SUMMARY OF THE LECTURE EVALUATION
Automated Deduction for Equational Logic, SS 2003
(Uwe 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:
| 1 | | Computer Science (Bachelor) |
| 1 | | Computer Science (Master) |
| 1 | | Mathematics |
Your number of semesters (including semesters at other universities than the UdS):
Ø = 9.33 semesters
| 1 | | 6 semesters |
| 1 | | 10 semesters |
| 1 | | 12 semesters |
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 = 1.67
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
most effective
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
least effective
|
|
0
|
Focusing now on the course content, how worthwhile was this course?
|
Ø = 2.33
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very worthwhile
|
0
|
2
|
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 = 6.67 hours
| 1 | | 3 hours |
| 1 | | 5 hours |
| 1 | | 12 hours |
Did you use books and/or other literature to follow the lecture?
| 2 | | never |
| 0 | | seldom |
| 0 | | sometimes |
| 1 | | regularly |
| 0 | | -/- |
Which books and/or what literature did you use?
-
Baader and Nipkow: Term Rewriting and All That
-
Script only
Were there any difficulties/problems?
| 3 | | no |
| 0 | | insufficient books at the library |
| 0 | | availability of computers |
| 0 | | other |
| 0 | | -/- |
If you selected other, what kind of problems did you have?
In case of problems/difficulties: Did you inform the instructor instantly?
Classroom Presentation
The instructor...
Gives lectures that are well organized.
|
Ø = 1.33
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Is enthusiastic about the subject matter.
|
Ø = 1.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Clearly communicates what he/she considers important.
|
Ø = 1.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Has an interesting style of presentation.
|
Ø = 1.67
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Uses visual aids and blackboards effectively.
|
Ø = 1.33
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Any comments or suggestions about this?
- Slides might be concatenated to produce a script that is more
clearly arranged. (I dislike not having an overview over a chapter
at first glance :-)
Interaction with students
The instructor...
Encourages questions from students.
|
Ø = 2.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Is careful and precise in answering questions.
|
Ø = 1.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Is accessible to students outside of class
|
Ø = 1.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Is friendly and helpful to students during breaks, office hours, etc.
|
Ø = 1.33
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
In case that you do not understand something while working at home or with other students, whom would you ask?
| 1 | | nobody |
| 1 | | teaching assistant |
| 1 | | instructor |
| 0 | | -/- |
Special comments or suggestions about this?
Course
Required course material is sufficiently covered in lecture
|
Ø = 1.67
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Textbooks/lecture notes are useful
|
Ø = 1.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Difficulty of the course
|
Ø = 3.33
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
level too low
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
level too high
|
|
0
|
Workload relative to comparable courses.
|
Ø = 3.50
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
level too low
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
level too high
|
|
1
|
The level of previous knowledge required for the course is ...
|
Ø = 2.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
too low
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
too high
|
|
0
|
What topics should have been dealt with in greater detail?
-
If working on unification, higher order unification would have been
interesting. But I do not know whether one can cover this within such a
lecture.
What topics should have been dealt with in less detail?
-
Topics like resolution, skolemization or the Knuth-Bendix algorithm
are already covered in basic lectures.
Any further comments or suggestions about the course?
Assignments and exams
Gives interesting and stimulating assignments.
|
Ø = 1.33
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Assignments match course matter
|
Ø = 1.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Form of oral tutorials (at the blackboard etc.) is helpful
|
Ø = 1.67
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Exams permit students to show their understanding
|
Ø = 1.33
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
The grading system is clearly defined
|
Ø = 1.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
The grading system is equitable
|
Ø = 1.67
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Special comments or suggestions about this?
-
Weighting the exams this extremely makes the first exam lose its
meaning. One could have skipped this or changed the rating to 1:2 or so.
Teaching assistant
Name of your teaching assistant:
Helpful in understanding material.
|
Ø = 2.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Is well prepared.
|
Ø = 1.33
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Communicates ideas effectively.
|
Ø = 1.33
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Appears to have a good knowledge of the subject matter.
|
Ø = 1.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Answers questions accurately.
|
Ø = 1.33
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Encourages questions and/or classroom discussion.
|
Ø = 1.67
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Notices if students have difficulties.
|
Ø = 2.67
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very descriptive
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
not at all descriptive
|
|
0
|
Rate overall teaching effectiveness of the teaching assistant:
|
Ø = 2.00
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
-/-
|
|
very good
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
very bad
|
|
0
|
Special comments or suggestions about the teaching assistant:
-
It's a pity he had so small an audience.
Any further comments or suggestions
The following should be done again:
I would change the following:
-
I still believe in compulsory exercises. You simply work much harder
if you are forced to.
About this survey
What kind of survey do you prefer?
| 0 | | Surveys with questionnaires on paper |
| 3 | | Electronic surveys (like this one) |
| 0 | | -/- |
How could we improve this survey?
|