FYTA11-prog, ht15
Respondents: 15 Answer Count: 9 Answer Frequency: 60,00 %
General opinion
Give your opinion in the scale 1-5.
1 = very negative 2 = negative 3 = neutral 4 = positive 5 = very positive
The comment field in the end is very important! It will help us understand what is to be kept when the grade is good, and what to change when the grade is poor.
What is your general opinion of...
this part of the course?
this part of the course? Number of Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 4 (44,4%)
4 4 (44,4%)
5 1 (11,1%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
this part of the course? 3,7 0,7
the information about the course when it started?
the information about the course when it
started? Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 1 (11,1%)
4 7 (77,8%)
5 1 (11,1%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the information about the course when it started? 4,0 0,5
the information about what was expected of you?
the information about what was expected of
you? Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 5 (55,6%)
4 3 (33,3%)
5 1 (11,1%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the information about what was expected of you? 3,6 0,7
"Java direkt - med Swing" by Jan Skansholm?
"Java direkt - med Swing" by Jan
Skansholm? Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 3 (33,3%)
3 3 (33,3%)
4 3 (33,3%)
5 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
"Java direkt - med Swing" by Jan Skansholm? 3,0 0,9
Comment (help us interpret your grades!)
Inte helt glasklar information men ändå bra. Sista uppgiften passade inte så bra på tentan eftersom ämnet undervisats väldigt lite om, ingen simuleringsövning hade heller handlat om ämnet.
It was really good during the project.
Lectures, exercises, project and examination Give your opinion in the scale 1-5.
1 = very negative 2 = negative 3 = neutral 4 = positive 5 = very positive
What is your general opinion of...
the lectures with Carl Troein?
the lectures with Carl Troein? Number of Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 2 (22,2%)
3 2 (22,2%)
4 5 (55,6%)
5 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the lectures with Carl Troein? 3,3 0,9
the simulation exercises?
the simulation exercises? Number of Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 4 (44,4%)
4 5 (55,6%)
5 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the simulation exercises? 3,6 0,5
the introductions to the simulation exercises?
the introductions to the simulation
exercises? Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 1 (11,1%)
3 1 (11,1%)
4 6 (66,7%)
5 1 (11,1%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the introductions to the simulation exercises? 3,8 0,8
the theoretical parts of the simulation exercises?
the theoretical parts of the simulation
exercises? Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 1 (11,1%)
3 3 (33,3%)
4 4 (44,4%)
5 1 (11,1%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the theoretical parts of the simulation exercises? 3,6 0,9
the programming parts of the simulation exercises?
the programming parts of the simulation
exercises? Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 6 (66,7%)
4 3 (33,3%)
5 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the programming parts of the simulation exercises? 3,3 0,5
the programming project?
the programming project? Number of Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 0 (0,0%)
4 3 (33,3%)
5 6 (66,7%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the programming project? 4,7 0,5
the balance between lectures, exercises and the project?
the balance between lectures, exercises and
the project? Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 3 (33,3%)
4 4 (44,4%)
5 2 (22,2%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the balance between lectures, exercises and the project? 3,9 0,8
the written exam?
the written exam? Number of Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 4 (44,4%)
3 3 (33,3%)
4 2 (22,2%)
5 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the written exam? 2,8 0,8
Comment (help us interpret your grades!)
One of the simulations in the beginning was very hard to understand for a java beginner. Mostly because it was hard to extract the things you wanted from a very large amount of code. Other simulations were great!
The exam didn't go as planned. I do think that all of the exam questions were really good questions for a java exam. But the last question (10 points!) was on a subject only briefed on lectures. Also, I am a little against the practice of putting half of the exam points on one question (20 points). The questions were good, just not always on our level.
Teoridelen om flera simuleringsövningar verkade ganska "luddig". Programmeringsdelen för S4 och S7 hade varit bättre om det hade varit lite mer kod att skriva själv. Projektarbetet var väldigt kul!
The lectures was not that good. It was rather unstructured. One way to make them better would maybe be to go through theory half the lecture and doing extensive examples the other half. The repetition lectures was really good.
Simulation exercises
Give your opinion in the scale 1-5.
