Visa resultat

0910-2 Model driven software development, TDA593

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

50 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		4		8%
Around 20 hours/week»		21		42%
Around 25 hours/week»		12		24%
Around 30 hours/week»		13		26%
At least 35 hours/week»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.68

- The project was very time consuming.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- More on the end of the course» (Around 25 hours/week)
- Very time consuming course» (Around 25 hours/week)
- in the end it became a little bit more work to finish the prjoect» (Around 30 hours/week)
- This has escalated in the end of the course where implementation of the project in BridgePoint was introduced.» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

49 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		4		8%
50%»		12		24%
75%»		11		22%
100%»		22		44%

Genomsnitt: 4.04

- I attended the first lecture and the weekly group meetings. Did not attend more lectures since I have read the oosys course.» (25%)
- It collided with my other course» (50%)
- Due to unfortunate circumstances» (50%)
- This was partly due to other courses. Mostly it was because the lack of teaching skills with the tutor. I found it very difficult to understand his english and this meant it was difficult to get the concept of the lectures. The weekly meetings were very useful!» (50%)
- Both of my courses had lectures on the same time. So each week I had to decide which lectures to attend to.» (50%)
- I had a hard time understanding what rogardt said so the lectures wansn"t high on my priority list.» (50%)
- I where sick some days» (75%)
- Had colliding lectures.» (75%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		17		34%
The goals are difficult to understand»		7		14%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		16		32%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		10		20%

Genomsnitt: 2.38

- I have mostly percieved the goals through what has been said at the lectures, especially during the introduction. Never actually read the written goals.» (I have not seen/read the goals)
- i have no idea what im supposed to learn from this course..» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- They are very diffuse in terms of what we later did.» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- The goals on studieportalen aren"t the same as those on the course web page.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- Since this is the first time this course is held, the goals could be more refined» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- I think the goals were pretty clear although i"ve never seen them in class since i joined the course late.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

37 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		2		5%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		27		72%
No, the goals are set too high»		8		21%

Genomsnitt: 2.16

- i cant answer this question..» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- They are not very exact as to what is expected from you.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- It would have been easier to reach the goal if there were more lectures on OAL and BridgePoint.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

No, not at all»		6		14%
To some extent»		12		29%
Yes, definitely»		9		21%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		14		34%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

- The examination was a bad joke, and nothing else. Trying to learn a new language and then making a project in it during 2 weeks is not reasonable. And that"s not counting the fact that the editor is so filled with bugs it"s almost unusable.» (No, not at all)
- this course have a totally weird system.. you are supposed to rank your friends in the group, but noone tells you what criteria you should you to rank them. And i am not educated to rank other people so i think it"s weird. the small exams was quite good.» (No, not at all)
- The examination was really bad, confusing, non-standard and I"m really upset that it was the students that graded each other at the project.» (No, not at all)
- Since the only examination that seemed to matter was during the course and not at the end of the course it didn"t assess the gained knowledge at all.» (No, not at all)
- Very wierd examination, I felt that whenever we tried to say anything to "defend" our work, the examinators interupted us.» (No, not at all)
- Examination were non-pedagogic, unclear, bad grammar, badly structured, asking non-relevant questions» (No, not at all)
- Some goals don"t seem to have assessed, for example OCL and " * understand how the different analysis and design methods make up a development process."» (To some extent)
- The examination as such was a good idea in terms of seeing how well the group had done. I would have wanted more personal questions in regards to what the project was about. Perhaps take in the workspace the day before so that it can be viewed and apropriate questions can be asked?» (To some extent)
- Bridgepont and implement the model in that is not one of the goal in the course! So why do we do it?» (To some extent)
- Written exams were difficult to study for, but I know Rogardt is experimenting with these. The final oral exam worked good.» (To some extent)
- With the exception of OCL and design patterns, which were only briefly covered in the course and not really a part of the examination.» (Yes, definitely)
- Well, at most points yes.» (Yes, definitely)
- The questions of the voluntary exams sometimes seemed to be discussed after the exam and not before... (or came up late in the project work, but they were not everytime covered by the lecture).» (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?

