Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Humboldt University Berlin, University of Novi Sad, University of Plovdiv, University of Skopje, University of Belgrade, University of Niš, University.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Humboldt University Berlin, University of Novi Sad, University of Plovdiv, University of Skopje, University of Belgrade, University of Niš, University."— Presentation transcript:

1 Humboldt University Berlin, University of Novi Sad, University of Plovdiv, University of Skopje, University of Belgrade, University of Niš, University of Kragujevac Version: Oct. 23, 2003 (D Sep. 22, 2003) DAAD Project “Joint Course on Software Engineering” Project management course - Experience from the first year Mirjana Ivanović, Zoran Putnik, University of Novi Sad

2 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 2 Course Organization  IV year students of Business Informatics, 14 students  VIII semester, 2 hrs lecture, 1 hr exercises  Exam and final mark: Practical assignment in MS Project Questionnaire of 20 different kinds of questions (multiple-choice, short answers, …) 4 Thematic questions (detailed description and explanation expected)

3 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 3 Content of Course Lectures  Introduction (117 slides)  IT management (59 +132)  CMM and process improvement (51)  Cost estimation and COCOMO (71)  Software measurement and metrics (51)  Planning (43+36)  Using tools - Microsoft project (65, Exercise)  Ethical issues (87)

4 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 4 Organization of Exercises  Haven’t start at the beginning of the semester (a month later). Why? We were promised a complete free version of CA PM software (CA, Budapest) Mentioned software is complete, high-quality, “project management software system”  Having no information about CA software, we switched to MS Project. It was first presented theoretically at a 3-hour class On another 3-hour class, it is presented “practically” (using representative examples) After that, students had 4 hours of practical work, to gain experience with MS Project  Finally, students were given a software project that they have to manage using MS Project, in a classroom, or at home  This project served as written part of the exam

5 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 5 Final Exam Results  Of 14 students, 12 successfully finished their practical assignment.  Marks: 7 – once 8 – eight times 9 – three times  Of 12 students eligible for oral part of exam, 11 attended examination, each one passing both tests, marks 6 – 10.  Each of 11 students accepted offered final mark.

6 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 6 Students Opinion – Questionnaire  Effort:  Attendance 5 - 100% 1 - 20%  Postprocessing [lectures] Hours  Postprocessing [assignments] Hours  Contents:  Amount of knowledge 5 - Too much 1- Too few  Contents 5 - Too easy 1 - Too difficult  Course well structured 5 - Very well 1 - Unstructured

7 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 7 Students Opinion – Questionnaire  Needed pre-knowledge?:  SE + English.  Experience.  Not too much - just basics of everything  Which topics in Serbian?:  Lectures in Serbian slides in English  All  None

8 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 8 Students Opinion – Questionnaire  Style of the lectures:  Lecturer familiar 5 -Very well 1 -Not so much  Lectures well prepared 5 -Very well 1 -Not so much  Lecturer engaged 5 -Very well 1 -Not so much  Willingness to answer students' questions 5 -Very well 1 -Not so much  Presentation 5 -Too fast 1 -Too slow  Presentation style encourage to follow the lecture 5 -Very well 1 -Not so much  Remarks

9 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 9 Students Opinion – Questionnaire  Using media  Amount of info on 5 - Very well 1 - Not so much slides adequate  Slides well structured 5 - Very well 1 - Not so much and clearly organized  Remarks

10 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 10 Students Opinion – Questionnaire  Benefit of the course:  New things learned 5 – Much 1 -Not so much  Contents useful 5 –Completely 1 -Not so much  Overall rank of the course 5 - Very well 1 - Bad  Remarks  Assignments:  Difficulty 5 -Too high1 -Too low  Motivating 5 -Very much1 -Not so much  General remarks

11 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 11 Students Opinion – Questionnaire Results  Effort:  Attendance 5 - 100% 1 - 20%  Postprocessing [lectures] Hours  Postprocessing [assignments] Hours Students attended 50% of the lectures on the average, and it took them ½ hour post-processing time for lecture and 2 hours for the assignment.

12 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 12 Students Opinion – Questionnaire Results  Contents:  Amount of knowledge 5 - Too much 1- Too few  Contents 5 - Too easy 1 - Too difficult  Course well structured 5 - Very well 1 – Unstructured Students assessed that they received “perfect amount” of knowledge, “almost perfect” content, but the structure of the course was just “average”.

13 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 13 Students Opinion – Questionnaire Results  Needed pre-knowledge?:  SE + English (5x)  Experience.  Not too much - just basics of everything Needed pre-knowledge was assessed usually as “nothing”, “a little bit of everything”, “experience”, and with 40% of students as “Software Engineering + English language”

14 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 14 Students Opinion – Questionnaire Results  Which topics in Serbian?:  Lectures in Serbian slides in English  All  None Even more – 75% of students said that they would prefer ALL of the lectures in Serbian.

15 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 15 Students Opinion – Questionnaire Results Considering the style of the lecture, marks were (ranging from 5 – very well, to 1 – not so much): Lecturer familiar with lessons4.00(3.77) Lecturer well prepared3.50(3.36) Lecturer engaged3.64(3.54) Willing to answer questions4.92(4.93) Speed of presentation3.33(3.21) Style encouraging2.92(2.64) Marks given in brackets are average marks, including 2 students with a veeeery looow attendance rate. Yet – those 2 students gave only written comments: “…lectures were easier to follow while given on a blackboard” and “monotonous and difficult to follow. Need for translations required too many stops.”

16 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 16 Students Opinion – Questionnaire Results  Usage of slides as media received average marks “amount of info adequate” = 3.14 “slides well structured and clearly organized” = 3.29  So did the assignments “difficulty to solve” = 2.36 (5 – too difficult, 1 – to easy) “motivating” = 3.14 (5 – very much, 1 – not so much) The only written comment was that “there was too much text, and important things were not stressed visibly enough”

17 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 17 Students Opinion – Questionnaire Results  Considering the overall comments of the course, they were usually of the following type: “Everything OK. Everything according to curriculum. Good and useful. Very useful” but also: “Pure theory, not connected to real life. Lack of practical lessons evident. Not connected to students’ experiences (?)”  Average marks 5 = Very well 1 = Bad New things learned3.25(3.07) Contents useful3.75(3.57) Overall rank3.83(3.57)

18 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 18 Lecturer’s Opinion Positive  Good and representative material (topics) selected and prepared  Prepared slides, Acceptable quality  Acceptable level of familiarity Negative  A lot of different sources – overlapping parts of different units, further (maybe better) topic selection and refinement is needed  Static structure of slides, too much text, important things could be better emphasized  More assignments are needed, deeper involvement of students

19 DAAD project „Joint Course on Software Engineering“ © 19 Conclusion  Prepared presentations for most important topics in SPM domain  Further improvement is (needed) expected  Questionnaire results are satisfied (even extremely positive, for the first time)  Better and more student-oriented organization of practical work and exercises (work in real environment)  More assignments


Download ppt "Humboldt University Berlin, University of Novi Sad, University of Plovdiv, University of Skopje, University of Belgrade, University of Niš, University."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google