Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att
göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering
genom att använda knappen längst ned.
Graphical Interfaces, TDA492
Öppen för svar: 2012-01-30 - 2012-02-06
Antal svar: 15
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Jon Mjölnevik»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Informationsteknik 300 hp
1. It was clear from the beginning what was expected of me in the course.15 svarande
|1, Do not agree at all.»||1|| 7%|
|4, Agree completely.»||6|| 42%|
- All the info was on the web, so technically it should have been clear. BUT: The gradings for exercises were not coherent, and the basis of gradings were not written down anywhere before, which would greatly affect our deliveries.» (2)
- Clear layout of course content and different parts of examination» (4, Agree completely.)
- Well explained» (4, Agree completely.)
2. Do you think that you had enough knowledge to take the course?- Not really»
- Yes i did»
- Yes, I think someone with a background of I.T., Computer Science, Graphic Design has at least enough knowledge to take the course.»
- yes, but it would be better if we had more time to develop better project»
- Yes, and the rest you learned during the course.»
3. As a whole, how satisfied are you with the course?- Not at all»
- Yes i am satisfied»
- I am satisfied to a good degree.»
- 3 out of 4
Happy with the theory but unhappy with the crit sessions»
Better to give well thought of feedback than to give it fast. There were some contradictive feedback.
Not so good distribution of point for the assigments if you compare with the workload for each assignment.
- Very, very satisfied.»
- I think I receive enough! nothing really spectacular!»
- Not satisfied»
- I"m mostly satisfied. »
- I"m very satisfied.»
- Very satisfied! I learned a lot!»
4. Regarding lectures, seminars, projects, etc you have participated in: Please mention three good things in the course and three things that can be improved.- Good things are the different types of exercises, the crit sessions and the team projects. The time spent for the crit sessions could be more and also more creative. The multiple choice test was not the best idea. There should be more carefull reading and examining of the projects and reports submitted, by some of the examiners.»
- Good things
1)Lecturers - In general I think they were doing a good job being active and motivating.
2)Projects - Many projects throughout the course give a hands-on experience. Also they differ in nature and escalate in difficulty so at the end the student has gained useful experience.
3)Evaluation - It was good that assessment of students was broken down in parts and did not only include one final written exam.
Can be improved
1)Critique sessions on weekly assignments could be more useful if there was some sort of bottom-line. Something to which each team could compare their work and see where it was lacking or was better. After a while it just seemed procedural to give comments with very little to carry out after the end of the session.
2)Emphasis on clear instructions about what to expect for each checkpoint in the team project. The teams must all understand easily what is expected of them in the check-up meeting before the final presentation as well as what is expected of them at the end.
3)Need more cowbell (or I just can"t think of something else right now).»
- +Good book
+The literature test was a good motivation to read the book
-The crit sessions did not provide enough time to give propper feedback
-The >chaotic< part of the multiple choice test was confusing and felt misleading
-The grading of the projects was very disappointing and unexpected. The one I put very much work on barely passed, and the one where I didn"t care anymore got a good grade. Very demotivational.»
- see 2 also
Good: alot of feedback from different people,
Bad: That the excercises could not affect the final grade»
- Writing that would be too much work...»
- Good things: Lectures, Exercises.
Improve: Feedback and crit sessions, »
- Lectures: Well complementing the book. I don"t necessarily agree with the 9AM-16PM working hours on days, 10AM-17PM was more comfortable for the SP1 for every day.
The Web2.0 lecture had very big potential, but was pretty useless and boring in the end.
Crit sessions: As there were no constructive (or honest, matter of perspective) feedback told at any time, it"s pointless like this. Huge differences between who is the teacher present.
Exercises: Useful to be forced to spent sketching on these kind of simple and varying stuff, I had good learning from these, and got more fluent with Balsamiq and Photoshop. However, by the last ones we got pretty demotivated and cynical, after we realized that crit sessions are bad and none really cares.
Dragons Gold: Interesting and useful project. Had some issues with my team, but that"s I guess matter of luck. Found it useful.
PLEASE write down the basis of your grading, and make it public.
Individual project: Useful project overall. Yet again, about the scoring: it"s a useless effort for objectivity to say that the first people will be graded altogether not to have false grading by the teachers. The basis of grading (what worth points, what needs to be present, etc) should be public for that aim, otherwise it is a guessing contest for fulfilling the details. »
- 3 good things are: The balance between individual projects and group projects, exercises + critsession was a really good thing, you get to work under "stress", which forces you to focus on what is important. The feedback during the critsessions was also great, both the giving and the receiving, even if the quality was dependent on which assistant/teacher was holding it. Feedback and results has been really fast which has been great.
3 things to improve: People can free ride in group projects to easily, feedback not always clear, especially from dragon"s gold. Some bullet points contradict each other and some are ambiguous which makes it hard to learn. Might be better to allow for a bit slower feedback, and make it clearer or invite groups for a private session to clarify mistakes and good things. »
- Good: Main teachers. Examinations (chance too choose what would be "best" for you to do). Practical work in the course gave lots of knowledge.
