SUMMARY OF THE LECTURE EVALUATION
Automated Reasoning, SS 2004
(H. Ganzinger, V. Sofronie-Stokkermans, U. Waldmann)
If
you have no information or feel that an item does not apply, please let
the corresponding input field clear or select the -/- option.
Personal informations
Your main subject:
| 9 | | Computer Science (Diploma) |
| 2 | | Computer Science (Master) |
Your number of semesters (including semesters at other universities than the UdS):
Ø = 6.90 semesters
| 2 | | 5 semesters |
| 3 | | 6 semesters |
| 1 | | 7 semesters |
| 3 | | 8 semesters |
| 1 | | 10 semesters |
| 1 | | -/- |
General Ratings
Considering both the limitations and possibilities of the subject matter and course, how would you rate the overall teaching effectiveness of this instructor?
|
Ø = 1.55
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
most effective
|
5
|
6
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
least effective
|
|
0
|
Focusing now on the course content, how worthwhile was this course?
|
Ø = 1.64
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very worthwhile
|
5
|
5
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all worthwhile
|
|
0
|
How many hours did you work each week for this course on average? (including lectures, exercises and preparation)
Ø = 13.00 hours
| 1 | | 9 hours |
| 1 | | 10 hours |
| 1 | | 11 hours |
| 3 | | 12 hours |
| 1 | | 15 hours |
| 1 | | 16 hours |
| 1 | | 20 hours |
| 2 | | -/- |
Did you use books and/or other literature to follow the lecture?
| 3 | | never |
| 3 | | seldom |
| 2 | | sometimes |
| 3 | | regularly |
| 0 | | -/- |
Which books and/or what literature did you use?
-
Schöning: Logik für Informatiker (2 times)
-
Fitting: First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving (2 times)
-
Huth and Ryan: Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and Reasoning about Systems (2 times)
-
Baader and Nipkow: Term Rewriting and All That (7 times)
-
several literature found using Google
-
Lecture's slides
Were there any difficulties/problems?
| 7 | | no |
| 1 | | insufficient books at the library |
| 0 | | availability of computers |
| 2 | | other |
| 1 | | -/- |
If you selected other, what kind of problems did you have?
- Problems with theoretical computer science ;-)
- No musterloesungen online...
[Instructor's note: That was a conscious decision.
Frankly, I think that the utility of sample solutions on the web
is questionable.
Getting to know a solution to an exercise during a tutorial
is already a poor replacement for trying to find it oneself,
but reading (or worse: copying) a printed sample solution
is again a poor replacement for participating in a tutorial.]
In case of problems/difficulties: Did you inform the instructor instantly?
Classroom Presentation
The instructor...
Gives lectures that are well organized.
|
Ø = 1.27
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
8
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Is enthusiastic about the subject matter.
|
Ø = 1.36
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
7
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Clearly communicates what he/she considers important.
|
Ø = 1.64
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
5
|
5
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Has an interesting style of presentation.
|
Ø = 1.82
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
3
|
7
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Uses visual aids and blackboards effectively.
|
Ø = 1.45
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
7
|
3
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Any comments or suggestions about this?
- It is not recommendable to hold a lecture for 110 minutes without a break.
- Too much time lost on proofs instead understanding important concepts.
- From a pedagogical point of view: great.
Interaction with students
The instructor...
Encourages questions from students.
|
Ø = 1.55
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
7
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Is careful and precise in answering questions.
|
Ø = 1.36
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
8
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Is accessible to students outside of class
|
Ø = 1.25
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
7
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
3
|
Is friendly and helpful to students during breaks, office hours, etc.
|
Ø = 1.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
10
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
1
|
In case that you do not understand something while working at home or with other students, whom would you ask?
| 0 | | nobody |
| 6 | | teaching assistant |
| 0 | | assistant |
| 2 | | instructor |
| 3 | | -/- |
Special comments or suggestions about this?
-
Das Verhalten des Dozenten gegenüber den Studenten lässt sich als eine
seltene und interessante Mischung aus Arroganz und Freundlichkeit
beschreiben; Er legt die typisch arroganten Verhaltensweisen an den
Tag, die man von Mathematikern kennt, ist jedoch jederzeit bereit, auf
Fragen gruendlich einzugehen, und ist auch ausserhalb der Vorlesung
gut zu erreichen. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Dozenten gerade im Bereich
der Logik ist er einer der wenigen, bei dem man sich traut, während
der Vorlesung eine Frage zu stellen, ohne angeschnautzt zu
werden (Zitat eines anderen Dozenten: 'Fantasieren sie?!?').
Ich hoffe für die nachfolgenden Studentengenerationen, dass er noch
viele Vorlesungen halten wird!
