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.
MPSOF 1112-3 Advanced software architecture, DAT220/DIT542
Öppen för svar: 2012-03-06 - 2012-03-19
Antal svar: 31
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 68%
Kontaktperson: Mattias Bingerud»
Your own effort
1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.
|At most 15 hours/week»||2|| 6%|
|Around 20 hours/week»||16|| 51%|
|Around 25 hours/week»||9|| 29%|
|Around 30 hours/week»||3|| 9%|
|At least 35 hours/week»||1|| 3%|
- This subject has such a heavy workload as others in the Software Engineering master programme. However and unfortunately, it does not guarantee a good learning experience. Dozens and dozens of papers to read, unrelated topics between lectures, assignments and sometimes exams did not provide me a good outcome. Just to make it clear, that is a general critic because other subjects have the same learning approach. To decrease the coverage of topics/workload, provide practical, realistic examples, well stated tasks and goals would help us a lot. I have been spending much time wondering and stressing myself just trying to figure out what I"m supposed to do in many subjects. To mail the teacher in order to elucidate every single ambiguity in the task/assignment statements is not a proper way to solve this.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- the first weeks less...later on definately more!» (Around 20 hours/week)
- A couple of weeks close to the exams, even 35+» (Around 25 hours/week)
2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?
- Didn"t attend the lectures» (50%)
- Was sick for almost three weeks» (50%)
- After figure out that the content of many lectures had no relation with the team group assignment and written exam I decided to focus on get the assignment done. That"s why I didn"t attend 100% to the lectures.» (75%)
- I wish I hadn"t attended Abdullas "extremely important" sessions (there was a board game and some tutorial on AADL). felt like a waste of time to be honest.» (75%)
- Missed some lectures because of sickness» (100%)
Goals and goal fulfilmentThe course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.
3. How understandable are the course goals?31 svarande
|I have not seen/read the goals»||4|| 12%|
|The goals are difficult to understand»||3|| 9%|
|The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»||12|| 38%|
|The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»||12|| 38%|
- We struggled many times trying to understand about what we were supposed to do. Some of the feedbacks gathered from teachers was: "It is up to you". In the real life things do not work like this in companies. In addition to that, we someone say that something is up to us it means that any thing can be right then. Therefore, it is very difficult to make a precise assessment on that.» (The goals are difficult to understand)
4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.
|No, the goals are set too low»||1|| 3%|
|Yes, the goals seem reasonable»||25|| 86%|
|No, the goals are set too high»||3|| 10%|
- Design Patterns should have been part of the learning goals.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- However, since this was a course in embedded software, it might have been useful to have had a course on that prior to this one.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- You need more experience in real time and hardware b4 taking this class » (No, the goals are set too high)
- The course is part of the Software Engineering master"s programme, yet has a large focus on embedded systems - something we are not familiar with.» (No, the goals are set too high)
5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?31 svarande
|No, not at all»||2|| 6%|
|To some extent»||13|| 41%|
|Yes, definitely»||12|| 38%|
|I don"t know/have not been examined yet»||4|| 12%|
- The exam was mostly about memorizing the slides.» (No, not at all)
- lacked ATAM, otherwise good.» (Yes, definitely)
- Don´,t remember the goals» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)
Teaching and course administration
6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?31 svarande
|Small extent»||9|| 29%|
|Some extent»||10|| 32%|
|Large extent»||11|| 35%|
|Great extent»||1|| 3%|
- Diffuse/no related content was being discussed in different classes.» (Small extent)
- Only one teacher present when working with the project. Didn"t really have time to ask any questions because he was busy helping the other groups.» (Small extent)
- The AADL tool support was rather poor in the sense that there where some doubts on how to best use the tool, and the assistant responsible was unable to give out clear answers» (Small extent)
- The only interesting lectures were the ones with Mathias, the new teacher. Styles and patterns relevant for my other studies.» (Small extent)
- The lectures were basically a summary of the course book and were mostly filled with too much text and no further visualization.» (Small extent)
- Jörgen and Mattias were good lecturer"s, though I"ll come back to the problems I had with the content.» (Some extent)
- The professor is great,the assistants not that much in their part of the course.» (Large extent)
7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?31 svarande
|Small extent»||5|| 16%|
|Some extent»||13|| 41%|
|Large extent»||10|| 32%|
|Great extent»||3|| 9%|
- Dozens and dozens of papers to read but without a well stated purpose.» (Small extent)
- Did not read anything in the book, seemed unecessary since it didn"t say anything.» (Small extent)
- Got the book, but it was quite boring to read.» (Some extent)
- As the slides consisted mostly of the content from the book, the book wasn"t really necessary.» (Some extent)
8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?31 svarande
|Very badly»||3|| 9%|
|Rather badly»||10|| 32%|
|Rather well»||12|| 38%|
|Very well»||6|| 19%|
- Description of assigments different in slides, assignment description and hand in on pingpong. Not clear when the assigment should be handed in until a few days ahead. » (Very badly)
- please ditch pingpong. no one else uses it and there is a reason for that. if you insist, please manage it properly. it was very poorly updated, it didn"t even list course representatives in the fourth week. also, assignment submissions were not posted until the 11th hour, etc etc. information scattered, pdf"s not updated. please clean it up..» (Very badly)
- Especially during the first week of the course there was a lot of confusion on what times we were scheduled and details regarding the project. The material on the course web page was poorly organized throughout the course.» (Rather badly)
- You can"t expect 2 groups (up to 16 different people) to find a time slot where EVERYONE has to be present. It"s ridiculous. First evaluation we were 10 people, the 2nd time we were 8. You should just hand everyone a slot and expect most of the members to be there instead.
