Aktuella utvärderingar

Visa resultat

Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.

Software Project Management, Lp3, DIT896, DIT896

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-05-31 - 2011-06-06
Antal svar: 15
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 20%
Kontaktperson: Rebecca S»

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?*

15 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»10 66%
Around 20 hours/week»3 20%
Around 25 hours/week»1 6%
Around 30 hours/week»1 6%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.53 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?*

15 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»1 6%
50%»2 13%
75%»5 33%
100%»7 46%

Genomsnitt: 4.2 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.86

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

15 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»0 0%
The goals are difficult to understand»7 46%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»7 46%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

15 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»6 40%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»7 46%
No, the goals are set too high»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 1.73

5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

15 svarande

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

No, not at all»4 26%
To some extent»7 46%
Yes, definitely»3 20%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 6%

- I feel, it was too much confusing. It could be more clear and with better resources. We could learn it by ourselves so why we need class and teacher!?» (To some extent)
- Some goals were rather vague: -show the ability to judge suitability of team members for particular tasks. Some were not addressed in the course: -executing and leading the teams » (To some extent)
- Like the course, the examination was a total mess. Miroslaw did not follow an agreed-upon and share grading template. He subjectively graded groups, and students within groups. For example, he had said students in the group (2 students in each group) would get the group grade, but later this was not followed. Also, if you compare the way he graded different groups, you will find no consistency. Some group he wrote abstract and meaningless subjective comments, others he wrote strange comments like "all sections good but section 2 you got a G only". Additionally, final grades were given after just 2 days. How could he systemically grade all submissions in 2 days? In short, he ensured he has absolute power when grading students. The administration should ensure that Miroslaw can only do anonymous examinations in future as he is very subjective and biased when it comes to grading, perhaps unknowingly. Many more comments can be given, but I am sure other students will mention others.» (No, not at all)
- As this is the main course of the degree but it does not provide the quality exam. Only two assignments.» (To some extent)
- There were no exams,it was unfortunate as exam has always been a driving force for students to study.As there were no exam students paid less attention to the course and did not consider going through the reading material provided.I think that was unfortunate as we lost an opportunity of learning.» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)
- No examination. Only two documents submissions, both subjectively and strangely graded by instructor. Very disappointing of such unprofessional method in a leading university.» (No, not at all)
- the grading if examinations was unsystematic No creteria for the grading » (No, not at all)

Teaching and course administration

6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

14 svarande

Small extent»7 50%
To some extent»4 28%
Large extent»2 14%
Great extent»1 7%

Genomsnitt: 1.78

- Considering the degree program, this was one of the most important course, but it was a total mess. To pass the course, you only had to submit two reports: Vision document and Project Plan. Lectures were too general and repetitive and irrelevant. Only good lectures were from the guest lecturer, and ironically, they were not about Project Management, but organization behavior. Class exercise included students coming out and giving Miroslaw feedback on the course! Is that in the learning objective? It is obvious the person who planned the course did in such a way so the least amount of his time is spent. Examples include: no written or anonymous exams, final submissions being graded in 2 days for all students and lectures including random and irrelevant exercises that students work on themselves (like evaluating the course!).» (Small extent)
- Not helpful at all. Only useful lectures were by the guest lecturers and they were not related to the course topic. Miroslaw Staron"s lectures were too vague and seemed like they were prepared last minute.» (Small extent)
- Lack of preparation of slides the course supervision sessions was not useful » (Small extent)
- Nothing at all!» (Small extent)
- As goals were not clearer and the guest lecturer called did not deliver the lecture in context of software industry,it was more like managing traditional projects than software.» (To some extent)

7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

15 svarande

Small extent»8 53%
Some extent»5 33%
Large extent»2 13%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.6

- Other than the shared subject, there was little direct connection between the lectures and the course book.» (Small extent)
- Optional book was good.» (Small extent)
- The main course was good but teacher wasn"t of big help » (Small extent)
- The book was useful, but it was not mandatory as we were not going to be examined on it. Also, when submitting the Project Plan (final and main submission for the course), we use in details recommendations and techniques from the book, but Miroslaw subjectively graded the paper. It seems like he never read the submissions and graded subjectively.» (Some extent)

