FUI's course evaluation

IN5040 - Advanced Database Systems for Big Data

Assessment:

Choose a question to see data from the student assessment Choose a question to see data from the student assessment:
What is your general impression of the course? What do you think of the course's difficulty level? What do you think of the amount of work required in relation to the number of credits given? What do you think about the scope of topics that were covered in this course? How often did you participate in the lectures? What is your general impression of the quality of the lectures? How important was the teaching method or methods to your learning and understanding of the course curriculum? What is your general impression of the quality of the teaching method(s)? What do you think of the difficulty level of the assesments? How important were the assignments/assessments to your learning and understanding of the curriculum? What do you think of the amount of work involved with completing the assessment? What did you think of the difficulty level of the graded assessment? Throughout the course, how did you experience the availability of the course teachers and/or group teachers if you had questions or found something unclear? Show all Hide

Summary:

Students’ overall impression of the course is clearly positive, with respondents rating it from Somewhat good to Very good and most in the Quite good range. The difficulty level is generally seen as Appropriate, though a minority finds it Difficult. The workload relative to credits is mostly considered Appropriate, with few responses of both Large and Small, and the scope of topics is perceived as Appropriate. Most students attend lectures regularly and rate their quality from Somewhat good to Very good. Teaching is described as Important for understanding the curriculum. Mandatory assignments are viewed as Appropriate in difficulty and Important for learning, though the time required can be substantial. The graded oral assessment is experienced as High to Appropriate in difficulty, with the format itself working well but the practical organisation seen as demanding. Teacher availability is experienced as from Neither good nor bad to Quite good.

Students particularly appreciate the relevance and timeliness of the content and the commitment of the lecturers. The data stream processing assignment is repeatedly mentioned as especially valuable, both engaging and effective for deep learning. Students note that this combination of several lectures plus a large, mixed theoretical–practical assignment provided a very solid understanding of that part of the curriculum.

Interesting first assignment with stream processing, enjoyed that one. The second assignment was great to have, as it forced us to spend a lot of time understanding the curriculum earlier in the semester.

The main challenges concern workload distribution, lack of continuous practice and some aspects of communication and assessment design. Several respondents find the reading load heavy and not always easily digestible and experience that topics other than data stream processing are treated more superficially, with limited hands‑on experience. A recurring theme is the wish for weekly or more frequent exercises, preferably both theoretical and programming, to spread the effort and support understanding throughout the semester.

The mandatory assignments were not too large by themselves, but there is a limited amount of optional coursework to prepare you for the assignments. This meant the assignments took a lot of time as you had to learn everything for the first time while doing the assignments. Weekly exercises would be a major improvement.

Students also point out that slides can be sparse and hard to use independently when lectures are not recorded, and that lectures at times feel dense and fast‑paced. For the graded assessment, the oral exam is described as a good learning and evaluation experience, but the logistics are considered inefficient; suggested improvements include fixed time slots or switching to a written exam. Further suggestions include more focus on modern topics such as cloud computing, more programming tasks covering a broader set of topics, clearer digital communication on where to find course materials and making slides more self‑contained.

Very enthusiastic lecturers, but the amount of reading material is too big.

About the course evaluation

The course evaluation is done by students in FUI (Fagutvalget ved Institutt for informatikk), and is based on questionnaires made at the end of each semester.