previous main page next

Evaluation Results Matematisk Lingvistik VT97

This page contains the evaluation results for the course Formal Languages and Automata (in Swedish: Matematisk Lingvistik) that was taught in the Winter term of 1997 at the department of Linguistics at the University of Uppsala. The purpose of this page if to give a summarized overview of the responses of the students on the course. There were two evaluation rounds:

Only answers to multiple choice questions have been listed here.


Midcourse evaluation

Summary of the answers to multiple choice questions of the midcourse evaluation forms for the course Matematisk Lingvistik VT97. There were 29 students and 26 participated in the evaluation.

Questions

  1. What do you think about the course goal description and its contents description?
  2. What do you think about the course organization from a pedagogical point of view?
  3. What do you think about the organization of the lectures from a pedagogical point of view?
  4. What do you think about the organization of the exercise classes from a pedagogical point of view?
  5. What do you think about the interaction with the teacher?
  6. What do you think about the contents of the course literature?

Answers

             Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   Q5   Q6
------------------------------------------------------
Very good     7   17   16    7   10   10   Very good  
Good         14    7    8    9   14   14   Good       
Not so good   0    1    1    2    1    0   Not so good
Bad           0    0    0    1    0    0   Bad        
No answer     5    1    1    7    1    2   No answer  
------------------------------------------------------
Average      75   88   87   69   80   80   Average (min: 10; max: 100)


Final evaluation

Summary of the answers to multiple choice questions of the final evaluation forms for the course Matematisk Lingvistik VT97. There were 25 students and 20 participated in the evaluation.

Questions

  1. What do you think about the agreement between the course plan and the course content and level?
  2. What do you think about the agreement between the required preliminary knowledge and the course content and level.
  3. What do you think about the correspondence between the course as it turned out and what you had expected from it?
  4. Do you consider the course to be good or bad?
  5. Do you think the lectures were meaningful?
  6. Do you think the exercise/lab sessions were meaningful?
  7. Should there have been more or fewer lectures?
  8. Should there have been more exercise/lab sessions?
  9. What do you think about the arrangement of the lectures from a pedagogical point of view?
  10. What do you think about the presentation of the lectures from a pedagogical point of view?
  11. What do you think about the course literature?
  12. Should the instructions for the exercise/lab sessions have been more detailed?
  13. What result do you expect for this course?

Answers

             Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   Q9  Q10  Q11  Q13
----------------------------------------------------------------
Very good    10    5   13   12   11   11    4    7   Very good
Good          8   11    6    8    9    9   13   11   Good
Not so good   0    1    0    0    0    0    1    1   Not so good
Bad           0    1    0    0    0    0    0    0   Bad
No answer     2    2    1    0    0    0    2    1   No answer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Average      84   72   89   88   87   87   73   78   Average (min: 10; max: 100)

Q5:  Very meaningful: 15; Meaningful: 5;                     Average: 93
Q6:  Very meaningful: 11; Meaningful: 7; Less meaningful: 2; Average: 84
Q7:  No change required: 12; More: 8;                        Average: 64
Q8:  No change required: 14; More: 6;                        Average: 73
Q12: No: 15; Yes: 1; No answer: 4;                           Average: 87


The following weights have been used in the average computation: very good: 100, good: 70, not so good: 40; bad: 10 and no answer: 55.
Last update: April 26, 1998. erikt@stp.ling.uu.se