H16

Vizerektorat Qualität, Fachstelle Lehrevaluation, Hochschulstrasse 6, 3012 Bern
Persönlich/Vertraulich
Mr.
Prof. Dr. Oscar Marius Nierstrasz
Institut für Informatik und angewandte Mathematik
Neubrückstr. 10
3012 Bern
Vizerektorat Qualität
Fachstelle Lehrevaluation
Auswertungsbericht Lehrveranstaltungsevaluation an die Lehrenden
Sehr geehrter Herr Prof. Dr. Nierstrasz
Sie erhalten hier die automatisierte Auswertung der Evaluation zur Veranstaltung Introduction to Software
Engineering (KSL 2420).
Fragebogen Typ VORLeV5. Es gilt Folgendes: Zuerst werden unter dem Titel Globalwerte die Mittelwerte der
folgenden Skalen aufgeführt.
Planning and Presentation (Skalenbreite: 4)
Manners with Students (Skalenbreite: 4)
Interest and Relevance (Skalenbreite: 4)
Complexity and Scope (Skalenbreite: 5)
Overall Assessment (Skalenbreite: 6)
Planning and Presentation (Skalenbreite: 4)
Manners with Students (Skalenbreite: 4)
Interest and Relevance (Skalenbreite: 4)
Complexity and Scope (Skalenbreite: 5)
Overall Assessment (Skalenbreite: 6)
Im zweiten Teil des Auswertungsberichts werden die Ergebnisse zu den einzelnen Fragen und allenfalls Mittelwerte
dazu aufgelistet.
Der Wert 1 kennzeichnet aus Sicht der Studierenden eine minimale Veranstaltungsgüte, der Wert 4 oder mehr eine
maximale Veranstaltungsgüte. Bei invertierten Fragen sind die Werte für die Veranstaltungsgüte gerade umgekehrt.
Bei der Skala 'Schwierigkeit und Umfang' in den Standardfragebögen bezeichnet der Wert 3 (genau richtig) die
optimale Veranstaltungsgüte.
Wir hoffen, dass Ihnen der Bericht von Nutzen ist. Bitte besprechen Sie das Ergebnis vor Semesterende kurz mit
Ihren Studierenden.
Gerne besprechen die Mitarbeitenden der Gruppe Hochschuldidaktik (Kontakt: [email protected]) mit Ihnen Ihre
Evaluationsergebnisse. Bringen Sie die ausgedruckten Berichte bitte zum Gespräch mit, da diese für die
Hochschuldidaktik nicht zugänglich sind.
Falls Sie Verständnisfragen betreffend den Richtlinien und Abläufen haben, finden Sie Antworten unter
www.qualitaet.unibe.ch/content/qualitaetssicherung_und__entwicklung_qse/lehre/evaluation_lehrveranstaltungen/in
dex_ger.html.
Sie können uns auch per Mail kontaktieren, sollten Sie weitere Auskünfte benötigen.
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
Daniela Wuillemin
Vizerektorat Qualität, Fachstelle Lehrevaluation
Daniela Wuillemin
Vizerektorat Qualität
Evaluationsstelle
Hochschulstrasse 6
3012 Bern
Tel. +41 31 631 51 07
[email protected]
www.lehrveranstaltungsevaluation.unibe.ch
Prof. Dr. Oscar Marius Nierstrasz
HS16 Introduction to Software Engineering (2420)
Erfasste Fragebögen = 42
Globalwerte
1
Planning and Presentation (Skalenbreite: 4) (α =
0.56)
-
Manners with Students (Skalenbreite: 4) (α =
0.49)
-
Interest and Relevance (Skalenbreite: 4) (α =
0.73)
-
Complexity and Scope (Skalenbreite: 5) (α = 0.65)
-
Overall Assessment (Skalenbreite: 6) (α = 0.46)
-
Planning and Presentation (Skalenbreite: 4) (α =
0.56)
-
Manners with Students (Skalenbreite: 4) (α =
0.49)
-
Interest and Relevance (Skalenbreite: 4) (α =
0.73)
-
Complexity and Scope (Skalenbreite: 5) (α = 0.65)
-
Overall Assessment (Skalenbreite: 6) (α = 0.46)
-
2
1
2
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
1
Fragetext
Std.-Abw.