Small extent»		11		22%
Some extent»		23		46%
Large extent»		13		26%
Great extent»		3		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.16

- Trial and error was the main teacher, making many of the lectures redundant. In my opinion, the lectures should focus more on the big picture of MDSD than on details in each and every part of it, gone through so fast that you don"t learn it anyway. Details are easier studied with notes on a paper, handed out with the weekly assignment, for example.» (Small extent)
- Next to none, I was almost completely unable to understand what the teacher was saying. (and, even though they aren"t perfect, my own english skills are not that bad)» (Small extent)
- If you simply take the teaching, not the slides, it has been minimal.» (Small extent)
- The lectures was, at least for me, impossible to understand since I couldn"t understand what the lecturer said.» (Small extent)
- Really hard to understand the lecturer» (Small extent)
- The supervisor meetings were helpful, but in retrospect I should have skipped the lectures» (Some extent)
- The notes were not all that helpful. Seemed to be confusion about some concept and not even the course-assistans could clarify the issues.» (Some extent)
- The teaching style was often far from pedagogical and sometimes confusing.» (Some extent)
- Got alot of good information out of the internet that helped me to understand better how everything worked.» (Some extent)
- Rogardt is very engaged and has a lot of knowledge on the course subject. It is really fun to have a teacher like this becouse it"s not very common on other IT courses. But he isn"t good on handling critic (at least not when talking about the different diagrams and BridgePoint).» (Some extent)
- BridgePoint kunde läras ut mer, även om det var föreläsningar om det så var det svårt att komma igång med programmet om man inte använt det innan.» (Some extent)
- Teacher teaches basics but not how to do things well. Teacher was very hard to understand.» (Some extent)
- Especially the explanations of diagram components.» (Large extent)

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

Small extent»		22		44%
Some extent»		17		34%
Large extent»		10		20%
Great extent»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 1.8

- Some, but mostly trial and error.» (Small extent)
- 3 books were recommended, but none of them was counted as official course literature. » (Small extent)
- Det borde verkligen finnas en given kursbok, med angivna kapitel/ämnesområden. Som det var i år var det omöjligt att ta åt sig saker från en missad föreläsning, föreläsningsslides räcker inte.» (Small extent)
- Didn"t use any course literature and almost no information was available on the internet.» (Small extent)
- Could have had more links to information about the concept adressed in the course. Creating use cases, diagram, contracts and so on.» (Some extent)
- The slides have been quite usefull but hard to get a better grip around the whole subject what they were about. Just how to use it.» (Some extent)
- I have to find the materials my self so it were very hard to find some good information.» (Some extent)
- Mostly for more formal specifications and elaborations on what certain diagrams consist of.» (Large extent)
- Slides have been quite helpful when getting to know what the course is about.» (Large extent)
- But this is not good! I really missed a course book during the course, or at least when preparing for the volontary exams. There is a lot of slides and there are some good pictures (I know Rogardt spent a lot of time to make them good) but if you did not attend to the lectures they are sometimes hard to understand and it is hard to get a better grip. Just reading them to pass the volontary exams is not enough. » (Large extent)
- Slides, documents, didn"t read the book very much.» (Large extent)
- Good course books. Lectures and teaching was bad and unprofessional.» (Large extent)

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

Very badly»		1		2%
Rather badly»		11		22%
Rather well»		32		64%
Very well»		6		12%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- kursansvarig svarar inte på mail» (Very badly)
- Some information was only presented on the lecture, and if one wasn"t there one wouldn"t be able to know. The teacher seems to be ignorant and have the attitude of "too bad, you weren"t on the lecture."» (Rather badly)
- Web page is bad, impossible to find anything on it until you learn the layout.» (Rather badly)
- the webpage is quite messy. if i remember correctly many of the links were dead so you couldn"t study as good as you would like to..» (Rather badly)
- I found that the information reached out to the students a little late. I would have wanted to see more information given earlier! The dates of the voluntary exams should be set at the start of the course so that, from the beginning, students are aware of the dates that are most important in the course.» (Rather badly)
- Things that were stated to be at the webpage wasn"t there. If bridgepoint should continue to be used, you must book computer rooms with bridgepoint as they were very often unavailable.» (Rather badly)
- Det fanns ingen dokumentation över bridgepoint att hitta nånstans!» (Rather badly)
- Det fanns mycket information på hemsidan, men den var oftast rörig, och svårt att hitta det relevanta. » (Rather badly)
- Some information could"ve been put up in an earlier stage.» (Rather well)
- some updates were very late, e.g. BridgePoint tips and tricks (to put this up earlier would have saved time). E.g. one assignment of another course that should have been helpful for the voluntary exam (that"s what the website says) was never put online.» (Rather well)
- Although the "news list" could be more readable.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		1		2%
Rather poor»		19		38%
Rather good»		19		38%
Very good»		10		20%
I did not seek help»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.77