[Instructor's note: I have to admit that this comment left me
puzzled. What kind of arrogant behaviour is typical for
mathematicians?]
-
Well done! Nice lecture. Perhaps you can even do better, if you
present more proofs at the blackboard and not on the slides.
Course
Required course material is sufficiently covered in lecture
|
Ø = 1.64
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
5
|
5
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Textbooks/lecture notes are useful
|
Ø = 1.45
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
6
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Difficulty of the course
|
Ø = 3.36
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
level too low
|
0
|
1
|
5
|
5
|
0
|
level too high
|
|
0
|
Workload relative to comparable courses.
|
Ø = 3.25
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
level too low
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
2
|
0
|
level too high
|
|
3
|
The level of previous knowledge required for the course is ...
|
Ø = 3.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
too low
|
0
|
0
|
9
|
0
|
0
|
too high
|
|
2
|
What topics should have been dealt with in greater detail?
-
More examples.
-
Applications of reasoning systems.
-
Implementation; design aspects.
-
Point out more real life applications. Where comes (will hopefully
come) the stuff that we have learned into practice?
What topics should have been dealt with in less detail?
-
Leave out some schematic induction proofs.
-
Proofs.
Any further comments or suggestions about the course?
-
Much more time should have been spent on the superposition calculus
(and KB co.) in order to provide intuition. Fortunately, a lot of
examples were given during the course for various topics.
Unfortunately, not for the superposition calculus.
[Instructor's note: You are right.
I would have given more examples
for completion and superposition, but I was running
out of time. Sorry.]
Assignments and exams
Gives interesting and stimulating assignments.
|
Ø = 2.10
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
2
|
5
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
1
|
Assignments match course matter
|
Ø = 1.60
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
4
|
6
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
1
|
Form of oral tutorials (at the blackboard etc.) is helpful
|
Ø = 1.70
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
6
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
1
|
Exams permit students to show their understanding
|
Ø = 1.45
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
6
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
The grading system is clearly defined
|
Ø = 1.18
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
9
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
The grading system is equitable
|
Ø = 1.36
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
7
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Special comments or suggestions about this?
-
Aufgaben sind so, wie sie sein sollten: Abwechslungsreich, teils
leicht zu Motivation des Studenten, teils herausfordernd und
intessant; Die Korrektur ist durchweg fair, Schreibfehler werden
weniger geahndet als wirkliche Denkfehler, Notation spielt eine
untergeordnete Rolle. Weiter so!
-
Great exercise groups! Most motivated tutor I ever had.
Teaching assistant
Name of your teaching assistant:
| 4 | | Viorica Sofronie-Stokkermans |
| 4 | | Georgiana Ifrim |
| 3 | | Ružica Piskač |
Helpful in understanding material.
|
Ø = 1.45
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
8
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Is well prepared.
|
Ø = 1.27
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
9
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Communicates ideas effectively.
|
Ø = 1.70
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
6
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
1
|
Appears to have a good knowledge of the subject matter.
|
Ø = 1.36
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
8
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Answers questions accurately.
|
Ø = 1.36
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
8
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Encourages questions and/or classroom discussion.
|
Ø = 1.55
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
8
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Notices if students have difficulties.
|
Ø = 1.55
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
6
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Rate overall teaching effectiveness of the teaching assistant:
|
Ø = 1.27
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very good
|
9
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
very bad
|
|
0
|
Special comments or suggestions about the teaching assistant:
-
[Georgiana Ifrim] Don't ask whether students have questions (they are often ashamed to
ask ;-) Ask interesting questions about the exercise, so that you can
see whether the students understood the things you have explained.
-
[Ružica Piskač] Great exercise groups! Most motivated tutor I ever had.
-
[Ružica Piskač] Ruzica is the best teaching assistant ever: well prepared,
enthusiastic, brilliant and caring about her students :)
-
[Viorica Sofronie-Stokkermans] The tutorial group held through Viorica Sofronie-Stokkermans was very
helpful. She clearly explained the details of the exercises.
Any further comments or suggestions
The following should be done again:
I would change the following:
-
Spend less time on proofs.
About this survey
What kind of survey do you prefer?
| 0 | | Surveys with questionnaires on paper |
| 11 | | Electronic surveys (like this one) |
| 0 | | -/- |
[Instructor's note:
Electronic surveys have certain advantages compared to
paper questionnaires (more anonymity, more time to give
detailed comments, etc.), but the disappointingly low
response rate of electronic surveys remains
a clear disadvantage.
Out of more than 50 participants of this lecture,
only 19 picked up a password sheet for the evaluation, and
out of those 19 students, only 11 filled in the evaluation
form.]
How could we improve this survey?
|