1 = very negative 2 = negative 3 = neutral 4 = positive 5 = very positive
What is your opinion of...
the supervision by Carl Troein on S1. Buffon's Needle
the supervision by Carl Troein on S1. Buffon's
Needle Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 1 (11,1%)
3 2 (22,2%)
4 4 (44,4%)
5 2 (22,2%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the supervision by Carl Troein on S1. Buffon's Needle 3,8 1,0
the theoretical part of S1. Buffon's Needle
the theoretical part of S1. Buffon's Needle Number of Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 3 (33,3%)
4 2 (22,2%)
5 4 (44,4%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the theoretical part of S1. Buffon's Needle 4,1 0,9
the programming part of S1. Buffon's Needle
the programming part of S1. Buffon's
Needle Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 1 (11,1%)
3 0 (0,0%)
4 5 (55,6%)
5 3 (33,3%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the programming part of S1. Buffon's Needle 4,1 0,9
the supervision by Johan Relefors on S2. Random Walk
the supervision by Johan Relefors on S2.
Random Walk Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 2 (22,2%)
4 4 (44,4%)
5 3 (33,3%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the supervision by Johan Relefors on S2. Random Walk 4,1 0,8
the theoretical part of S2. Random Walk
the theoretical part of S2. Random Walk Number of Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 4 (44,4%)
4 3 (33,3%)
5 2 (22,2%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the theoretical part of S2. Random Walk 3,8 0,8
the programming part of S2. Random Walk
the programming part of S2. Random Walk Number of Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 4 (44,4%)
4 2 (22,2%)
5 3 (33,3%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the programming part of S2. Random Walk 3,9 0,9
the supervision by André Larsson on S3. Earthquakes
the supervision by André Larsson on S3.
Earthquakes Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 2 (22,2%)
4 5 (55,6%)
5 2 (22,2%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the supervision by André Larsson on S3. Earthquakes 4,0 0,7
the theoretical part of S3. Earthquakes
the theoretical part of S3. Earthquakes Number of Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 3 (33,3%)
4 3 (33,3%)
5 3 (33,3%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the theoretical part of S3. Earthquakes 4,0 0,9
the programming part of S3. Earthquakes
the programming part of S3. Earthquakes Number of Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 1 (11,1%)
4 6 (66,7%)
5 2 (22,2%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the programming part of S3. Earthquakes 4,1 0,6
the supervision by Christine Rasmussen on S4. The Hopfield Model
the supervision by Christine Rasmussen on S4.
The Hopfield Model Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 2 (22,2%)
3 1 (11,1%)
4 4 (44,4%)
5 2 (22,2%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the supervision by Christine Rasmussen on S4. The Hopfield Model 3,7 1,1
the theoretical part of S4. The Hopfield Model
the theoretical part of S4. The Hopfield
Model Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 2 (22,2%)
4 6 (66,7%)
5 1 (11,1%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the theoretical part of S4. The Hopfield Model 3,9 0,6
the programming part of S4. The Hopfield Model
the programming part of S4. The Hopfield
Model Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 3 (33,3%)
3 3 (33,3%)
4 2 (22,2%)
5 1 (11,1%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the programming part of S4. The Hopfield Model 3,1 1,1
the supervision by Jonas Wessén on S7. Population Dynamics
the supervision by Jonas Wessén on S7.
Population Dynamics Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 3 (33,3%)
4 4 (44,4%)
5 2 (22,2%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the supervision by Jonas Wessén on S7. Population Dynamics 3,9 0,8
the theoretical part of S7. Population Dynamics
the theoretical part of S7. Population
Dynamics Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 3 (33,3%)
4 4 (44,4%)
5 2 (22,2%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the theoretical part of S7. Population Dynamics 3,9 0,8
the programming part of S7. Population Dynamics
the programming part of S7. Population
Dynamics Number of
Responses
1 1 (11,1%)
2 3 (33,3%)
3 3 (33,3%)
4 1 (11,1%)
5 1 (11,1%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the programming part of S7. Population Dynamics 2,8 1,2
the supervision by Christian Bierlich on S6. Falling Particles
the supervision by Christian Bierlich on S6.
Falling Particles Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 1 (11,1%)
4 6 (66,7%)
5 2 (22,2%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the supervision by Christian Bierlich on S6. Falling Particles 4,1 0,6
the theoretical part of S6. Falling Particles
the theoretical part of S6. Falling Particles Number of Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 2 (22,2%)
4 5 (55,6%)
5 2 (22,2%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the theoretical part of S6. Falling Particles 4,0 0,7
the programming part of S6. Falling Particles
the programming part of S6. Falling
Particles Number of
Responses
1 0 (0,0%)
2 0 (0,0%)
3 2 (22,2%)
4 3 (33,3%)
5 4 (44,4%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
the programming part of S6. Falling Particles 4,2 0,8
Comment (help us interpret your grades!)