0
0%
3
3
Median
25
25%
+
mw=3,46
s=0,65
+
mw=3,17
s=0,51
+
mw=5,39
s=0,52
+
mw=3,54
s=0,54
+
mw=3,9
s=0,24
+
mw=3,46
s=0,65
+
mw=3,17
s=0,51
+
mw=5,39
s=0,52
4
4
4
4
4
mw=3,9
s=0,24
6
3
2
Mittelwert
25
50
25%
50%
5
3
2
+
5
3
2
1
Absolute Häufigkeiten der Antworten
Relative Häufigkeiten der Antworten
4
2
mw=3,54
s=0,54
4
4
2
+
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
Legende
3
5
5
6
Quantil
0
0%
Linker Pol
n=Anzahl
mw=Mittelwert
md=Median
s=Std.-Abw.
E.=Enthaltung
Rechter Pol
1
2
Skala
3
4
5
Histogramm
Planning and Presentation
1 The course follows a coherent structure.
2 The wider context of the subject matter is sufficiently
elucidated.
3 The lecturer expresses him-/herself clearly and
comprehensibly.
4 The course provides an adequate overview of the
subject matter treated.
0
0%
19
51,4%
18
48,6%
true
1
2
3
4
0
0%
1
2,7%
16
43,2%
20
54,1%
not true
true
1
2
3
4
0
0%
1
2,6%
10
25,6%
28
71,8%
not true
true
1
2
3
4
0
0%
1
2,7%
17
45,9%
19
51,4%
not true
true
1
26.01.2017
0
0%
not true
EvaSys Auswertung
2
3
n=37
mw=3,49
md=3
s=0,51
E.=1
n=37
mw=3,51
md=4
s=0,56
E.=1
n=39
mw=3,69
md=4
s=0,52
E.=1
n=37
mw=3,49
md=4
s=0,56
E.=2
4
Seite 1
5 The design of the course contributes to an
understanding of the subject matter.
6 There is overall enough material provided to assist the
learning process (slides, course material, hand-outs,
etc.).
7 The course materials (slides, course manuals, handouts, etc.) are overall of sufficient quality.
0
0%
3
7,7%
20
51,3%
16
41%
not true
true
1
2
3
4
0
0%
1
2,7%
14
37,8%
22
59,5%
not true
true
1
2
3
4
0
0%
0
0%
13
33,3%
26
66,7%
not true
true
1
2
3
4
0
0%
0
0%
2
5,1%
37
94,9%
n=39
mw=3,33
md=3
s=0,62
E.=1
n=37
mw=3,57
md=4
s=0,55
E.=1
n=39
mw=3,67
md=4
s=0,48
E.=1
Manners with Students
8 The lecturer takes students seriously.
9 The lecturer is friendly and respectful towards
students.
10 The lecturer addresses questions and suggestions
from students adequately.
11 The lecturer seems to care about his/her students'
progress.
not true
true
1
2
3
4
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
39
100%
not true
true
1
2
3
4
0
0%
0
0%
3
8,1%
34
91,9%
not true
true
1
2
3
4
0
0%
0
0%
10
26,3%
28
73,7%
not true
true
1
2
3
4
0
0%
4
10,5%
14
36,8%
20
52,6%
n=39
mw=3,95
md=4
s=0,22
E.=1
n=39
mw=4
md=4
s=0
E.=1
n=37
mw=3,92
md=4
s=0,28
E.=2
n=38
mw=3,74
md=4
s=0,45
E.=2
Interest and Relevance
12 The lecturer succeeds in making the course
interesting.
13 The course is probably very useful for my future
professional life.
14 The applicability and relevance of the subject matter
is sufficiently clarified by the lecturer.
