|
Study hours according the curricula
|
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
Scales and questions
|
|
Distribution of the answers from question 26:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||
Kursen är i väldigt bra skick och kursansvarig har kontinuerligt förbättrat den.
Dom som tagit kursen är överlag nöjda. Vissa upplever att arbetsbelastningen är hög men vi tror snarare att det är en annan sorts belastning än andra kurser (mycket mer läsning), snarare än mer belastning. Det kanske går att lösa lite med att jobba med förväntningar. I övrigt fanns det lite småpunkter där man kan förtydliga inför nästa kursomgång, men i stora hela bör kursen hållas fortsätta i samma goda anda. Det föreslås att seminarierna markeras som just seminarier i
schemat nästa kursomgång.
I am still a little disappointed that so few students (around of one third) repond to the CEQ evaluation. Such evaluations are extremely important for improving teaching and teachers - especially when students give constructive comments. Fortunately my own course evaluation has a much better reponse rate (more than 90%) and is also online:
http://fileadmin.cs.lth.se/cs/Education/EDAN10/EvalResults.pdf
The last couple of years I have tried to highlight for the students that each evaluation has a different target group and are equally important - but to no avail.
The course still has great success from the students and I am very happy with most of the aspects of the course. Given that the average for "Good teaching" for a course at LTH is 23,7, I should be more than satisfied that this course gets 64.
There are still aspects that can be improved. Despite the fact that I more explicitly try to align the students idea of how much they have to work with the CSN rules for how much they should work, students continue to have a subjective impression of a high workload - though no student has given me reason to believe that the workload is higher than the 200 hours required by the CSN. It is rated slightly higher this year, which might be due to more explicit use of time-boxing.
A 38 rating for "Clear goals and Standards" is not bad, but after "Appropriate workload" it is the lowest rated aspect of the course. From the specific questions "It was easy to know the standard of work expected" was rated lowest (+26). For the overall expectations I am very clear several times during the course, so these goals should be clear. I also have specific learning goals for each single part of different aspects of the course (lecture, exercise session or lab), but apparently I can do more to get it through to the students. Maybe I can also be more clear and explicit about what quality I expect, even if that is implicitly given by the time-boxing.
I am a little surprised that from "Generic skills", the aspect "The course has helped me to develop the ability to plan my work" get the lowest rating (+42). Given the perceived high workload and the elevated number of deadlines (on average more than one per week), I would have expected students to learn to plan. But maybe part of the explanation for the percieved high workload is that they haven't?
It also surprises me that students complain that there is a lot to read on the course. If they had looked only briefly at previous years' course evaluation it would not be a secret.
From the discussions with the student representatives (of which only two out of three showed up - thanks a lot to those two) two things came up: discussion lectures and project.
It was suggested that it should be made more clear that there was a difference between normal lectures and discussion lectures - and what it was. It was suggested that they got a different title in the schedule (like "seminar") and that it might be placed in a smaller room (or rooms) that would be more suited than a lecture hall. The last suggestion will probably not be practical for economic and logistic reasons, but I will definitely implement the first suggestions.
It was suggested that the purpose of the project be made more clear and that the project was started earlier. I will see what I can do to make the intended purpose more clear and how I can give information in a timely balance between not stressing students too early, but still allow interested students to start early on the project.