Please answer in the form indicated. You can leave out answers if you wish. You can always provide additional feedback if you wish, either on this form or by contacting the lecturer.

Questions taken and adapted from course evaluation forms at the Computer Science department of Saarland University/Germany.

• Overall impression
  • Considering both the limitations and possibilities of the subject matter and course, how would you rate the overall teaching effectiveness of the instructor?
    (1 - very bad, 5 - very effective): 4.25 ± 0.3
  • Focusing now on the course content, how worthwhile was this course?
    (1 - not at all, 5 - very worthwhile): 4 ± 0.6
  • Are you interested in doing a thesis (master, PhD) or find a job related to the topics covered in the course?
    (1 - not at all, 5 - definitively): 2.3 ± 1.9
  • How was the pace of the course?
    (1 - too slow, 3 - about right, 5 - too fast): 3.05 ± 0.15
  • Did you have any language problems in the French lectures?
    (1 - I couldn't understand a word, 5 - understanding was good): 4.7 ± 0.53
  • Were there any difficulties/problems?
    multiples syntaxes involved, but it's OK as long as students are not required to know them completely
  • If the course is ever given again, the following should be done again
    keep the structure and the didactic development
    Information Extraction
    the way it is given: presentation + short hands-on sessions
    the whole lesson
    yes
    exercises for better understanding
    the exercises
  • If the course is ever given again, I would change the following
    maybe reduce the number of slides and make it shorter (1/3 to 1/4)
    talk about schema.org
    provide a compressed version of slides for revising
    more exercises (even if they were good)
    do more exercises
    this evaluation form is too long
• About the presentation
  • Were the slides clear?
    (1 - not at all, 5 - very clear): 4.1 ± 1.0
  • Were the slides useful for reviewing the course content after class?
    (1 - not at all, 5 - very useful; simply don't answer if you did not use them after class): 4.1 ± 1.1
  • The lecturer gives lectures that are well organized.
    (1 - not at all, 5 - very well organized): 4.4 ± 0.35
  • The lecturer is well prepared.
    (1 - not at all, 5 - very well): 4.75± 0.19
  • The lecturer is enthusiastic about the subject matter.
    (1 - not at all, 5 - very enthusiastic): 4.8± 0.16
  • The lecturer notices if students have difficulties.
    (1 - not at all, 5 - notices immediately): 3.95± 0.89
  • The lecturer clearly communicates what he/she considers important.
    (1 - not at all, 5 - very clear): 4.25± 0.82
  • The lecturer has an interesting style of presentation.
    (1 - not at all, 5 - very interesting): 4.5± 0.46
  • The lecturer uses visual aids, blackboard and the Web effectively.
    (1 - not at all, 5 - very well): 4.1± 0.39
  • Any suggestions about this?
    maybe suppress a few rudundant examples
    little test after the class can help eveluate the level that the students learned
    I think some people don't ask if they have problems
    not repeat the phrases on different slides
    
• About the student interaction
  • The lecturer encourages questions from students.
    (1 - not at all, 5 - definitively): 4.0± 0.78
  • The lecturer is careful and precise in answering questions.
    (1 - not at all, 5 - definitively): 4.5± 0.37
  • The lecturer is accessible to students outside of class
    (1 - not at all, 5 - definitively): 4.2± 0.6
  • The lecturer is friendly and helpful to students during breaks, office hours, etc.
    (1 - not at all, 5 - definitively): 4.7± 0.23
  • In case that you do not understand something while working at home or with other students, whom would you ask?
    (mostly the Web and the lecturer)
  • Any suggestions about this?
• About the course
  • What was the difficulty of the course?
    (1 - too easy, 3 - about right, 5 - too difficult): 2.9 ± 0.32
  • What was workload relative to comparable courses?
    (1 - much less, 3 - about the same, 5 - much more): 2.8 ± 0.38
  • The level of previous knowledge required for the course is ...
    (1 - too few (I know more than was assumed), 3 - about right, 5 - too much (I felt left out)): 2.7 ± 0.87
  • What topics should have been dealt with in greater detail?
    Reasoning
    the basics
  • What topics should have been dealt with in less detail?
  • Any further comments or suggestions about the course?
    Industrial use of semantic web? why learning that stuff?
    It's very good
• About the assignments (TP on Information Extraction)
  • Assignments were useful for rehearsing the content of the lecture.
    (1 - not at all, 5 - definitively): 4.1± 0.64
  • What was the difficulty of the assignments?
    (1 - too easy, 3 - about right, 5 - too difficult): 3.2± 0.18
  • How much time did roughly you spent on the Information Extraction assignments? [They are meant for 1.5h]
    (in hours): 4.4± 5.4
  • Assignments were interesting and stimulating.
    (1 - not at all, 5 - definitively): 4.3± 0.68
  • Assignments match course matter
    (1 - not at all, 5 - definitively): 4.3± 0.47
  • Any suggestions about this?
    more time for the TP