Don't (!) use Greek letters and other non-ASCII stuff in the handed-out code! Several of my coursemates spent hours just trying to get the code to agree with their character set.
Some of the simulations were a bit hard to wrap your head around if you've never have done any Java before. Others were great! For the most part, good correction by supervisors too!
Det var alldeles för lite programmering på S7. Teorin, programmeringen och vad målet med simuleringen var kan göras tydligare. Att få göra ett eget program baserat på en grundprincip som i S6 var ganska kul.
The graphing class in s6 & s7 has greek letters as variable names in the code. NOT OK! >:(
The comments in the premade classes for s4 was unclear and confusing
Overall the theory didn't feel connected to the programming we were doing. In the latter exercises it was to little programming and to much trouble with already existing code.
The level of difficulty.
"How difficult..."
was this part of the course in general?
was this part of the course in general? Number of Responses
Much too easy 1 (11,1%)
1 (11,1%)
Appropriate 5 (55,6%)
2 (22,2%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was this part of the course in general? 2,9 0,9
were the lectures with Carl Troein?
were the lectures with Carl Troein? Number of Responses
Much too easy 1 (11,1%)
1 (11,1%)
Appropriate 5 (55,6%)
2 (22,2%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
were the lectures with Carl Troein? 2,9 0,9
were the theoretical parts of the simulation exercises?
were the theoretical parts of the simulation
exercises? Number of
Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
2 (22,2%)
Appropriate 4 (44,4%)
3 (33,3%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
were the theoretical parts of the simulation exercises? 3,1 0,8
were the programming parts of the simulation exercises?
were the programming parts of the simulation
exercises? Number of
Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
3 (33,3%)
Appropriate 6 (66,7%)
0 (0,0%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
were the programming parts of the simulation exercises? 2,7 0,5
was the report writing for the simulation exercises?
was the report writing for the simulation
exercises? Number of
Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
1 (11,1%)
Appropriate 8 (88,9%)
0 (0,0%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the report writing for the simulation exercises? 2,9 0,3
was the theoretical part of S1. Buffon's Needle
was the theoretical part of S1. Buffon's
Needle Number of
Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
4 (44,4%)
Appropriate 5 (55,6%)
0 (0,0%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the theoretical part of S1. Buffon's Needle 2,6 0,5
was the programming part of S1. Buffon's Needle
was the programming part of S1. Buffon's
Needle Number of
Responses
Much too easy 2 (22,2%)
0 (0,0%)
Appropriate 7 (77,8%)
0 (0,0%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the programming part of S1. Buffon's Needle 2,6 0,9
was the theoretical part of S2. Random Walk
was the theoretical part of S2. Random
Walk Number of
Responses
Much too easy 1 (11,1%)
1 (11,1%)
Appropriate 7 (77,8%)
0 (0,0%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the theoretical part of S2. Random Walk 2,7 0,7
was the programming part of S2. Random Walk
was the programming part of S2. Random
Walk Number of
Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
3 (33,3%)
Appropriate 6 (66,7%)
0 (0,0%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the programming part of S2. Random Walk 2,7 0,5
was the theoretical part of S3. Earthquakes
was the theoretical part of S3. Earthquakes Number of Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
2 (22,2%)
Appropriate 7 (77,8%)
0 (0,0%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the theoretical part of S3. Earthquakes 2,8 0,4
was the programming part of S3. Earthquakes
was the programming part of S3.