Same goes for deciding which groups had what time slot for working with the assignment.
Ping pong is also rather horrible, but that"s not your fault.» (Rather badly)
- Lab assignments were put up late on the webpage. One could not submit the assignments in beforehand, they were enabled the day before submission (hard when away from school perticular days). Requests on literature references to corresponding lectures were never updated on website, though we requested in early in the course.» (Rather badly)
- The lecture slide files were not enumerated or linked to a date. There was no recording of the lecture on video.
Lecture slides were uploaded with delay.
The lecture was not really linked to what we did during the labs.» (Rather badly)
- Main problem is unclarity in the submission deadlines. I don"t think it"s acceptable to give the deadline of reports 3 days in advance when the deadline probably was set by the supervisors weeks ahead. Also there were some inconsistencies in the assignment descriptions between the actual assignment handout and what was described in the lecture.» (Rather well)
- Felt a bit unorganized during the firist weeks. Perhaps it would help if you only sign up for lab sessions at one time.» (Rather well)
- Submission page could be up earlier in the week before deadline.» (Rather well)
- PingPong likes to spam whenever comments are made.» (Rather well)
- Except when the lecture was canceled and didn"t receive any mail (however not the lectures fault)» (Very well)
9. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?31 svarande
|Very poor»||3|| 9%|
|Rather poor»||5|| 16%|
|Rather good»||14|| 45%|
|Very good»||9|| 29%|
|I did not seek help»||0|| 0%|
- As I said, only 1 teacher to help when working with the project.» (Very poor)
- Only one scheduled supervised time slot per week. When attending, the teacher was on his office and did not do much help in our assignment. We kind of worked in the dark.» (Very poor)
- Hard to get help during labsession.» (Rather poor)
- There weren"t sufficient time slots for getting help on the labs. Only one assistant had been assigned for the labs which is not enough concerning the difficulty of learning a new modelling language with a tool that is rather hard to handle.» (Rather poor)
- Abdullah wasn"t very good at explaining or understanding questions» (Rather good)
- Excellent possibility to ask questions every class and then the last lecture that was completely filled with own questions» (Very good)
- A very positive thing was that the professor provoked us to ask question and initiate in dialogue!» (Very good)
10. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?31 svarande
|Very poorly»||0|| 0%|
|Rather poorly»||5|| 16%|
|Rather well»||10|| 32%|
|Very well»||16|| 51%|
|I did not seek cooperation»||0|| 0%|
- 2 members worked more against us than forward » (Rather poorly)
- Work group usually doesn"t work very well and it is because people have got different backgrounds, they have different purposes and agendas. Some of them are student just to keep their visa in this country, some of them only care about to pass, some of them only care about to reach the highest grade (rarely) and some of them care about to learn something useful to be able to find a job as Software Developer. I know we have different people working together in companies, but in real life, if some of them do not contribute to the team sure they will be punished accordingly and that"s not the case at University. Beside this, sometimes it is very difficult to express your opinion about a certain topic because some people take over the assignment. Personally, I perform better in individual assignments. » (Rather poorly)
- Worked very well with most of the project group but some individuals were more problematic. Their lack of abilities in the English language resulted in many hours of correction and backtracking work in the reports. » (Rather poorly)
- Ok, but would be better if the groups were smaller. We were 7 people, most of the time 3 people worked and the other ones just observed (not because they were lazy, but there was no work to be carried out).» (Rather well)
- The success of the project (not yet graded though) was that we were used working together.» (Very well)
11. How was the course workload?31 svarande
|Too low»||0|| 0%|
|Too high»||2|| 6%|
- Hard to say since we"ve not been graded yet. If we pass, they workload was too low. Else it was unclear how much time you need to spend in order to pass.» (Low)
- Too much work at the last weeks of the Study Period. The final assignments should have been scheduled to be delievered at most during week 7 and not after the final exams!» (Adequate)
- I would say that the main assignment (2) should start one week earlier. This would not have been a large problem and it would have allowed better time time to study for the exams as well as better quality on the reports.» (High)
- I can see now that this heavy workload is such a common thing in Sweden (only?). But, for some people like me, this is not a big deal, actually this is a big problem that constantly try to push me out from University. Firstly, I have to work to afford my living cost, I haven"t got any student loan, scholarship or whatsoever. In addition, I"m having to give up on my parallel work because I"m supposed to spend almost 60 hours studying per week in only 2 subjects. It is simply unfeasible for me and for any people in my condition. I know this is a personal issue but as I"m a student of this University I think I have to share my struggles while I still try to be a Chalmerist. And by the way, I have been in other countries and they still can offer good education with lowest workload. » (Too high)
