0x010088F6312065A70A44B630A6848498EAD80093CFEAFE161DC94D83C7C5C9A5A748B8

Kept the course structure and the plan as of last year as we didn’t receive any complaints about it but updated the content. Last year we had two sessions via ZOOM, this year, we conducted all sessions physical.

The course is a master-level group project with bi-monthly seminar series. Seven bi-monthly seminars were conducted starting week 5 to week 19. We missed one seminar in between but the content was covered in the follow up seminar and the material was already available on the Bb. The students were to hand in the project reports in week 21, followed by an oral exam. (This time we received suggestions from reference group to conduct the seminars more frequently and as early in the course). In each seminar, a dedicated topic was presented, followed by discussions and group activities. The teaching and learning were planned in a non-conventional lecturing method, primarily as discussion and group activities. All sessions were physical, and the students were encouraged to participate, and different tasks and activities were planned. Blackboard rooms, in addition to MS teams’ channel, were created. Information was kept up to date on both platforms. All the slides, notes, material, tasks, and deadlines were formally announced on Blackboard and informally communicated on the Teams channel. The initial week-wise course plan was shared with the topic title before the first seminar. A bunch of new topics were proposed to the students and students this time were also encouraged to continue with the previous course projects to build upon. These topics were suggested by the domain experts. The domain experts also acted as the mentor for the groups that undertook that project. The student also had a choice to bring their own topic. The course had group activities that were not graded, but students were encouraged to hand in the tasks/reflection notes either within the seminar as a group activity or with a one-two weeks deadline via Blackboard. This time, the blackboard submissions were not enforced, since all sessions were physical, but students were informed that all these activities/tasks and reports will contribute to the course project report, which was evaluated. Additionally, there was an oral exam which was also graded. Attendance was not mandatory and encouraging students to participate was a challenge. The teaching material, research articles that the students had to go through, and other online material consisting of webpages links were provided beforehand. However, we faced some issues with Links to webpages on the blackboard at the end of the semester due un-known technical issues with the platform. The reference group was created with two students as representatives. Two group meetings were conducted. One in the middle of the course and one after the exam. Feedback was noted; however, the major concern was conducting the seminars early in the course rather than spreading throughout the semester couldn’t be addressed. Apart from reference group, I was directly supervising two groups, and took many informal feedbacks throughout the semester. Each student was also given 5 minutes during the oral exam to provide feedback on the course. All such feedback received was noted and is part of the attached documents.   All session were physical, and the course went as planned, except where we missed one session that was covered in the follow-up seminar. The students did however suggest starting the course early in the semester as for the past few years it starts end of Jan or first week of Feb. The course had three components with respect to the project: novelty, research, and integration. This time we were able to communicate better the expectations about the novelty and integration part to the students. However, students felt that all topics should be covered in first few weeks so students can then implement the project in one go rather than the incremental approach where they learn one aspect in bi-weekly seminar and implement it, then learn the other and implement. The material on the hand other were already available to the students at the start of the course. All the seminars and course material were prepared accordingly to teach students how to conduct development research having novelty aspects, and that could be integrated either into an existing system or as a standalone application. The content was updated from last year with new research articles and material; however, the course plan and structure were kept the same. It was in line with the learning outcomes listed on the course page. Despite being all sessions physical this year, motivating students to participate in the course/group activities was challenging. To encourage this, we didn’t record and upload any previous recordings, so students are encouraged to participate.  The course is offered as a first-year master-level course to students enrolled in the MACS program. The course emphasizes heavily applied research and development, integration, and novelty. The learning activities are therefore designed to help students undertake a research-oriented integration project where they can bring in some novelty. They learn various innovation and technology assessment tools. Apply software methodologies they’ve previously learned and develop architectures for systems for development. At the end of the course, the students are able to contribute to innovative thinking and innovative processes.

This year we didn’t have any guest/industry lecture and the students suggested to introduce this for the upcoming semester. Last year there was a suggestion to add innovation part in the course title, which was approved.

NTNU:TIA:REST

Institutt for datateknologi og informatikk

Department of Computer Science

Alle trykte og skrevne

Engelsk

Mer om vurdering

Anbefalte forkunnskaper

Forkunnskapskrav

Faglig innhold

Kursmateriell

Læringsutbytte

Læringsformer og aktiviteter

Integration Project

Informatikk

Master in Applied Computer Science-deltid

Master in Applied Computer Science

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(22443)/FieldValuesAsText

I took over the course from another teacher. After discussing with the previous course teacher before the start of the semester, we decided to follow the same course structure and plan. I kept the bi-monthly seminar series as last year and updated the content with new reference material and links.