- Good during the first half of the course.» (Very poor)
- It was too little help with Bridgepoint in the end of the course. The teacher relied on the lectures and expect everyone to understand the program by giving theory. However, there are always other situations in practice.» (Rather poor)
- Supervision one time a week was not enough support becuase we had weekly assignments. Also, we often had no chance to prepare questions for the supervision because the assignment of the coming week did not come up on the web until just before the meetings.» (Rather poor)
- more time for questions would be nice, 1h per week is not enough, and when using BP more supervision time is needed since it is not trivial to use to understand» (Rather poor)
- More bridgepoint sessions, or move the current ones one week forward.» (Rather poor)
- The supervisor meetings provided a good opportunity to seek help, but we needed help far more often than that when we started working in Bridgepoint» (Rather poor)
- Only 2 opportunities for asking questions about BridgePoint. Only 1 out of 3 emails answered, after 2 days.» (Rather poor)
- it was okay, could have been better..» (Rather poor)
- We had the weekly meetings to ask questions but since it was only once and many questions arose during the week it was difficult to summarize all these during one session.» (Rather poor)
- Far too few opportunities for help during the later part of the course.» (Rather poor)
- The one hour meeting each group had every week was good in the beginning, but when BridgePoint was introduced the meetings were too short (since the original groups were split in half and we only had half the meeting time).» (Rather poor)
- Seemed we didn"t get alot of feedback during the projects and in the last project the course assistant did not look on our work.» (Rather poor)
- Main teacher was hard to ask due to language issues. Neither swedish nor english was understandable. No schedlued time for bridgepoint project.» (Rather poor)
- The assistants made a good job, with the little preparation they had (Bridgepoint). However, it would have been much better if that was thought of earlier, so that preparations were better.» (Rather good)
- Skulle kunna vara mer handledartider» (Rather good)
- You always felt welcome to ask questions. Especially Jonas was very helpful. Rogardt could at times be a little to eager... :)» (Rather good)
- Quite hard in the end when we worked with bridgepoint but otherwise good.» (Rather good)
- We had this time every week but when using BridgePoint it was harder. There are no help on the Internet and there was only half an hour with help from Rogardt wich he spent on defending BridgePoint.» (Rather good)
- I början var det ganska tillräckligt med ett möte per vecka men mer övningar eller liknande i slutet av perioden hade varit att föredra» (Rather good)
- Burden was very good, he"s a keeper!» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		1		2%
Rather poorly»		8		16%
Rather well»		19		38%
Very well»		22		44%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.24

- i think the groups were too big. 8 people just dont cut it.. 4 or AT MOST 6 people would be great i think. hard to work with 8 people you know.. it become to much chitchat and nothing gets really done, at least not good» (Very poorly)
- To large groups, difficult to cooperate» (Rather poorly)
- To large groups, it was hard to get all together and the work load between students were different.» (Rather poorly)
- My group concisted of 8 people. Several of them mostly sat there and took no initiative, I had to drive them forward alot. Smaller groups or at least the possibilities to get help on how to divide the work up would probably have helped alot. » (Rather poorly)
- For the first part of the course it was better since the workload could be divided more easily if some people worked less. But when the group got smaller this made it harder for some to work if people weren"t doing anything.» (Rather poorly)
- Hamnade i en jättebra grupp och på så sätt funkade det bra. Men att ha så stora grupper (8 pers) gjorde det omöjligt att styra upp grupparbetet på ett smidigt sätt. » (Rather poorly)
- Jag tycker 8 pers i gruppen att börja med är alltför högt, det borde ligga på 4-6 istället. Om det nu är pengarna som tryter så borde ni ändra upplägget så att alla har samma chans att lära sig. Jag kände att det bildades en "inre grupp" i dessa stora grupper som tog åt sig större delen av arbetet.» (Rather poorly)
- In our project group of 8 students, only 3 of us really worked during the first half of the course. When they actually did their tasks, they were often late and had low quality (ie didn"t do as we"d been taught or it was written in litterature)» (Rather poorly)
- Large groups and sometimes members could sit around doing nothing, which makes the rest of the group members frustrated.» (Rather well)
- Failures on my part mostly.» (Rather well)
- As mentioned at the beginning of the course, 8 people in a groups is simply too much... Communication was difficult especially since several group members were quite silent and not cooperative enough at all times. I don"t know if it was because of cultural differences in expectations on leadership or just lack of interest. » (Rather well)
- Groups of 8 people can sometimes be a problem.» (Rather well)
- Väldigt stora grupper, det blir lätt väldigt uppdelat.» (Rather well)
- We almost didn"t have to do any work individually since we always met up and worked together.» (Very well)
- We were forced to work good together, since the entire course is based on group work.» (Very well)
- Over my expectations! Good group!!» (Very well)
- It can always get better. Hard to find time to work together sins we all have different other courses.» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

