|
Size: 2986
Comment:
|
Size: 3219
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 17: | Line 17: |
| This year, the number of points in the exercises were again critical for participation in the exam (50% of the points were required). Last year, everyone was admitted to the exam, regardless of the number of points in the exercises. Participation in the evaluation was XX% this year (TODO: up date when number of exam registrations is final) vs. 71% last year. In previous year, where also 50% of the points from the exercises were required for exam admission, participation was also over 90%. |
20 points were awarded, which would be used to replace the points of the worst exercise sheet (there were 13 exercise sheets overall, for each of which a maximum of 20 points could be achieved). This year, again 50% out of the maximum number of points from the exercise sheets (that is, 130 out of 260 points) were required to be admitted to the exam. Last year, everyone was admitted to the exam, regardless of the number of points achieved in the exercises. Participation in the evaluation was XX% this year (TODO: update when number of exam registrations is final) vs. 71% last year. In previous years, where also 50% of the points from the exercise sheets was required for exam admission, participation was also over 90%. |
Official evaluation of the course "Information Retrieval, WS 2016/2017"
Lecturer: Prof. Dr. Hannah Bast; Assistant: Patrick Brosi; Tutors: Björn Buchhold, Claudius Korzen, Raghu Rajan, Natalie Prange, Johanna Götz, Axel Lehmann. Number of participants in the evaluation: 73. Number of registrations for the exam: 72 (as of 30-01-2017).
The evaluation was web-based and run via the University's central evaluation system EvaSys. A mail with a personalized link to the online evaluation form was sent by the system on Monday, January 16. A reminder was sent on Wednesday, January 25. The evaluation was closed on the evening of Sunday, January 29. Due to a bug during the HISinOne export of the e-mail addresses, at first only participants with "Teilnahme akzeptiert" were sent an e-mail, while participants with "Belegwunsch akzeptiert" were ignored at first. Luckily, the bug was fixed just in time (on January 26) such that eventually all participants received an e-mail with their personalized link. Participation was anonymous.
The evaluation was also announced to the participants of the course in Lecture 12, slide 5. Participation was also asked for as part of Exercise Sheet 12. 20 points were awarded, which would be used to replace the points of the worst exercise sheet (there were 13 exercise sheets overall, for each of which a maximum of 20 points could be achieved). This year, again 50% out of the maximum number of points from the exercise sheets (that is, 130 out of 260 points) were required to be admitted to the exam. Last year, everyone was admitted to the exam, regardless of the number of points achieved in the exercises. Participation in the evaluation was XX% this year (TODO: update when number of exam registrations is final) vs. 71% last year. In previous years, where also 50% of the points from the exercise sheets was required for exam admission, participation was also over 90%.
In the following, all comments given in the free-text fields of the evaluation are provided (in the order in which they appear in the EvaSys report). The comments were copied verbatim, except for a few corrections (wrt orthography, grammar, etc. ... no change of meaning). If you see a comment from yourself which you do not want to appear in this list or if you find a comment that you think was inaccurately transcribed, send an (anonymous, if you prefer) email to Hannah Bast.
A statistic of the quantitative questions can be found in the automatically generated EvaSys report (PDF).