Bad: Could have been a bit more explained where focus of the exercises would be (spent too much time on them sometimes). Organization with other courses, we did not have much spare time (even to study). One of the teaching assistants behaved not really friendly during feedback sessions. »
5. The information about the examinations was clear.15 svarande
|1, Do not agree at all.»||1|| 6%|
|4, Agree completely.»||7|| 46%|
- Really like the point system where you can see how you are doing in the course so far etc» (4, Agree completely.)
- Well explained.» (4, Agree completely.)
6. The information about schedules was good.15 svarande
|1, Do not agree at all.»||1|| 6%|
|4, Agree completely.»||8|| 53%|
- I would like to see a scheme of what we were supposed to work with each day/lecture. If it was a lecture or if was DG etc» (1, Do not agree at all.)
- Some things took more time than scheduled, which made it hard to coordinate with other courses. » (3)
- Only small complaint is that we were scattered throughout the campus, which lectures in all(!?) buildings.» (4, Agree completely.)
7. How did you experience the physical work environment?- It was fine.»
- Generally convenient.»
- I think it is very strange that students are expected to have photoshop.»
- can be improved»
- Good during lectures, when doing exercises, it was a bit crowded and loud in the studios which meant you had to escape elsewhere in Kuggen to work. This in turn meant that assistants and teachers had to go on a hunt to give you feedback. Not an ideal work situation. »
- Kuggen is drab but nice»
8. How did you experience the psychological work environment?- Too stressing in some cases for no particular reason.»
- Friendly as a whole, just some minor behaviors that could affect temporarily.»
- The crit sessions were stressed and rushed»
- ok but Allan have to stop beeing mean and give constructive feeback instead»
- Very overwhelming Dragons Gold and individual project. It"s not fair for other courses to have deadlines for GI during the days when there are no GI courses, because we"ll focus on our GI projects. »
- Good during lectures, when doing exercises, it was a bit crowded and loud in the studios which meant you had to escape elsewhere in Kuggen to work. This in turn meant that assistants and teachers had to go on a hunt to give you feedback. Not an ideal work situation.»
- Good, except for one TA being outright rude at times»
- Stressy with the other not so good course..»
9. The course literature such as books, articles, and compendia functioned as a good support in your studies.15 svarande
|1, Do not agree at all.»||0|| 0%|
|4, Agree completely.»||5|| 35%|
- The book is useful. » (3)
- The mid-course literature exam was a good thing» (3)
- good book» (4, Agree completely.)
- The course was based on the course literature.» (4, Agree completely.)
10. You have acquired the knowledge and skills specified in the goals of the course plan?14 svarande
|1, Do not agree at all.»||0|| 0%|
|4, Agree completely.»||4|| 36%|
- Do you expect me to know these by heart?
"Knowledge and understanding
- Know how to adapt a graphical interfaces towards use and users
- Know how and when to use different graphical interface elements
- Know how to use keypaths and scenarios to create an interaction sequence
- Know about commonly used interaction design solutions for graphical interfaces.
- Know how to use wireframes to create a layout of a graphical interface
Skills and abilities
- Being able to design a graphical user interface adapted to a specific use and user in terms of: layout, interaction sequence, correct use of controls and look and feel.
Judgement and approach
- Solve interaction design problems related to graphical interfaces and motivate your solutions
- Design a relatively complex graphical interface, and be able to provide a valid design rationale for it.
- Understand the difference between different platforms, their constraints and possibilities.
- Being able to select and apply previouly existing design solutions to new graphical interfaces.
- Being able to, from a scenario extract a users needs in terms of graphical interface solutions."
11. What do you think about the teachers’,,pedagogical abilities? (Could they explain course content in a comprehensive way?)- Yes Sus was usually the one that provided the most helpful tips and the one that explained things better. Phd students were also supporting but not as effective.»
- I am satisfied with the teachers" abilities in that section. I think they were getting their point and the material across.»
- There could have been more useful feedback on the exercises»
- Yes, very well.»
- The lectures were good, the crit sessions were non useful. No learning acquired through exercises. The individual work were not considered or evaluated during the exercises.»
- Sus and Martin were great (both for teaching and assisting for the exercises), the rest was kinda messed up, not knowing what is happening, not knowing the exercises or projects in details. It"s rather disappointing, because after an early point, we have specific questions usually. »
- Very good»
- Both Sus and Martin was great as teachers, the assistants was OK, but not great. »
- A little too much practical work compared to the amount of knowledge imparted.»
- Good. (Except for one of the teaching assistants.)»
12. It was clear from the beginning what was expected of me in the course.14 svarande
|1, Do not agree at all.»||1|| 7%|
|4, Agree completely.»||3|| 23%|
- A little bit confusing to understand all the assigments we could get points from and if the excercises gave point or not» (2)
- No, but it became clear along the way.» (2)
- A little late to have a course evaluation, I barely remember anything.» (3)
- Is this the same question as question 1? :) If not I"m too tired to notice the difference...» (4, Agree completely.)
- Redundant question..» (No answer.)