15 The lecturer fosters my interest in the subject.
not true
true
1
2
3
4
1
2,6%
3
7,7%
13
33,3%
22
56,4%
not true
true
1
2
3
4
0
0%
0
0%
13
33,3%
26
66,7%
not true
true
1
2
3
4
0
0%
5
13,2%
16
42,1%
17
44,7%
not true
true
1
2
3
n=38
mw=3,42
md=4
s=0,68
E.=1
n=39
mw=3,44
md=4
s=0,75
E.=1
n=39
mw=3,67
md=4
s=0,48
E.=1
n=38
mw=3,32
md=3
s=0,7
E.=1
4
Complexity and Scope
16 The degree of complexity of the course is:
0
0%
29
76,3%
8
21,1%
0
0%
far too high/wide
1
26.01.2017
1
2,6%
far too low/narrow
EvaSys Auswertung
2
3
4
n=38
mw=3,18
md=3
s=0,46
5
Seite 2
17 The scope of the course is:
18 The pace of the course is:
19 The amount of knowledge presupposed by the
course is:
0
0%
2
5,1%
28
71,8%
8
20,5%
1
2,6%
far too low/narrow
1
2
3
4
5
0
0%
2
5,1%
32
82,1%
5
12,8%
0
0%
far too low/narrow
1
2
3
4
5
0
0%
1
2,6%
30
76,9%
6
15,4%
2
5,1%
far too low/narrow
1
2
3
4
far too high/wide
n=39
mw=3,21
md=3
s=0,57
far too high/wide
n=39
mw=3,08
md=3
s=0,42
far too high/wide
n=39
mw=3,23
md=3
s=0,58
6
n=40
mw=4,98
md=5
s=0,58
6
n=39
mw=5,82
md=6
s=0,39
6
n=40
mw=5,4
md=5
s=0,59
5
Overall Assessment
0
0%
20 How would you grade the course as a whole?
0
0%
0
0%
7
27
17,5% 67,5%
6
15%
1
21 How would you grade the lecturer with regard to
subject expertise?
1
2
3
4
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
5
6
7
32
17,9% 82,1%
1
22 How would you grade the lecturer with regard to
teaching methods?
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2
5%
20
50%
18
45%
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
23 The course has taught me
very little
0
little
1
this or that
10
a lot
27
an awful lot
n=41
mw=3,78
s=0,61
3
Socio-demographic Data and Background Variables
24 How many hours per week did you invest in preparation and revision for the course (on average)?
0h
3
less than 2h
1
2 to 4h
13
4 to 6h
13
more than 6h
11
n=41
25 Was the topic of interest to you?
26.01.2017
not at all
1
slightly
2
fairly
20
quite a lot
18
EvaSys Auswertung
n=41
Seite 3
26 How many lectures did you miss?
none
7
1-2
15
3-4
9
more than 4
n=41
10
27 If you missed more than 2 lectures, please give one reason:
lack of interest
4
course overlap
5
illness etc.
1
course manual/required reading suffices for exam preparation
3
other reasons
9
n=22
28 Allocation of the course in your study programme:?
mono subject/Major/Hauptfach
29
Minor/Nebenfach
9
complemetary or specialization course
3
1
0
2
1
3
26
4
0
5
7
6
0
7
5
8
0
9
0
10
2
higher than 10
0
female
4
n=41
29 Your current number of semesters?
n=41
30 Sex
male
n/a
n=27
22
1
Open Questions
What did you like about the course?
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 4
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 5
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 6
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 7
What did you not like about the course?
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 8
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 9
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 10
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 11
Suggestions for improvements?
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 12
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 13
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 14
Assessment of Individual Lectures
1. Introduction: The Software Lifecycle
2. Requirements Collection
3. Responsibility-Driven Design
4. Agile Practices in Industry
5. Modeling Objects and Classes
0
0%
30
75%
4
10%
1
2
3
4
0
0%
2
5%
28
70%
10
25%
strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
0
0%
5
13,9%
25
69,4%
6
16,7%
strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
1
2,7%
12
32,4%
18
48,6%
6
16,2%
strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
1
2,6%
10
26,3%
18
47,4%
9
23,7%
strongly disagree
1
26.01.2017
6
15%
strongly disagree
EvaSys Auswertung
2
3
strongly agree
n=40
mw=2,95
md=3
s=0,5