- The biggest flaw of the course was that we had to submit for the assignment even during the EXAM WEEK!And the part we had to deliver wasn"t actually anything important,just time consuming.We only had to merge things we already accomplished.Not happy with that!» (Too high)
12. How was the total workload this study period?30 svarande
|Too low»||0|| 0%|
|Too high»||3|| 10%|
- Didn"t like to have the evaluation and hand in on the examination week, since it leaves no room for studying for exams.» (Adequate)
- Was quite reasonable, if one thought it was too low, one could always do more work as there were no upper limit on the workload.» (High)
- No time during week 7-8 to study for the exams!!!» (High)
- Many whole day group meetings.
It is also important to mention that some of us has been getting health problems because of stress and bad nutrition as Cremona and other food places close very early.» (Too high)
13. What is your general impression of the course?31 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.67 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)
- * No connection between lectures and labs/project
* Project extends into exam week
* How do you expect students to pick up a new language (completely new /kind/ of language in some cases) and use it to design an architecture in three weeks? How are they supposed to be able to evaluate it? There"s no time to consider tradeoffs at all, everyone just goes with what they can get working first.
* Either AADL is inadequate for describing software archs., or not a single student learnt how to use AADL properly.
* We were probably introduced to a grand total of five architectural styles, and then pretty much only the names and gist of them. Where"s the information about pros/cons, dos/don"ts etc?» (Poor)
- My main issue with the course is the focus on embedded systems. This was applicable in some part to Jörgen"s lectures and in large part to the project.
The project, in turn, seemed decoupled from the lectures and was badly administrated. The basic introduction to AADL was a point-and-click tutorial which admittedly gave a certain understanding of the tool, but provided very little in terms of actual understanding AADL.» (Poor)
- Before this course started I was excited to learn software architecture and software principles for building large scale software (eg. high-level views of software). I was eager to learn this, because I really need it for my future work! But instead we learned stuff on a very low level (WAY TO LOW LEVEL), such as threads and processes. I don"t want to bother with this stuff. If you have a great software architecture (not talking embedded now), you won"t have to bother about threads since most of that is taken care of by the other layers. I"m not planning to build rockets or super-critical systems in the future, and maybe you should consider the fact that most of us won"t.
If I wanted to learn about embedded systems, I would have chosen a course about embedded systems. We had to do a lot of guess-work when designing our architecture. How should we be able to design something realistic about threads, periods and such when all we know is software? I mean, with the amount of guess-work we did in this course we would have probably exploded many rockets if we had to do this kind of work in the future.» (Poor)
- Overall not up to par with the other master courses due to some management and confusion to what we were supposed to do in the project. There needs to be more consulting and feedback earlier to know what path we are on and if its right, we just did our best without actually knowing how to measure if we were on the right path or not.» (Poor)
- Read previous comments. Bad structure, unclear relevence since im not focused on embedded studies in my other studies, but rather against general software development. Could be more general since the whole lab focused on real time systems.» (Poor)
- Probably the most disappointing course so far. Was looking forward to it but it felt like a big let down. First, it is completely focused on embedded systems which as far as I understood, almost no one in the class a) had worked with b) cared about. Why not rename the course embedded software architecture? AADL felt like quite a useless thing to learn. Extremely specialized. Why not let the projects utilize more of the styles & patterns part of the course?» (Poor)
- In my opinion the idea of Problem Based Learning (PBL) has been misused in many subjects at Chalmers. To give us dozens of papers to read, books, big assignments to get done, few lectures talking about it and a room to do the group meetings is not the proper way to us get educated. If this university want to be an "International Organization", it must understand the differences among students that come from different countries. I don"t know about Swedish students but at least in my country, this is not normal to every single student be such an autodidact/self-taught person. Yes, we do need help and closely guidance when we are learning new things, specially because many of us haven"t got a good basic education. Once more again, just to get many papers, books to read, and Internet tutorials to do should not be the proper way to learning things at University. If I"m wrong on this... I wonder why should I not be at home learning those things on my own instead of being spending time and resources to be at my University.» (Fair)
- Probably due to my initial expectations on the course, further explained in question 15.» (Fair)
- Having a report done in the exam week isn"t a good thing. Instead move the first assignment a week earlier, it isn"t that hard.» (Adequate)
- There should be more focus on how to solve architectural problems.» (Adequate)
14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?- Business perspectives of software architecture»
- AADL labs»
- Nothing stands out as good.»