The course is a master-level group project with bi-monthly seminar series. Eight bi-monthly seminars were conducted starting week 4 to week 19. The students were to hand in the project reports in week 21, followed by an oral exam. In each seminar, a dedicated topic was presented, followed by discussions and group activities. Apart from the first two seminars, the teaching and learning were planned in a non-conventional lecturing method, primarily as discussion and group activities. The students were encouraged to participate, and different tasks and activities were planned. The first two seminars were online via ZOOM; although zoom rooms were created, the sessions were not very interactive, and the activities didn’t work well as discussions in one group were not communicated/visible to other groups. The student also said that the online sessions felt more like lectures due to a lack of student participation and one-way communication mostly. The rest of the sessions were then conducted physically. It is suggested to have full physical sessions in the coming years. Blackboard rooms, in addition to MS teams’ channel, were created. Information was kept up to date on both platforms. All the slides, notes, material, tasks, and deadlines were formally announced on Blackboard and informally communicated on the Teams channel. The initial week-wise course plan was shared with the topic title before the first seminar. However, students requested to provide a detailed course plan with exact activities and deadlines, which was immediately provided as the request was received. 10-12 initial project topics were also provided to students to choose from. The students complained that most topics were on text processing applications. These topics were suggested by the domain experts (mostly postdocs at IDI and faculty at NTNU/LNU in Sweden). The domain experts also acted as the mentor for the groups that undertook that project. The student also had a choice to bring their own topic. The only restriction was that they could not work on an existing idea/topic they are doing in other courses or have submitted previously in other classes. The course had group activities that were not graded, but students were encouraged to hand in the tasks/reflection notes either within the seminar as a group activity or with a one-two weeks deadline via Blackboard. All the activities/tasks and reports contributed to the course project report, which was evaluated. Additionally, there was an oral exam which was also graded. Attendance was not mandatory, and encouraging students to participate was a challenge. The teaching material, research articles that the students had to go through, and other online material consisting of webpages links were provided beforehand. The reference group was created with two students as representatives. Three group meetings were conducted. Feedback was noted, and concerns were addressed immediately for most points. No major complaints were registered, and students seemed ok with the overall progression of the course. Overall, the course went as planned. The students initially complained about the communication and that they didn’t know what to do and what expectations the lecturer and the mentors had as each group had a different mentor whose project the group undertook. There were variations in the expectations of the mentor due to the projects they proposed and the nature of the skill sets required to accomplish the task, but as soon as this issue was raised, necessary steps were taken to take students into confidence. The course had three components with respect to the project: novelty, research, and integration. All the seminars and course material were prepared accordingly to teach students how to conduct development research having novelty aspects, and that could be integrated either into an existing system or as a standalone application. The content was updated from last year with new research articles and material; however, the course plan and structure were kept the same. It was in line with the learning outcomes listed on the course page. Having said that, some students with prior bachelor’s degrees in CS from NTNU felt that they had covered some of the content in other courses. Though, there were no major complaints from the students. As the course is supposed to have equal participation from students and it’s designed to be more of a group activity, it is suggested to plan mandatory physical sessions. Motivating students to participate in the course/group activities was challenging. At some point, I had to stop uploading a recording of seminar videos to encourage students to participate physically.  ﻿The course is offered as a first-year master-level course to students enrolled in the MACS program. The course emphasizes heavily applied research and development, integration, and novelty. The learning activities are therefore designed to help students undertake a research-oriented integration project where they can bring in some novelty. They learn various innovation and technology assessment tools. Apply software methodologies they’ve previously learned and develop architectures for systems for development. At the end of the course, the students are able to contribute to innovative thinking and innovative processes.

The students felt that the course title didn’t clearly communicate the innovation part. We’ve had discussions with the program coordinator, and there is a suggestion to update the course title coming years. Students having a bachelor’s degree from NTNU felt that they had covered part of the course content in prior courses. However, many students didn’t have prior programming knowledge, and they suffered during the project implementation and integration part.

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(16953)/FieldValuesAsText

Vi hadde ekstern sensor i emnet i år og hadde en gjennomgang av kursopplegget med han før oppstart av semesteret. Vi gjorde flere mindre endringer basert på hans innspill - i hovedsak gikk dette på å gi studentene større frihet og ansvar for valg av metodikk. Sensor bidro i evalueringen av grupperapportene. Denne emnerapporten er basert på møter med alle studentene i etterkant av seminarene to ganger i løpet av semesteret - henholds 18.3 og 12.5.

Læringsutbyttet ble oppdatert som et resultat av tilbakemeldingen fra ekstern sensor. Emnet er i høyeste grad relevant for studiet og studentene fordi det gir erfaring i innovasjonsarbeid og avansert teknologisk utviklingsarbeid. Læringsutbyttet er kommunisert med studentene muntlig i seminarene og ved skriftlige referanser til emnebeskrivelsen. Emnet er en naturlig videreføring av emnet Applied Computer Science Project som studentene hadde i høstsemesteret. Det er også god sammenheng med læringsutbyttet i de spesialiseringsemnnene studentene har i parallell.

Emnet er i stor grad prosjektorienter med seminarer annenhver uke for å gi studentene tilbakemeldinger på prosjektarbeidet og for å aktivere dem i diskusjoner som kan hjelpe dem i det videre prosjektarbeidet. Studenene var godt fornøyd med hvordan dette samspillet mellom seminar og prosjektarbeider var gjennomført i praksis. Spesielt mente de at det var nyttig at vi hadde definert konkrete arbeidsoppgaver som de skulle jobbe med mellom seminarene som knyttet seminarene temaer til det praktiske prosjektarbeidet. Studentene virket motiverte og så alle ut til å legge ned en god arbeidsinnsats - både med de konkrete arbeidsoppgavene og med prosjektarbeidet for øvrig. De aller fleste prosjektene ble gjenomført gruppevis. Det har klare positive effekter på læringsmiljøet.

Vurderingsformen er i hovdsak prosjektrapporten - noe som er naturlig i et prosjektarbeid. I tillegg gjennomføres muntlig eksaminering av kandidatene enkeltvis for bedre å kunne vurdere den enkeltes læringsutbytte.

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(11355)/FieldValuesAsText

Integration Project - IMT4807