Too low»		1		2%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		12		24%
High»		23		46%
Too high»		14		28%

Genomsnitt: 3.98

- It was low in the beginning but it went up alot when we started with BridgePoint, but in average it was ok» (Adequate)
- Too high in the latter part of the course (BridgePoint implementation).» (High)
- Too much to do by the end of the course. As people DO have other course beside this one, it was hard to make a good finish.» (High)
- A lot of time was spent on useless things like trying to figure out things that should have been in some kind of lecture, but wasn"t.» (High)
- Especially in the end of the course the workload was high to very high. Whereas in the beginning the workload was low to adequate.» (High)
- it was okay during the first weeks. but from the middle of the period to the bitter end it was a loooot of work. bridgepoint took a loooooot of time to understand and the "half time report week" was hectically. i think the half time report should be divided in some way. it was hard to both do your usually workload AND review another groups work.» (High)
- Especially the last week was though since using bridgepoint took too much information. In our group of four we had all taken the tutorials but we still had major issues getting the application to work and well the documentation is poor at best.» (High)
- Higher than normal but still below what Chalmers expects.» (High)
- Imbalanced. Put bridgepoint earlier in the course so that this can be spread out during the time that the course spans.» (High)
- No time left for other courses!» (Too high)
- the assigments made us work much with the course, and still we had no time to study for the voluntary exams.» (Too high)
- There were definetly to much to learn in the course. We spended about 30 hours a week with this course to do all the weekly assignments and to studie to "woluntary exams" so what we accompliched was not what could have been the best result becouse we only did what we had to do. I would have liked to be able to have less to do in the weekly assignments so that we would have time to be satisfied with the result. » (Too high)
- Too high because I never really understood what I was expected to do - instructions changed too often.» (Too high)
- Way to high workload, specially with the Bridgepoint implementation.» (Too high)
- Too high, since we had the group meeting in the middle of the week... Working on one thing the whole week and sending it in on Friday (or Saturday) would be much easier IMO. » (Too high)
- As there were close to no useful documentation or help to learn bridgepoint, it was really too high workload.» (Too high)
- Introducing a piece of new software, that neither the course responsible or the assistants know how to use, isn"t a good idea in my opinion. Especially when there was very little documentation and tutorials to find. This and the fact that there is a lot of new information for everyone in this course requires that one put more effort than you could expect into this course.» (Too high)
- Problemet var nog egentligen inte att det var för _mycket_ som skulle göras, utan att det var oklart exakt hur _mycket_ som skulle göras, det fanns alltid mer som gick att göra samtidigt som man konstant var osäker på hur man låg till i kursen..» (Too high)
- To only have to weeks in the end to learn bridgepoint and oal is to short. sinse it takes more then one week to learn how to find in the program, and wee don´,t now all the funktions that need to be implemented to get a fully working program.» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		1		2%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		11		22%
High»		23		46%
Too high»		14		28%

Genomsnitt: 4

- In one way low, because I only took one new course, but also too high because study period 2 is always the worst study period for me. Maybe because of the weather. » (Adequate)
- The Bridgepoint part took too much time, maybe should have began a bit earlier so that one had more time to learn about it. » (High)
- other course was fairly easy» (High)
- Higher than normal but still below what Chalmers expects.» (High)
- it depends on the weekly assignment» (High)
- See comment above.» (High)
- Studied 22.5 points during the period» (High)
- There were allmost no time left for the other course.» (Too high)
- This course took up a LOT of time, I haven"t had enough time to study for other courses.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		10		20%
Fair»		11		22%
Adequate»		12		24%
Good»		16		32%
Excellent»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 2.74

