Aktuella utvärderingar

Visa resultat

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.

Fault tolerant computer systems, EDA122

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2008-09-22 - 2008-11-31
Antal svar: 26
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Roger Johansson»

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.

24 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»9 37%
Around 20 hours/week»8 33%
Around 25 hours/week»4 16%
Around 30 hours/week»3 12%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.04

- I"ve spent too little, partly due to other commitments.» (At most 15 hours/week)

2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

25 svarande

0%»1 4%
25%»1 4%
50%»4 16%
75%»6 24%
100%»13 52%

Genomsnitt: 4.16

- I would have liked to attend more lectures, but was unable due to having a full time work.» (25%)
- All lectures and exercissessions collided» (50%)
- Missed some wednesday moring lectures» (75%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The 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?

25 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»4 16%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»7 28%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»14 56%

Genomsnitt: 3.24

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.

24 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 4%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»22 91%
No, the goals are set too high»1 4%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Learning buzzwords is not a thing that requires heavy thinking.» (No, the goals are set too low)

5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

23 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»9 39%
Yes, definitely»7 30%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»7 30%

Genomsnitt: 2.91

- I didn"t understand that the details of the reports read throughout the course would mean so little in comparison to the summaries in the lecture notes on the exam.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

25 svarande

Small extent»1 4%
Some extent»9 36%
Large extent»12 48%
Great extent»3 12%

Genomsnitt: 2.68

- The lectures was very good, but I was unable to attend all of them.» (Some extent)
- I now have some basic models for describing and comparing fault-tolerant systems.» (Some extent)
- Great with guest lectures from the industry, bringing some weight to the course. » (Great extent)

7. To what extent has laboratory excercise 1 been of help for your learning?*

26 svarande

Small Extent»3 11%
Some Extent»9 34%
Large Extent»12 46%
Great Extent»2 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- The main part of the laboratory was to write the report, maybe 80% of the work was in the writing, which didn"t help the learning.» (Small Extent)
- The laboratory exercise was completely about writing a report since the solution was given in the exercises hours. I would have appreciated to go more in depth in some area instead of practising good report writing.» (Small Extent)
- Could focus more on analysis and less on exact numbers» (Large Extent)
- The laboration seems relevant and accurate. » (Large Extent)
- Getting to model the systems gives a better feeling on how the various redundancies work.» (Large Extent)
- Made me get up to speed.» (Large Extent)

8. To what extent has laboratory excercise 2 been of help for your learning?*

26 svarande

Small Extent»1 3%
Some Extent»14 53%
Large Extent»7 26%
Great Extent»4 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.53

- Except for practising petri nets, there wasn"t much new that was learned. » (Some Extent)
- More interesting than the first one since less was given before the laboratory session.» (Some Extent)

9. To what extent has the the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

25 svarande

Small extent»4 16%
Some extent»8 32%
Large extent»10 40%
Great extent»3 12%

Genomsnitt: 2.48

- Haven"t read the book, but the slides from the lectures are good.» (Small extent)
- The course book was quite good, but I didn"t really use it.» (Small extent)
- As you probably know, the course litterature is quite old and in occasions doesn"t seem that relevant. » (Some extent)
- It"s been interesting to read the reports. The book however was very dull. What I learnt came almost entirely from the papers and the lectures since the book was merely a vaguer desription of the information from the papers.» (Large extent)
- Great with test exams.» (Large extent)

10. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

25 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»11 44%
Very well»14 56%

Genomsnitt: 3.56

- Very helpful having the lecture notes available online.» (Very well)
- Only one comment, why not make the laboratory PMs available from the beginning? It would make it easier to even out the workload over the period.» (Very well)

Study climate

11. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

25 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»8 32%
Very good»12 48%
I did not seek help»5 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.88

12. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

25 svarande

Very poorly»1 4%
Rather poorly»3 12%
Rather well»5 20%
Very well»14 56%
I did not seek cooperation»2 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

13. How was the course workload?

25 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»3 12%
Adequate»18 72%
High»3 12%
Too high»1 4%

Genomsnitt: 3.08

- Not that much to do. The only "heavy" part was writing reports.» (Low)
- Adequate math, but perhaps a bit much when it comes to the second part of the course which is more concerned with software engineering terminology than practical work. » (Adequate)

14. How was the total workload this study period?

25 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»15 60%
High»9 36%
Too high»1 4%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

