1. Irene Díaz 1, Camino R. Vela 1 1 Computer Science Department. University of Oviedo (SPAIN) e-mails {sirene,crvela}@uniovi.es 1

2.  Course Objectives ◦ To represent a real problem as a graph ◦ To find Euler and Hamilton paths in a graph ◦ To use trees and their properties as a data structure ◦ To solve a real problem using graph theory ◦ To build a Finite Automata to identify a language and to describe the regular language associated to a Finite Automata

3.  Course Objectives ◦ To establish relationships between regular languages and regular expressions and automata ◦ To identify the regular languages limits ◦ To describe finite automata applications ◦ To build grammars from a given language and the reverse ◦ To simplify a context free grammars ◦ To identify Context Free Languages and their formal properties

4.  Contents ◦ Graph Theory ◦ Regular Languages and Automata ◦ Context Free Languages, Grammars and Automata

5.  The Teaching Organization CLASSESHOURS PRESENTIAL Seminars24 Problem Sessions6 Working Sessions24 Tutoring Sessions2 Examining Sessions 4 HOMEWORK 90 150

6.  Evaluation ◦ Analyzing two evaluation procedures 1.Course 2008-2009:  10 practical works  8 presentation of a short report with the solution of proposed exercises  2 formulation of questions solved later by other student  Portfolio 2.Course 2009-2010:  Checking the daily work of the students (without granting them every time they do something)  Test of basic concepts after finishing each block of the course

7.  Evaluation Success Ratio2008-20092009-2010 Course56,154,8 Continuous Assesment72,495 Final Exam31,854,8 Evaluation items Contribution to the final mark Final Exam70 Block Test20 Active Participation10  Evaluation Proposal for 2010-2011 course

8. Question concerned to the work charge of the ADM course compared to the average of the other courses. The bar chart points out that the majority of the students think the work charge is on average while just over the 24% of the total number of students considers the work is under the average.

9. Question concerned to how good is the course schedule. At least the 40% of the total number of students think the overall distribution is adequate while the same percentage of them conclude they need more problem sessions to correctly follow the course. Over the 30% of the students believe the quality of the course could improve if more working sessions were included while just the 6% of them consider the necessity of receiving more seminars.

10. Question concerned to how useful the different sessions are. The vertical axis represents the percentage of students answering a certain option while the horizontal axis shows the division of sessions into seminars, problem or working sessions and is sub-divided into the different options supplied to the students. The bar chart shows the majority of the students, just under two thirds of them, consider seminars few useful. At the same time, approximately three fifths of students believe essential the working sessions.

11. Question related to the number of evaluation items. This pie chart shows the majority of students, up to 95%, think the number of evaluation items is adequate.

12.  The course results strongly depends on the continuous assessment.  The introduction of practical sessions helps the student to understand the main concepts of the course  An increase in the number of evaluation points does not necessarily produce better results in terms of the number of students who pass the course.