8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

15 svarande

Very badly»5 33%
Rather badly»4 26%
Rather well»5 33%
Very well»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.13

- The course, its lecture, the grading as well as the anonymous course evaluations were all a mess and short cuts were taken in everything. No two papers were graded using a fixed and pre-defined format and all grades were given subjectively. Miroslaw intimidated the students into evaluating the course positively. He started a course evaluation in GUL, where students log-in and complete the survey. And even worse, this was done before the grades were given. Students were basically hijacked, since the final grades were given based on non-anonymous subjective report grading. In other words, Miroslaw knew what student he was grading and he could check how that particular student had evaluated him and the course (since the GUL course evaluation was made available before the final submission). This patronizing approach is the norm with Miroslaw and its very sad and he is our Program Manager too. I hope his attitude changes. A person in this position should sincerely care about the students, not patronize them and intimidate them.» (Very badly)
- Due to some course administration bugs » (Rather badly)

Study climate

9. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

15 svarande

Very poor»3 20%
Rather poor»3 20%
Rather good»6 40%
Very good»3 20%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

- Questions were answered either by questions, personal view or aggressive statements. This is the usual. Miroslaw should definitely improve his communication skills. Lecture from the guest lecturer (Jan Wickenberg) were excellent and his approach was very professional and encouraging! » (Very poor)
- Its always very difficult to communicate with Miroslaw Staron. Sadly he is program incharge too.» (Very poor)
- the interation and communication was little poor during the course » (Rather poor)
- It would have been nice if there were more feedback sessions for the assignments, especially when writing the Project Plan.» (Rather good)

10. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

14 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»2 14%
Rather well»5 35%
Very well»7 50%
I did not seek coopeation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- We worked in groups of 2, and this was OK in general.» (Very well)

Summarizing questions

11. What is your general impression of the course?

15 svarande

Poor»7 46%
Fair»3 20%
Adequate»4 26%
Good»0 0%
Excellent»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2

- This topic is essential for the SEM program, but a more qualified and experienced instructor should take the responsibility. Course plan should be changed 180 degrees.» (Poor)
- Course structure was very bad, examination was very poor.» (Poor)
- Should not be repeated with the same teacher. Someone experienced should do it. The course plan should be changed.» (Poor)
- Nothing gained from this course, although this course was of my great interest. » (Poor)
- For people without prior experience this course is not of much help.They are supposed to read a small book and write a project plan!» (Fair)

12. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Project-based and without exam »
- The lectures by Jan Wickenberg were great. Exercises as part of the lectures were interesting.»
- Nothing but the course name, and perhaps the optional course book.»
- Nothing ....»
- the responsibilities of the course should be divided into smaller parts (not asking the students if they completely read the book, instead "this powerpoint is refering to chapter 7, when you go home read it"), i was not very motivated»
- Course book was ok but never used because its optional.»
- the course software project management course main book »
- course outline but on some extent.»

13. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Structure of lectures and the way teacher teachs»
- Make lectures more aligned with the course book or vice versa. Include material about managing a running project, rather than only the startup part.»
- Everything, including the instructor.»
- complete course structure, well defined goals, »
- Everything.»
- the way of teaching the course and the grading system »
- Should be exam, not only reports. Change of lecturer.»

14. Additional comments

- We are Master students from numerous countries and continents. We expect to be treated with respect. We leave our jobs, families and lifestyles and move here seeking quality knowledge, and spending our savings in the process. The program manager as well as the instructor should understand and respect this, regardless of our background, race, religion or competency levels. The anonymous course evaluation for this course was sent out 2 months late. How is it fair for other instructors who get anonymously evaluated post-exam (anonymous too), while the Program Manager does his course evaluations in GUL (not anonymously) and that too before the non-anonymous submissions are graded? How is it possible a 7.5 credit course is graded in 2 days in an random and subjective manner, not even following grading details given in the course introduction?»
- The course is very important but the way it was delivered was not satisfied.»
- the course can be more "to the point"»
- Teacher rude and biased. It seems he has problem with students from outside of Europe. Very disappointing.»
- the outcomes learned from the course could be much better well to some extend the topics was interresting during some lectures »
- Very poor!»

Additional comments

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 2.86
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.46

* obligatoriska frågor

Kursutvärderingssystem från