ANU COMP2100/2500 Software Design
Student Feedback from previous years

C1 workload (1=light..7=heavy)

(5.0) 4.4

-0.60

I didn't change the amount of work – perhaps the assignments just seemed harder.

C2 organisation and structure

(4.3) 5.1

+0.80

C3 teaching and learning methods

(4.0) 5.0

+1.00

C4 quality of reference and support materials

(3.7) 4.8

+0.90

C5 availability of contact

(4.1) 5.4

+0.70

C6 intellectual challenge

(5.0) 5.0

=0.00

I'm pleased that I improved the organisation, notes, and teaching without decreasing the challenge.

C7 assessment for grading

(4.1) 4.7

+0.60

C8 feedback to assist learning

(3.6) 4.1

+0.50

C9 overall impact on learning/development

(4.2) 4.9

+0.70

positive (strengths) — course content

• homeworks helped develop practical skills, improve familiarity

• depth of knowledge

• lectures with a practical side

  ---

  2008

• ** learnt about makefiles, software construction methods

• *** diversity of content, some interesting content, content strong and well outlined

• important set of ideas for software construction

• relevance to industry

• all in Java, easier to focus on the abstract concepts

• ** appropriate course objectives for 2nd year course, material spot-on

positive — style and delivery

• *** emails of what to look at before each lab

• studio lab classes were a great help in learning

• lectures well developed, expanding and explaining

• easy to understand lecture notes

• clear criteria for exam assessment

  ---

  2008

• *** lots of information in the lecture notes, clear website, good online content

• plain HTML lecture notes

• **** lectures clear and well delivered, well organised, concepts explained

• lots of (homework) exercises available

• great midsemester exam

negative (weaknesses) — course content

2008

• too much Visitor and Observer design patterns

• not enough design patterns [wait for COMP2100/2510 Software Design]

negative — style and delivery

• assignments

  • release assignments earlier

  • make assignments “better”, not necessarily easier
    but make the project code easier to understand

  • balance the value of assignment marks with the difficulty

    ---

    2008

  • ** better if marking criteria were made available

  • assignments better if on different topics

  • **** assignments were too complex for the time allowed / weight given

  • ** improve the assignment specifications [in what way?]

• classes and consultation

  • *** don't go so slowly in lectures, speed it up

  • don't cut tutorial time

  • do more of the homeworks as part of the work done in tutorials [or labs?]

  • assess the labs

    ---

    2008

  • ***** lectures long (2 hours) hard to focus through

  • *** lectures should be less boring, more engaging

  • more tutorials would be better: too short, too few for the material

  • provide fixed consultation hours each week

• lecture notes, lab notes, homework tasks

  • unclear what is assessable and what is not

  • provide answers to help people learn by example

  ---

  2008

  • precede labs with theory section

  • ***** need to fix the website links in advance: dead or late lecture links, labs links

  • ** lecture notes need to be more reliable in the absence of a lecture

  • don't expect students to read lecture notes without a lecture

  • don't like using Slidy for lecture notes

  • lecture notes too wordy

  • improve the slides [in what way?]

  • there is no discussion forum on Streams [yes there was - perhaps it was confusingly named or not linked?]

  • lab notes were too old and the program doesn't run that way any more [which program? need to tell me when it happens]

  • too much detail for things that should be kept simple

  • assess the labs

• feedback

  2008 (no negative comments in 2009)

  • provide feedback on midsemester - go through the quiz

  • more feedback going through homeworks weekly with example solutions

  • ** faster turnaround of midsemester exam marks and assignment marks