PUBLISHED COURSE ANALYSIS - Published Course Analysis - 2021-12-07 - Course Evaluation Summary

Sep 12, 2026

Published course analysis completed by the course convener for Karlstad University, documenting course metadata, study pace, semester timing, and study form (campus). It synthesizes feedback from 19 answered questionnaires and 52 first registrations, linking comments to project work, communication, and sprint execution. The analysis highlights teaching delivery via Canvas, attendance concerns, limited question interaction, diverse student readiness, and challenges in learning diaries, English proficiency, and template adherence.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryPresentations

FormatPDF

Pages4

Reading Time2 min

AccessFree to download

PUBLISHED COURSE ANALYSIS

Course details and identifiers

Evaluation method and questionnaire results

Teaching approach and Canvas communication

Student participation, attendance, and challenges

Learning diaries, feedback, and English/template issues

PUBLISHED COURSE ANALYSIS Publishing date: 2021-12-07 A course analysis has been carried out and published by the course convener. The Karlstad University evaluation tool is owned by the Professional Development Unit and is managed by the systems group for educational administration. Software Engineering, 7.5 ECTS cr. (DVGC22) Course convener: Muhammad Ovais Ahmad Basic LADOK data Course Code: DVGC22 Application Code: 37612 Semester: HT-21 Start Week: 202135 End Week: 202144 Pace of Study: 50% Form of Study: Campus Course Data Number of questionnaires answered: 19 Number of first registrations[1]: 52 Changes suggested in the course analysis of the previous course date: -- Analysis based on course evaluation, including comments fields. If information has been collected in other ways, it should also be analysed here. Any effect of joint courses should be commented on. I would take most of these students comments under the umbrella of project work and communication in the course. The project was executed more chaotically on purpose; especially the first sprint. This enables a student to work with non-technical customers and learn to negotiate with various project stakeholders. The teacher attended the customer meetings and motivate students to negotiate-Do not say "Yes " blindly to every customer request. However, based on the students ' feedback, this looks very hard to comprehend and experiment with. All the course information were presented in the first lecture and highlighted that Canvas is the medium of communication and storage of all materials. No need for searching for other places on the intranet. The teacher offers open hours for questions via Zoom and on-campus whenever allowed by KaU. Following the course canvas guidelines will be enough to avoid confusion. We didn 't make any bigger changes in the lectures or structure of the course from previous years. So claiming that something is missing from last year is very strange. If one student has this claim , we can link it to lack of attendance in lectures and no discussion afterwards on topics. The attendance in most of the lectures was below 50% except for the first lecture. Maybe we should make it mandatory, or on-campus students see the value of it with active participation. We constantly reminded students to watch lectures and read the recommended book to clarify the concepts and approach teachers whenever needed. We provided all lectures live and were recorded which are available in canvas. This is unfortunate that we didn 't receive questions during the lectures despite staying longer time after each session. This year we have a very diverse group of students. Some of them doesn 't even have the pre-requisites and coming to attend the course. We counted 15 students who hardly pass the course. We accept that teacher didn 't teach students how to write a basic code, basic database and so on. The main reason is that basic technical skills are expected in the course. Some of the students came to with almost zero understanding of basic programming, for instance, for some it was hard to differentiate between a "class " and "function ", customer wishes and project requirements. we provided a few recorded technical lectures to start the project prepared by Jonathan. If we check the Canvas statistics, there were very limited clicks on these lectures. Strangely some students came with their computer problems before every sprint/demo meeting. A few requested laptops/computers because their machines are not working properly (strange and unusual requests) . The student should have a computer or use the university computer labs. Yes, we didn 't provide individual feedback on learning diaries because it was their reflection on learning. The idea behind a learning diary is to get an understanding of student learning progress and assist accordingly. The questions don 't need a detailed explanation because they are self-explanatory.

FAQs

What course and study details are recorded in the analysis?

The document lists course identifiers such as Course Code (DVGC22) and Application Code (37612), semester HT-21, study form (campus), and the pace of study (50%). It also specifies start and end weeks (202135–202144) and the ECTS credits (7.5).

How was course feedback collected and used?

The analysis is based on course evaluation data, including comments fields and questionnaire responses, where 19 questionnaires were answered and there were 52 first registrations. Teacher and student comments are incorporated into the conclusions about project work, communication, and learning support.

What key issues are identified regarding student participation and learning support?

Attendance in most lectures is reported below 50% except the first lecture, with limited questions during sessions. The document also notes gaps in students’ basic technical prerequisites, very poor English skills for some learners, limited engagement with technical recorded lectures, and low adherence to provided templates.

Sep 12, 2026

Upload by River Wang