Mark: 8 revision(s)

2008-11-03T05:20:55Z

8 revision(s)

New page

{| border="1" cellpadding="5"
!Assessment criteria
!Score
|-
|The session content is relevant to the course
| 5
|-
|The session has been a useful aid to your own learning
| 5
|-
|The team presenting the session has demonstrated that they have understood what they have presented
| 4
|-
|You have learnt something new from the session
| 4
|}

 
==== Justification for the above scores ====
- The content was all centered beautifully round generics, interfaces and collections framework. 
- I actively participated which was unusual and I took an genuine interest when I made a mistake. 
- I'm not sure if the material was that well understood because some questions were not that well explained, but the group was good as a whole. 
- The short answer questions drew out a few things I didn't already know.

==== One aspect of the session that was particularly good ====
I thought the prize was a great idea and I found myself more actively participating. Maybe this could be incorporated into lectures.

==== One part of the session that could have been improved ====
- I found that the explanations of the questions were a little weak and there could have been much more depth. 
- Questions could have been a little more broad testing a few more concepts in each. 
- I found the questions too abstract and hard to follow and could be a little more cohesive (i.e ice cream question)

==== Peer assessors present ====
Vincent Jean-Seong Budelmann (vbud003)

SE251:Session4Group5 - Revision history

Mark: 8 revision(s)