strongly agree
n=40
mw=3,2
md=3
s=0,52
strongly agree
n=36
mw=3,03
md=3
s=0,56
strongly agree
n=37
mw=2,78
md=3
s=0,75
strongly agree
n=38
mw=2,92
md=3
s=0,78
4
Seite 15
6. Modeling Behaviour
7. Software Testing
8. User Interface Design
9. Software Quality
10. Software Security
11. Software Metrics
12. Project Management
13. Software Architecture
14. SE in practice
2
5%
23
57,5%
9
22,5%
1
2
3
4
1
2,6%
8
20,5%
23
59%
7
17,9%
strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
1
2,7%
12
32,4%
19
51,4%
5
13,5%
strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
0
0%
9
23,7%
25
65,8%
4
10,5%
strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
5
13,2%
16
42,1%
16
42,1%
1
2,6%
strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
0
0%
6
16,2%
25
67,6%
6
16,2%
strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
2
5,4%
7
18,9%
22
59,5%
6
16,2%
strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
0
0%
6
15,4%
25
64,1%
8
20,5%
strongly disagree
1
2
3
4
1
2,8%
9
25%
21
58,3%
5
13,9%
strongly disagree
1
26.01.2017
6
15%
strongly disagree
EvaSys Auswertung
2
3
strongly agree
n=40
mw=2,98
md=3
s=0,77
strongly agree
n=39
mw=2,92
md=3
s=0,7
strongly agree
n=37
mw=2,76
md=3
s=0,72
strongly agree
n=38
mw=2,87
md=3
s=0,58
strongly agree
n=38
mw=2,34
md=2
s=0,75
strongly agree
n=37
mw=3
md=3
s=0,58
strongly agree
n=37
mw=2,86
md=3
s=0,75
strongly agree
n=39
mw=3,05
md=3
s=0,6
strongly agree
n=36
mw=2,83
md=3
s=0,7
4
Seite 16
Profillinie
Teilbereich:
Phil.-nat. Fakultät
Name der/des Lehrenden:
Prof. Dr. Oscar Marius Nierstrasz
Titel der Lehrveranstaltung: Introduction to Software Engineering
(Name der Umfrage)
Verwendete Werte in der Profillinie: Mittelwert
Planning and Presentation
1 The course follows a coherent structure.
not true
true
2 The wider context of the subject matter is
sufficiently elucidated.
not true
true
3 The lecturer expresses him-/herself clearly and
comprehensibly.
not true
true
4 The course provides an adequate overview of the
subject matter treated.
not true
true
5 The design of the course contributes to an
understanding of the subject matter.
not true
true
6 There is overall enough material provided to
assist the learning process (slides, course material,
hand-outs, etc.).
7 The course materials (slides, course manuals,
hand-outs, etc.) are overall of sufficient quality.
not true
true
not true
true
8 The lecturer takes students seriously.
not true
true
9 The lecturer is friendly and respectful towards
students.
not true
true
10 The lecturer addresses questions and
suggestions from students adequately.
not true
true
11 The lecturer seems to care about his/her
students' progress.
not true
true
12 The lecturer succeeds in making the course
interesting.
not true
true
13 The course is probably very useful for my future
professional life.
not true
true
14 The applicability and relevance of the subject
matter is sufficiently clarified by the lecturer.
not true
true
15 The lecturer fosters my interest in the subject.
not true
true
n=37
mw=3,49 md=3,00 s=0,51
n=37
mw=3,51 md=4,00 s=0,56
n=39
mw=3,69 md=4,00 s=0,52
n=37
mw=3,49 md=4,00 s=0,56
n=39
mw=3,33 md=3,00 s=0,62
n=37
mw=3,57 md=4,00 s=0,55
n=39
mw=3,67 md=4,00 s=0,48
n=39
mw=3,95 md=4,00 s=0,22
n=39
mw=4,00 md=4,00 s=0,00
n=37
mw=3,92 md=4,00 s=0,28
n=38
mw=3,74 md=4,00 s=0,45
n=38
mw=3,42 md=4,00 s=0,68
n=39
mw=3,44 md=4,00 s=0,75
n=39
mw=3,67 md=4,00 s=0,48
n=38
mw=3,32 md=3,00 s=0,70
Manners with Students
Interest and Relevance
Complexity and Scope
16 The degree of complexity of the course is:
far too low/
narrow
far too high/
wide
n=38
mw=3,18 md=3,00 s=0,46
17 The scope of the course is:
far too low/
narrow
far too high/
wide
n=39
mw=3,21 md=3,00 s=0,57
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 17
18 The pace of the course is:
far too low/
narrow
far too high/
wide
n=39
mw=3,08 md=3,00 s=0,42
19 The amount of knowledge presupposed by the
course is:
