important for my education"
|
Mean of CEQ-score | +59 |
Standard deviation (StdDev) | 55 |
|
|
Comments
Comments by the students' representatives
Kursen är väldigt bra just nu och timeboxing är ett väldigt bra koncept. Just nu upplever dock folk att det är mycket material att ta sig igenom under den timeboxade tiden och att man eventuellt borde se över det
Comments by the course leader
I am a little disappointed that only 32% of the students fill in the CEQ when my own questionnaire gets a 95-100% response rate - and I even try to stress and be clear that the two questionnaires are both very important for course improvement and the answers have two different target groups. However, I could understand from the student representatives that also the majority of teachers show disinterest in the CEQ - sad.
From my own course questionnaire students appear happy with the course:
http://fileadmin.cs.lth.se/cs/Education/EDAN10/EvalResults.pdf
so some of the differing results from the CEQ might be a result of a bias in the the student group that responds to the CEQ. For instance the discrepancy between the low rating in the CEQ of "Clear Goals and Standards" (+17) and that 83% responded that the course objectives had been met in my own questionnaire - and the fact that the second slide of each lecture contains the detailed learning goals for that lecture. Some students also get things wrong - all lecture slides are actually put up on the course web pages right after the lecture, so they are easily accessible even if you did not attend the lecture.
From the discussions with the course representatives there came a couple of ideas for how the percieved workload could be brought down (the *objective* workload is NOT more than the 200 hours required by the CSN). Apparently I can/should be even more clear in my communication about the fact that many things on the course are time-boxed - and motivate very carefully why they are time-boxed and that students should respect the time-box. Also some students found the reading instructions on the course web-pages for each activity very helpful in handling and managing the workload, but also here it was pointed out that maybe the message did not get through to all students. It was pointed out that it might be helpful for exam preparation if the lecture slide where all detailed learning goals were summarized was linked to directly from the exam page.
Grading at the exam is exclusively based on each individual's performance at the exam - even if some students claim otherwise in their comments. It happens that in the same group one student gets a grade 5, while another student is failed. However, in some cases there are very homogeneous and well prepared groups where everyone get a grade 5. Previously I have put "group performance" down to how different groups (and single individuals) handle and are present at the exercise sessions - based on "anecdotal evidence" since I do not record physical presence at the exercise sessions. I have therefore for many years been very clear about my belief that the best exam preparation was presence and activity at the exercise sessions. However, after the meeting with the student representatives I got a feeling that there was more to it. So I interviewed the groups where all got a grade 5 about what they had done to prepare for the exam. Some interesting commonalities came out that I will summarize and pass on next year's students - so I can become the happy giver of more grade 5's next year.
How the questionnaires were filled in
By web forms.