Earthquakes Number of
Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
2 (22,2%)
Appropriate 7 (77,8%)
0 (0,0%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the programming part of S3. Earthquakes 2,8 0,4
was the theoretical part of S4. The Hopfield Model
was the theoretical part of S4. The Hopfield
Model Number of
Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
0 (0,0%)
Appropriate 6 (66,7%)
3 (33,3%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the theoretical part of S4. The Hopfield Model 3,3 0,5
was the programming part of S4. The Hopfield Model
was the programming part of S4. The Hopfield
Model Number of
Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
2 (22,2%)
Appropriate 4 (44,4%)
3 (33,3%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the programming part of S4. The Hopfield Model 3,1 0,8
was the theoretical part of S7. Population Dynamics
was the theoretical part of S7. Population
Dynamics Number of
Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
0 (0,0%)
Appropriate 9 (100,0%)
0 (0,0%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the theoretical part of S7. Population Dynamics 3,0 0,0
was the programming part of S7. Population Dynamics
was the programming part of S7. Population
Dynamics Number of
Responses
Much too easy 3 (33,3%)
1 (11,1%)
Appropriate 5 (55,6%)
0 (0,0%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the programming part of S7. Population Dynamics 2,2 1,0
was the theoretical part of S6. Falling Particles
was the theoretical part of S6. Falling
Particles Number of
Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
1 (11,1%)
Appropriate 8 (88,9%)
0 (0,0%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the theoretical part of S6. Falling Particles 2,9 0,3
was the programming part of S6. Falling Particles
was the programming part of S6. Falling
Particles Number of
Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
2 (22,2%)
Appropriate 7 (77,8%)
0 (0,0%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the programming part of S6. Falling Particles 2,8 0,4
was the programming project?
was the programming project? Number of Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
0 (0,0%)
Appropriate 8 (88,9%)
1 (11,1%)
Much too difficult 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the programming project? 3,1 0,3
was the written exam?
was the written exam? Number of Responses
Much too easy 0 (0,0%)
0 (0,0%)
Appropriate 4 (44,4%)
4 (44,4%)
Much too difficult 1 (11,1%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
was the written exam? 3,7 0,7
Comment
The last rating is especially when compared to previous exams.
The programming parts of the simulation exercises was very fluctuating depending on the given code. Some were super easy, others hard to find out what to use.
Again, some parts of the exam was suitable and even easy, other questions, I could not answer because I just did not think of that being a big part of the course.
The last exercise of the exam was about subject which we had barley covered. Rest of the exam was good.
The focus of this part of the course.
Below are learning goals from the course plan. Mark how much focus these goals got during the course, compared to what you feel would be needed.
"The student..."
can explain the universal model of a mass on a spring and apply it to systems near equilibrium.
can explain the universal model of a mass on a
spring and apply it to systems near equilibrium. Number of Responses
Much too low focus 1 (11,1%)
3 (33,3%)
Appropriate 5 (55,6%)
0 (0,0%)
Unnecessarily high focus 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation can explain the universal model of a mass on a spring and apply it to systems near equilibrium. 2,4 0,7
can formulate simple models of systems.
can formulate simple models of systems. Number of Responses
Much too low focus 0 (0,0%)
0 (0,0%)
Appropriate 9 (100,0%)
0 (0,0%)
Unnecessarily high focus 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
can formulate simple models of systems. 3,0 0,0
masters basic Java programming and can write basic programs for simulation and analysis.
masters basic Java programming and can write basic
programs for simulation and analysis. Number of Responses
Much too low focus 0 (0,0%)
2 (22,2%)
Appropriate 7 (77,8%)
0 (0,0%)
Unnecessarily high focus 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation masters basic Java programming and can write basic programs for simulation and analysis. 2,8 0,4
can, starting from a simplified system, formulate a model that describes the behaviour of the system.
can, starting from a simplified system, formulate a
model that describes the behaviour of the system. Number of Responses
Much too low focus 0 (0,0%)
0 (0,0%)
Appropriate 9 (100,0%)
0 (0,0%)
Unnecessarily high focus 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation can, starting from a simplified system, formulate a model that describes the behaviour of the system. 3,0 0,0
can, starting from a given model of a system, write a program that simulates the development of the system and extracts and presents relevant information.
can, starting from a given model of a system, write a program that simulates the development of the system
and extracts and presents relevant information. Number of Responses
Much too low focus 0 (0,0%)
2 (22,2%)
Appropriate 7 (77,8%)
0 (0,0%)
Unnecessarily high focus 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation can, starting from a given model of a system, write a program that simulates the development of the system and extracts
and presents relevant information. 2,8 0,4
Did you have enough prior knowledge for this part of the course?
Did you have enough prior knowledge for this
part of the course? Number of
Responses
not at all 0 (0,0%)
not quite 3 (33,3%)
yes 4 (44,4%)
yes, the course was a bit easy 1 (11,1%)
I did not really learn anything new 1 (11,1%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation
Did you have enough prior knowledge for this part of the course? 3,0 1,0
If your prior knowledge was not fairly appropriate, please comment!
