| Computer Science / Bachelor |
|
| Computer Science / Master |
|
| Ø : 6.33 | |
| 3 |
11% (1 / 9)
|
| 5 |
22% (2 / 9)
|
| 6 |
11% (1 / 9)
|
| 7 |
33% (3 / 9)
|
| 8 |
11% (1 / 9)
|
| 9 |
11% (1 / 9)
|
| Ø : 1.67 | |
| 1 |
33% (3 / 9)
|
| 2 |
67% (6 / 9)
|
| Ø : 1.44 | |
| 1 |
56% (5 / 9)
|
| 2 |
44% (4 / 9)
|
| weekly course |
|
| Ø : 7.89 | |
| 5 |
22% (2 / 9)
|
| 6 |
22% (2 / 9)
|
| 8 |
11% (1 / 9)
|
| 10 |
33% (3 / 9)
|
| 11 |
11% (1 / 9)
|
| never |
|
| seldom |
|
| sometimes |
|
| regularly |
|
| - papers on related/similar topics - books on the topics 'programming languages' and 'functional programming' - the WWW | |
| Internet resources | |
| Mostly articles cited in the articles we had a look at | |
| Wikipedia | |
| internet |
| other |
|
| Course is _very_ time consuming therefore there is often not enough time to spend on cited articles, testing out implementation ideas, ... | |
| I find time to read the papers only at the weekends, when it's already too late for questions. There is no obvious solution to this problem. |
| No |
|
| Instructor |
|
| Other Participants / Students |
|
| Nobody |
|
| Ø : 1.33 | |
| 1 |
67% (6 / 9)
|
| 2 |
33% (3 / 9)
|
| Ø : 1.56 | |
| 1 |
44% (4 / 9)
|
| 2 |
56% (5 / 9)
|
| Ø : 1.33 | |
| 1 |
78% (7 / 9)
|
| 2 |
11% (1 / 9)
|
| 3 |
11% (1 / 9)
|
| Ø : 1.29 | |
| 1 |
71% (5 / 7)
|
| 2 |
29% (2 / 7)
|
| Ø : 1.22 | |
| 1 |
78% (7 / 9)
|
| 2 |
22% (2 / 9)
|
| Ø : 1.33 | |
| 1 |
67% (6 / 9)
|
| 2 |
33% (3 / 9)
|
| Ø : 1.78 | |
| 1 |
44% (4 / 9)
|
| 2 |
33% (3 / 9)
|
| 3 |
22% (2 / 9)
|
| Ø : 1.22 | |
| 1 |
78% (7 / 9)
|
| 2 |
22% (2 / 9)
|
| One thing I particularly like is that the instructors took care not to overload us with too much work, by asking us how much time we did spend on the assignments and by adapting the course to the given feedback. By demanding a bit less, the seminar achieves more, unlike some courses that only manage to exhaust the participants, so that sooner or later they can no more learn or work. | |
| Really wants the students to participate and gain something from this course. Commendable. | |
| The interaction with other students was higher in the beginning. We are free (or supposed) to discuss the paper in advance with fellow students. However, as the assignments (summaries) themselves have to be done individually, more and more students do not discuss the paper beforehand, even if we all experienced that a paper is easier and deeper understood when looked at it together. If the instructors want to put more emphasis on that, maybe some assignment in pairs/groups would improve the interaction outside class. However: In class, the interaction is very vivid as we get little assignments that we have to work through in groups during the course. |
| Ø : 1.75 | |
| 1 |
38% (3 / 8)
|
| 2 |
50% (4 / 8)
|
| 3 |
13% (1 / 8)
|
| Ø : 1.67 | |
| 1 |
33% (3 / 9)
|
| 2 |
67% (6 / 9)
|
| Ø : 2.22 | |
| 2 |
78% (7 / 9)
|
| 3 |
22% (2 / 9)
|
| Ø : 1.67 | |
| 1 |
33% (3 / 9)
|
| 2 |
67% (6 / 9)
|
| Ø : 2.44 | |
| 2 |
56% (5 / 9)
|
| 3 |
44% (4 / 9)
|
| Continuations | |
| The prerequisites are fairly high but not outrageous. However, it would not harm to cover some advanced topics in programming in advance, at the beginning of the course or on the fly in order to ensure that everyone has a certain level of background. |
| Types |
| Reading all these papers is really interesting, but it also is quite a lot of work. | |
| The topics are actually quite interesting and the occupation with them rewarding. |
| Ø : 1.62 | |
| 1 |
50% (4 / 8)
|
| 2 |
38% (3 / 8)
|
| 3 |
13% (1 / 8)
|
| Ø : 1.89 | |
| 1 |
33% (3 / 9)
|
| 2 |
44% (4 / 9)
|
| 3 |
22% (2 / 9)
|
| Ø : 2.00 | |
| 1 |
13% (1 / 8)
|
| 2 |
75% (6 / 8)
|
| 3 |
13% (1 / 8)
|
| I think that the grades from the first one or two summaries should not be included in the result, as people didn't really know how the summary should look like. | |
| The grading of the summaries does not always correspond my personal expectation. Some summaries got better grades than I expected, some got worse. | |
| The instructors very carefully read the handed-in assignments and provide many (helpful) comments that are constructive: commendation for well-managed tasks, suggestions for improvement where the student's solution lacks something. The grading so far (--,-,0,+,++) for the summaries seems to be demanding but fair and consistent. It provokes to become better and better with every assignment. |
| Having the students comment each other's summaries. Not only the feedback I got for my summary, but also the experience of reading other people' summaries helped me realize some of my improvable weak points. | |
| This seminar is really a seminar. The setting is very different from other seminars I've attended so far. Instead of each student once presenting one paper where noone in the end remembers what someone else talked about, everyone has to work through each paper every week. This ensures that everyone is on about the same level. Thus, very interesting and vivid discussions develop in class. Furthermore, solving class exercises is - while demanding - very productive. Apart from the advanced techniques in functional programming, we additionally learn how to read research papers, how to criticise them, and how to identify the research questions, contributions as well as to uncover the most important bits. The instructors are very competent in the topic as well as in the above listed challenges. Due to the format (group-exercises in class) students are even forced to show their social skills and automatically improve those (if necessary). Executive summary: very demanding but interesting seminar that requires high commitment. Stick to the format (and maybe even propose it to other seminars and their instructors)! |
| A course that stands out from the crowd so significantly and pleasing is very hard to criticise. However, it sometimes would've been nice if some necessary background to understand a paper for a homework assignment was covered in class. For example, the instructors could talk about the next assignment's paper and it's (motivating) background at the end of class for 2 or 3 minutes. | |
| If the papers are handed out and the summaries are submitted on Fridays, then the participants will have time both to read the papers at the weekend and to ask questions during the week. |
| web form |
|