- The second assignment was quite good. Maybe the groups should be mixed a bit in part 2 so bus tracker groups analyze pace maker groups etc, but otherwise it was fine.»
- The group work and its structure»
- Well, the principal idea of having an architecture course is good...»
- Architecture evaluation with CBAM and ATAM.»
- Interactive lessons,real life examples in order for students to understand the ambiguities of definitions.
- Professor Jörgen Hansson was a great techer! Nice to work with him! The project was good ..but the scheduling of it should be changed so that if finishes during week 7 and not after the final exams.»
- The lectures by Mattias on architectural patterns were the ones I felt were most useful to me as a soon-to-be software engineer. Jörgen is also a good lecturer and seemed very engaged in the course.
Allowing students to select the groups was good, since it might complicate things with other courses otherwise.»
- The course book»
- Good lectures by the german teacher! Those were the best!»
- I appreciated the effort of the teacher (Jörgen) in trying to get students feedback and participation, even though sometimes was unsuccessful, probably due to the weight of the course contents.»
- Styles and patterns (Mathias).»
- The first individual Assignment.»
- Styles & patterns»
15. What should definitely be changed to next year?- the lab assignments. Too big gap between them and the lectures. »
- More examples of system using archittures whould be helpfull in understanding.»
- The game is kind of unnecessary, spending more than one hour to receive the information that a project might turn out in any way possible because of decisions isn"t new. The game could be kept however it shouldn"t be stressed that it is "very" important to go, because it wasn"t "very" important. »
- Start with assignment 1 earlier i.e. deadline end of week 2 in order to finnsh assignment 2.3 week 7 before the exam. That will be much appriciated by future students. Also don"t put too much emphasis on attending the board-game session... it"s not rocket science and the time could be used for learning Osate and finishing assignment 1 instead.»
- I would turn the course up side down, skip the aadl and embedded, we dont know anything about how hardware components work. That just creates a big questionmark for us. More focus on patterns and styles. Do the architecture in UML since everyone knows that.»
- Syllabus. Workload. Provide smaller, individual and practical assignments.»
- Use a newer version of the tool (osate) that supports 64-bits linux environments. Was a bit painful to run a VM just to get it to work.
Also, see #11.»
- First of all it felt like the game didn"t bring any new information. Second of all the group work deadline should be moved back one week so that you can have a better focus on the exams. In my opinion it is usually hard to find times to meet during the exam week.»
- * The room. J243 makes people fall asleep.
* The schedule. I don"t appreciate writing reports in exam week, especially not when the course has a written exam itself!
* The introductory tutorial to AADL. It"s completely braindead and is very little help.
* Abdullah. He probably knows even less about AADL than the rest of us.
* The focus of the labs/project. This isn"t the Hardware Engineering masters program.
* The focus of the lectures. I want more hands-on information and examples, less theory and background.
* The administration. Ping-pong is fine, but having student sign up for lab sessions in ping-pong when you know full well that half of your students don"t have access to the system is bad.»
- more connection between exam and group project»
- The structure of the course. As it was, we started off with being introduced to the project, ADL and AADL. We then went on with ATAM and CBAM, before coming to the actual architectures.
From my point of view, it would be much better to start with introducing styles with some pros and cons. It would also be much better if the examples were not based on the lunar lander, but on examples of "best usage" - for instance blackboard and AI systems. After this, ADL, AADL and the project could be introduced, then going on to ATAM, CBAM, Self-X etc.
I think this approach would make the course much more interesting from the start, and give you more tools to create the actual architecture from. I do understand this means less time for project work, but quality would likely be increased.»
- The project deadline!»