- Not applicaple, as I"m not a full time student.» (Adequate)

Summarizing questions

15. What is your general impression of the course?

25 svarande

Poor»1 4%
Fair»1 4%
Adequate»5 20%
Good»15 60%
Excellent»3 12%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- I"d like more practical examples about designing fault-tolerant systems, to put all the elements in a context. » (Fair)
- The first part of the course, along with the guest lectures where the most interesting to attend to. The second course is probably relevant though that it may be asked for by/in the industry. » (Good)
- Personally i don"t really think there should be put as much weight on the calculations of models, as I will probably never use it. Understanding the basic models and using computing aids like sharpe feels more realistic for me.» (Good)
- Guest lectures were excellent !» (Good)
- In beginning I expected more information in field of SWD but generally course gave a good insight about the field of reliability engineering.» (Excellent)

16. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- labs.....teacher....guest lectures»
- Labs. Maybe some additional, different lab. Programming exercise? Space and JAS lectures were good. »
- Liked the guest lectures, JAS was especially nice.»
- Exercise session is very helpful to understand Lecture4, 5, 6, 7,9.»
- Everything!»
- The models of computation for comparing different architectures.»
- Test exam availability, web page quality, lab 1 and 2»
- exercises»
- The guest lecture and the TTA presentation»

17. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Reduce the report part of lab 1. It was mostly about counting words and trying to say things with as much words as possible.»
- lecture at 8:00 in morning...»
- I would like to see more details on software techniques, like time redundancy and "smart" techniques to enhance the dependability and robustness of simplex systems. And a bit less focus on the hardware redundancies.»
- SP wasn"t that interesting.»
- Reports should be kept at a sensible level. It is not helpful to spend the majority of the time of a lab preparing a monstrous report. We invested a considerable amount of time in our report, time which could have been better spend doing other things. I see the point of demanding well-written reports, but not being allowed to make references to the lab PM yet still demanding that every detail be explained seems like a waste of everyone"s time. By all means, keep demanding well-written reports, but take it down one notch and allow us to focus more on the course content rather than the capitalization of in-document references and the citation standard of the IEEE as opposed to Harvard.»
- The requirement of laboratory report can be more clear. Espacially about lab2.»
- I would"ve preferred the course if it contained less "ility"-words (maintainability, what-not-ability). Words with a clear meaning is alright, but it starts to feel like a course in a soft subject like economy.»
- Less focus on the lab report more on its contents (the results, what was learned). I understand that this was to prepare the students for writing academic papers but it actually took too much focus off the main topic.»
- More content needed for GSPN model»
- The examination calculations questions were not related to or same level as those that have been practiced in exercise sessions!!!»
- labs seem not to be that practical but writing the reports is a good training»

18. Additional comments

- some examples of business used documents (eg. examples of documents generated in different life-cycle phases) could be made available as course material as well. »
- Johan certainly has the knowledge but does not use the most effective teaching style. Information packed power points are fantastic for exam study, but horrible to endure in class, for the following reasons: 1) Reading complete sentences, while having someone else read them to you, is annoying. 2) When Johan reads the text out loud, he knows what he is about to say, because he wrote it, so he starts to talk a bit faster, speak a little sloppy and blasé, yada yada yada, since he assumes that we can read (and we can), and the text he is reading is right there. Result: the whole thing becomes ineffective because you just stop paying attention very quickly. I would, however, very much appreciate a compromise. Use exactly the same kind of bullet points for your own notes when teaching, and by all means publish them online as lecture notes, but strip out information from your slides to a bare minimum. Less text, more graphics. Final note: There are very few circumstances where I feel that the use of the words terrorist and terrorism are appropriate. I immediately react with suspicion when someone says that something needs to be done because of "terrorists". The word is watered down at best and is used in fear mongering at worst. "Adversary", however, is a wonderful word.»
- I wish examination can contain a little bit more about computation, since students usually put a lot time in this part.»
- It was a great course!»
- I decided to read this course on the basis of the presentation held this spring. The course was marketed almost as a "math"-course were systems were compared and designed with quantifiable goals. I was very dissaponted when I learnt to what extent the course was about learning word definitions and what was included in report x in the i:th stage of development method y. »
- Too much reading material»
- Already filled this form, stop reminding me...»

* obligatoriska frågor

Kursutvärderingssystem från