- Many of the elements in this course were great. The lecturer was always well prepared, highly enthusiastic and helpful. However, none of this matters when the students are unable to understand what the lecturer is saying. I do NOT think badly of this lecturer, but the fact remains that he is highly unfit for teaching.» (Poor)
- i dont feel i learned anything important from this course. it also was quite boring.» (Poor)
- This grade is given only because of the bridgepoint part of the course. The workload increased a bunch and there simply was not enough information about either how OAL is written or how bridgepoint works in general. When developing it is important to have access to some kind of API or anything explaining the general syntax of the language. This was lacking.» (Poor)
- This was the worst course I"ve ever attended! The lack of pedagogic, students left without guidance, terrible examination methods, required use of a close to undocumented tool and so on really makes me question the competence of the course teachers.» (Poor)
- Tanken var god, ämnet viktigt, att tänka nytt är också viktigt. Men kursen känndes mycket som ett misslyckat experiment i pedagogik, där man som student varken visste vad som krävdes av en eller vilka saker som gav betyg. Detta i kombination med bristfällig kurslitteratur och att halva kursen gick ut på att lära sig ett program och programspråk som varken var färdigutvecklat eller hade tillräckligt med dokumentation gjorde att det jag tar med mig från kursen är känslan av total frustration snarare än en ökad förståelse i ämnesområdet » (Poor)
- It could really be an excellent course and it"s overall content was very good. But the lectures and the examination process was beneath contempt.» (Poor)
- I was exited to studie this course. but I have been to frustrated during this course since I spended to much time doing the assignments and didn"t even get satisfied with the result.» (Fair)
- The concept is good, but there isn"t enough "continuity". We do an exercise and then we have to put it aside. We don"t have much time to correct faults in our previous work.» (Fair)
- The weekly exams were too hard to actually read up on. More info should be given on how to read up on the issues and actually learn from the lectures. I mean I had the will to learn but did not know how to. Bridgepoint was a bit of fun but a lot of pain, a lot. We should have either been given a template on how to get our work started or one or two more lecture on how to approach the application, on how to write the syntax and so on. We very frequently turned to the documentation but it is horrible, trial-and-error was the way to go and I do not like that. Loosing a full days work because the application has MAJOR bugs is not acceptable. Maybe warnings on which bugs to look out for and things like that. Also wanted more feedback from our reports. Turning the use-case into bridgepoint was harder when we realized some steps were wrong and well some steps were impossible to implement due to the bridgepoints usage of arrays and lists. All in all, more information on how to learn more, better feedback, and well do something about bridgepoint and I would have enjoyed the course more.» (Fair)
- The intent is good but the implementation needs to be improved.» (Fair)
- Except for the BridgePoint part, the course is good.» (Adequate)
- Good content but to much! To many deadlines for weekly assignments, voluntary exams etc. There was no time left for other courses!» (Adequate)
- the content of the course was good, but too many different things to learn » (Adequate)
- Upplägget på kursen är i teorin klockren. Men arbetsbördan blir alldeles för stor med halftime report, halftime review, volontary exams and bridgepoint.» (Adequate)
- To only have to weeks in the end to learn bridgepoint and oal is to short. sinse it takes more then one week to learn how to find in the program, and wee don´,t now all the funktions that need to be implemented to get a fully working program.» (Adequate)
- ...but needs a lot of improvement.» (Good)
- I really enjoyed the implementation in BridgePoint, but it would have been great to have more time to study OAL and understand how the program works.» (Good)
- with a little bit more guidance even excellent (especially in view of brigdepoint)» (Good)
- Men den skulle kunna vara bättre» (Good)
- Good but a little shaky. You can tell that it"s the first time the course is given. » (Good)
- I think UML is a really good method to use when designing software, maybe there should be more focus on pure UML and not that much BridgePoint specific knowledge.» (Good)
- A good course for next year when bridgepoint will be alot better program.» (Good)
- I like the concept but not all things included. » (Good)
- With potential for improvement on how BP is introduced and used.» (Excellent)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

16. Additional comments