- The scheduling of the project should be changed so that if finishes during week 7 and not after the final exams. The groups should be smaller!!! 6 people are more than enough!»
- Remove the focus off embedded systems and toward the more common definition of software (i.e. desktop and/or web applications) in both lectures and the project.
Having a project is good, but it is especially critical that it is improved a lot for next year. Remove the embedded system focus and be more structured in the information given. For example, let the project deal with designing a large-scale e-commerce site or something like that. AADL is of course not applicable, but most students are for example already familiar with UML which could be used for the artifacts. That would make the course much more useful, instead of spending time connecting threads to processors.
Also, the board game session can be removed. Calling that "lecture" important made it a bit hard to take the next few times a lecture was said to be important a bit hard.»
- guest lecture»
- Longer time for preparing for the exam and less assignments during that period»
- This course might be more fun and useful for D-students. Keep it out of the software department, please.»
- Need to have a closer relation when doing assignments so that its possible to know what we are supposed to do. I really have not enough information about that, and the exam was mostly on the litterature and lectures while the assignments felt disjointed from the rest of the course.»
- more depth on both good and bad patterns/practices in software architecture, and not so much emphasis in the description of the architecture using AADL. I believe is more important to get knowledge on how to do good architecture than on how to describe it well.»
- Lab assignment, more clearer purpose of why everything is important. Advocate the purpose of every topic much more and put fewer text on the slides (became messy, better to refer to literature if you want to read text).»
- Smaller project and better inline with the course theory.»
- Design patterns were not a topic in this course which is very surprising.
The lectures mostly consisted of the lecture books content and was presented rather badly which made following the lecture difficult. Also only very little of the lectures content could be applied in the labs.»
- AADL, focus on embedded»
- The OSATE Tutorial is sooo bad. 160 pages of "click here, drag the mouse here, release the left mouse button....". It doesn"t explain _anything_ about what you actually do! You just follow a brain-dead recipe.»
16. Additional comments- I had a hard time to know what an software architecture is. Felt like it was more of hardware in the begining. »
- I don"t think the exam includes all the important aspects. ATAM should be added and self-X is introduced not too much during the lecture. So i think the exam ranges should cover the important aspects rather than some others.»
- In my opinion, either some of the content of this subject unfortunately was not related with what is going on in the Software Development Market or it was too abstract.
I went to Charm and I also have been applying for some jobs out there and those companies were asking for more precise and practical knowledge when it comes to software development (software architecture is included on this of course).
It has been quite frustrating for me because that was the second time I went to such industry event at Chalmers and the companies were asking for practical things, which I"m not seeing in this Master programme (Software Engineering). Our honorable teacher, with all respect, seems to be a person that cares about what we think and he asked us to give our opinion about the content of this course. I will give my opinion right here. Firstly, the one deciding what students should learn or not and teachers should teach or not should be the job market trends, in other words, what"s going on in the industry in fact. This content selection should not be up to students or teachers... simply because unfortunately this is a biased and oftentimes unsupported decision. Teachers at Chalmers should go to events such as Charm and extract that information straight from the companies, because we (future IT professionals) depend on those companies to succeed in our professional and why not say personal life. Please note that I"m not talking about things related to Research field, cutting edge technology, which is not being used still by companies or PhD stuff. Before come to Sweden I had different expectations. I thought that indeed I would be able to find a good job opportunity even before I finish my programme but I have got a different feeling instead of this, specially when I speak with students which are finishing this programme. They simply do not meet the industry requirements. And we know that only a diploma in hands will not guarantee a job position in the real world.
I know that Professor Jörgen Hansson will not take my comments bad because I know he is such an open minded person and it just goes without saying just by looking at his professional background/CV.
Some colleagues advised me to not do such comments in the course evaluation because people in Sweden don"t like to hear this, they told me about Jantelagen and so forth. I didn"t take those worthless things into consideration and that"s why I"m here telling exactly what I think because I"m the one spending time, resources and with a lot of expectations about my professional improvement.
Then, I would like to mention that my opinion can be applied for other subjects in this programme as well.
Hope it can help improve the education methodology at Chalmers before I finish this Master programme or even a worst thing happen (i.e. give up on this).
- Conclusion: remove the embedded systems.»
- I may sound negative, and I am. Mostly because I had very high expectations of this course and I was disappointed in the end, since I really didn"t learn anything useful for my career.»
- Generally I"d say it was not the best course I"ve taken part of, mainly due to the unfulfilled expectations (mentioned in 15.) that led me to a biased view of the course performance. Otherwise, most of the course goals where achieved.»
- Sorry to say the course was a let down, could have been much better.»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.67
Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 2.67
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.41