far too low/
narrow
far too high/
wide
n=39
mw=3,23 md=3,00 s=0,58
n=40
mw=4,98 md=5,00 s=0,58
n=39
mw=5,82 md=6,00 s=0,39
n=40
mw=5,40 md=5,00 s=0,59
n=40
mw=2,95 md=3,00 s=0,50
n=40
mw=3,20 md=3,00 s=0,52
n=36
mw=3,03 md=3,00 s=0,56
n=37
mw=2,78 md=3,00 s=0,75
n=38
mw=2,92 md=3,00 s=0,78
n=40
mw=2,98 md=3,00 s=0,77
n=39
mw=2,92 md=3,00 s=0,70
n=37
mw=2,76 md=3,00 s=0,72
n=38
mw=2,87 md=3,00 s=0,58
n=38
mw=2,34 md=2,00 s=0,75
n=37
mw=3,00 md=3,00 s=0,58
n=37
mw=2,86 md=3,00 s=0,75
n=39
mw=3,05 md=3,00 s=0,60
n=36
mw=2,83 md=3,00 s=0,70
Overall Assessment
20 How would you grade the course as a whole?
1
6
21 How would you grade the lecturer with regard to
subject expertise?
1
6
22 How would you grade the lecturer with regard to
teaching methods?
1
6
Assessment of Individual Lectures
1. Introduction: The Software Lifecycle
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
2. Requirements Collection
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
3. Responsibility-Driven Design
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
4. Agile Practices in Industry
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
5. Modeling Objects and Classes
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
6. Modeling Behaviour
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
7. Software Testing
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
8. User Interface Design
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
9. Software Quality
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
10. Software Security
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
11. Software Metrics
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
12. Project Management
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
13. Software Architecture
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
14. SE in practice
strongly
disagree
strongly agree
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 18
Profillinie
Teilbereich:
Phil.-nat. Fakultät
Name der/des Lehrenden:
Prof. Dr. Oscar Marius Nierstrasz
Titel der Lehrveranstaltung: Introduction to Software Engineering
(Name der Umfrage)
Planning and Presentation (Skalenbreite: 4) (α =
0.56)
-
+
Manners with Students (Skalenbreite: 4) (α = 0.49)
-
+
Interest and Relevance (Skalenbreite: 4) (α =
0.73)
-
+
Complexity and Scope (Skalenbreite: 5) (α = 0.65)
-
+
Overall Assessment (Skalenbreite: 6) (α = 0.46)
-
+
Planning and Presentation (Skalenbreite: 4) (α =
0.56)
-
+
Manners with Students (Skalenbreite: 4) (α = 0.49)
-
+
Interest and Relevance (Skalenbreite: 4) (α =
0.73)
-
+
Complexity and Scope (Skalenbreite: 5) (α = 0.65)
-
+
Overall Assessment (Skalenbreite: 6) (α = 0.46)
-
+
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
mw=3,54
s=0,54
mw=3,90
s=0,24
mw=3,46
s=0,65
mw=3,17
s=0,51
mw=5,39
s=0,52
mw=3,54
s=0,54
mw=3,90
s=0,24
mw=3,46
s=0,65
mw=3,17
s=0,51
mw=5,39
s=0,52
Seite 19
Präsentationsvorlage
Introduction to Software Engineering
Prof. Dr. Oscar Marius Nierstrasz
Erfasste Fragebögen = 42
Planning and Presentation
(Skalenbreite: 4) (α = 0.56)
1
2
3
4
-
+
mw=3,54
Manners with Students
(Skalenbreite: 4) (α = 0.49)
1
2
3
4
-
+
mw=3,9
Interest and Relevance
(Skalenbreite: 4) (α = 0.73)
1
2
3
4
-
+
mw=3,46
Complexity and Scope
(Skalenbreite: 5) (α = 0.65)
1
2
3
4
5
-
+
mw=3,17
Overall Assessment (Skalenbreite:
6) (α = 0.46)
1
2
3
4
5
6
-
+
mw=5,39
Planning and Presentation
(Skalenbreite: 4) (α = 0.56)
1
2
3
4
-
+
mw=3,54
Manners with Students
(Skalenbreite: 4) (α = 0.49)
1
2
3
4
-
+
mw=3,9
Interest and Relevance
(Skalenbreite: 4) (α = 0.73)
1
-
2
3
4
+
mw=3,46
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 20
Complexity and Scope
(Skalenbreite: 5) (α = 0.65)
1
2
3
4
5
-
+
mw=3,17
Overall Assessment (Skalenbreite:
6) (α = 0.46)
1
-
2
3
4
5
6
+
mw=5,39
26.01.2017
EvaSys Auswertung
Seite 21

Download Report