FUI's course evaluation

IN5320 - Development in Platform Ecosystems

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:

Respondents’ overall impression of the course is clearly positive, with most rating it from Quite good to Very good and only a single more critical response. The difficulty level is mainly seen as Appropriate, though some find the course demanding. The overall workload and the breadth of topics are largely perceived as Large but still within an acceptable range. Lectures are used by most students and are generally rated as Very good, and other teaching activities (such as group tuition and online resources) are evaluated from Somewhat good to Very good. Ongoing assessments are mostly considered Appropriate in difficulty and workload, and from Somewhat important to Very important for learning. The final, graded assessment is seen as having a High to Appropriate difficulty level, and the availability of teachers is experienced as from Medium to Very good.

Respondents highlight that the course is highly educational, relevant and well designed, with a strong combination of theory and practice. The content is described as useful both theoretically and practically, and many appreciate the mix of front‑end development, working on a concrete platform and group work. The practical coding and project work, supported by an online front‑end course, are perceived as engaging and motivating, and several emphasise the overall learning outcome. Some describe the course as one of their favourite subjects so far.

Innholdet i faget. Hyggelige og flinke forelesere. Kompetansen man får etter å ta faget er svært nyttig og verdifull – både teoretisk og praktisk.

Students also value the breadth and coherence of the course, covering technologies and methods alongside platform knowledge and design‑oriented perspectives. They note that the course manages to bring together many elements in a meaningful way, and that the teaching staff appear skilled, motivating and supportive.

Dette er et fag som spenner over svært mye på en gang […] Selv om dette er mye synes jeg faget lykkes med å forene alt dette i en god pakke.

At the same time, several clear challenges and improvement points emerge. Many experience the workload as high and would prefer the project to start earlier in the semester, so that theory and practice can be linked mer iterativt, with more focus on the project. A recurring critical theme is dissatisfaction with how groups are formed for the project. Randomly assigned groups, uneven effort and different ambition levels are described as problematic and, in some cases, as having a direct negative impact on both the work process and the grade. Some students also find it demanding to design for users they cannot meet, and request more support in navigating the platform APIs so that more time can be dedicated to engaging with the syllabus and conducting user studies. There is also criticism of the balance between individual and group assessment, with some arguing that the individual exam should carry more weight to reduce the impact of uneven group contributions.

The most important thing that this course can improve on is as mentioned the selection of groups for the students when working on the coding project. This is because the students in a group do not always put in the same amount of effort.

Among concrete suggestions, students propose starting the project earlier and giving it an even more central role, using group teaching and other support activities more actively to guide students through the platform APIs, and making group formation more systematic, for example based on ambition level, expected workload and study situation. It is also suggested that the weighting between individual and group assessment be adjusted, for instance by increasing the share of the individual exam or reducing the group component, in order to better reflect individual effort and competence. Despite these challenges, several students underline that they are very satisfied with the course and the overall teaching design.

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.