What prior knowledge was missing/overlapping?
What is your background (year of higher education, relevant courses)?
Basic highschool programming + projects on my own
Kunskaper från en enklare Java-kurs på gymnasiet gjorde den här kursen lite lättare. Utan tidigare kunskaper om programmering hade nog den här kursen varit ganska svår.
Had no prior programing knowledge. Felt lost quite a bit during the lectures and programing parts.
Flera års programmeringserfarenhet.
This was the fist time ever I did some programming, I didn't really get the understandING until the project.
How much time have you spent on the course? (In total you are supposed to spend about 400 hours or 50 work-days on a 15 hp course)
How much time have you spent on the course? (In total you are supposed to spend about 400 hours or 50
work-days on a 15 hp course) Number of
Responses about 100 hours (25% of intended time) 2 (22,2%) about 200 hours (50% of intended time) 2 (22,2%) about 300 hours (75% of intended time) 1 (11,1%) about 400 hours (100% of intended time) 3 (33,3%) about 500 hours (125% of intended time) 1 (11,1%)
more 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation How much time have you spent on the course? (In total you are supposed to spend about 400 hours or 50 work-days
on a 15 hp course) 2,9 1,5
Comments (for example on the distribution of the workload and whether you feel you have been able to perform at the level you wanted to) I spent a LOT of time on the project and quite a lot to revise to the exam but perhaps not enough before.
Gender equality and equal opportunities
According to the Lund University Policy for gender equality, equal treatment and diversity, there is ”zero tolerance of discrimination” and everyone has the right to be "treated with respect and consideration and being given the opportunity to develop on the basis of his or her personal circumstances".
Have you become aware of any cases of discriminating behaviour or someone being treated disrespectfully during the course?
Gender equality and equal opportunities According to the Lund University Policy for gender equality, equal treatment and diversity, there is ”zero tolerance of discrimination” and everyone has the right to be "treated with respect and consideration and being given the opportunity to develop on the basis of his or her personal circumstances".
Have you become aware of any cases of discriminating behaviour or someone being treated disrespectfully
during the course? Number of
Responses
Yes 1 (11,1%)
No 8 (88,9%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation Gender equality and equal opportunities
According to the Lund University Policy for gender equality, equal treatment and diversity, there is ”zero tolerance of discrimination” and everyone has the right to be "treated with respect and consideration and being given the opportunity to develop on the basis of his or her personal circumstances".
Have you become aware of any cases of discriminating behaviour or someone being treated disrespectfully during the
course? 1,9 0,3
If so, in what way?
Since 100% of the course participants were male, there really wasn't enough data to answer questions regarding gender equality.
Do you think that everyone has had the same opportunity to benefit from the course?
Do you think that everyone has had the same
opportunity to benefit from the course? Number of Responses
Yes 9 (100,0%)
No 0 (0,0%)
Total 9 (100,0%)
Mean Standard Deviation Do you think that everyone has had the same opportunity to benefit from the course? 1,0 0,0
If not, do you have any suggestions on changes that could be made (for example regarding literature, pedagogics, course contents)?
Angående kurslitteratur föredrar jag "Java a beginner's guide"
What did you particularly like with this part of the course?
What did you particularly like with this part of the course?
The near-total freedom to be ambitious in the project.
The simulations, because hands on programming. This should always be essential when learning a new language, even so on a computer.
Projektarbetet The Programing part Simuleringsövningarna The project was really good.
The project was very fun and a good learning experience.
What in this part of the course do you think could improve?
What in this part of the course do you think could improve?
If it weren't for the imminent discontinuation of the course, the hand-out code for the simulation exercises could use a thorough overhaul.
I think the course could improve a little diving a bit more into how to use objects and what they are in a more broad sense than creating your own objects. By that, I mean to link existing classes and other library content to the new code we are creating. Maybe more task, hand in or not, but make us write more code. I think many novices at Java would benefit from writing more. But I also like to learn how Java is structured, don't take that away.
Automatic controle of programs
Some of the exercises and the way to lecture.
Better simulations in the sense that the student can create more of their own program/simulation instead of just copying code and adding small pieces to it.
