Visa resultat

Introduction to electronic system design, DAT090, MPIES,HT2007

Your background

1. My study background is:

Chalmers civilingenjör programme - Electrical Engineering»		14		32%
Chalmers civilingenjör programme - Computer Engineering»		9		20%
Chalmers civilingenjör - other programme»		0		0%
Chalmers högskoleingenjör programme - Electrical Engineering»		8		18%
Chalmers högskoleingenjör programme - Computer Engineering»		0		0%
Chalmers högskoleingenjör - other programme»		0		0%
Other Swedish civingenjör programme»		0		0%
Other Swedish högskoleingenjör programme»		2		4%
Foreign university - Electrical Engineering»		9		20%
Foreign university - Computer Engineering»		1		2%
Foreign university - other programme»		0		0%
Other (explain below)»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.97

- I currently study Högskolingengör programme Electrical Engineering, this course is part of the course plan.» (Chalmers högskoleingenjör programme - Electrical Engineering)

2. I am currently enrolled in this master programme:

Integrated Electronic System Design»		32		72%
Other Chalmers master programme»		2		4%
Not enrolled in master programme»		10		22%

Genomsnitt: 1.5

- See above» (Not enrolled in master programme)
- Reading 20p extra to get a Master in System, Control and Mechatronics» (Not enrolled in master programme)

3. I have previously studied the following hardware design languages:

VHDL only»		34		77%
Verilog only»		2		4%
VHDL and Verilog»		3		6%
None»		5		11%
Don"t know»		0		0%
Other (explain below):»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.52

- This course should have taught VHDL, it"s not in any other course on the Högskoleingenjör programme. Thankfully I have had a course in it previously.» (VHDL only)

4. I have previously studied digital filters:

Extensively»		5		11%
Some»		22		50%
Only very little»		14		31%
Not at all»		3		6%
Don"t know»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.34

- Signals & Systems» (Some)
- SOS-kursen samt kandidatarbetet» (Some)
- Between "some" and "only very little".» (Only very little)
- Not digital filters but» (Only very little)

Your own effort

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

44 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		21		47%
Around 20 hours/week»		14		31%
Around 25 hours/week»		6		13%
Around 30 hours/week»		3		6%
At least 35 hours/week»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.79

- Did not ever understand what to learn, therefor little time spent» (At most 15 hours/week)
- Det fanns ju inget vettigt att plugga på. Föreläsningarna var en katastrof.» (At most 15 hours/week)
- Outside lectures and excersisec - only review of lectures slides.» (At most 15 hours/week)
- I went to all the lectures, did all the laborations, the mini project and read some in the course literature. It was probably around 20 hours a week.» (Around 20 hours/week)

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

44 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		9		20%
50%»		10		22%
75%»		10		22%
100%»		15		34%

Genomsnitt: 3.7

- I"m better off reading the slides myself.» (25%)
- More effective to read on my own.» (25%)
- Max 25%. Det var effektivare att läsa föeläsningmaterialet själv än att lyssna på någon annan som läste innantill.» (25%)
- As the lectures lost focus on what its purpose was and many slides were skipped or said not to be included in the course. And the lecture material was not adapted or prepared for the course, I myself couldn"t justify the time spent on even showing up in the end. On previous courses I have attended almost 100% of all previous courses lectures.» (50%)
- sick 2 weeks » (50%)
- I went to all the lectures and I thought they were bad. Our two hour lectures lasted between one hour and one and a half hour. The teacher only showed parts of the course literature very fast on the screen and made a few comments. It didn’,t teach me much. The person next to me even fell asleep on one of the lectures.» (100%)

7. How many hours did you study to prepare for the final exam?

<10»		27		61%
10-20»		11		25%
20-30»		5		11%
30-40»		0		0%
40-50»		0		0%
50-60»		1		2%
60-70»		0		0%
70-80»		0		0%
>80»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.59

- Was no exam» (<10)
- Did not attend the final exam as its contents was fuzzy and the parallell course had a mandatory exam.» (<10)
- I didn"t do the written exam it was optional. And you didn"t have to study to any extend for the presentation.» (<10)
- I did not do the final exam.» (<10)
- What was this course all about? What was I supposed to learn?» (<10)
- The exam was optional but after trying to prepare for the exam I realised that it was impossible to know what to prepare for, so I just skipped it altogether, since it wasn"t clear wether or not there was gonna be calculation based questions or whatever.» (<10)
- Did not take the exam - not clear what we should learn from the course» (<10)
- Final written exam wasn"t mandatory, I just tried my best from what I knew, really no special studying» (<10)
- It"s hard to study when you don"t know at all what is important or where to get information (500 slides.. come on..)» (10-20)

Goals and goal fulfilment

8. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		5		11%
The goals are difficult to understand»		13		29%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		20		45%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		6		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.61

- The goals where understandable, but the labs was not concurrent with the goals. They where more of reading a text and then doing what the text was saying, not much own thinking.» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- Cannot translate them into what I should study.» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- After seeing the so called course materal it makes less and less sense» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- Det var svårt att se något större sammanhang mellan kursmålen och kursen innehåll.» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- I have read the goals but do not remember them now. However, I still do not know what we should have learned in this course. We did not learn anything new VHDL - it was one review lab excersice and one miniproject in the end. No new VHDL knowledge, we could have done this last semester. The lectures was about filters and how to implement thoose - the TA said we do not understand anything of the "signal parts". So what is then left? We learn that it is possible to generate code from prepared examples in similink. And a little on some models of how to work in projects.» (The goals are difficult to understand)

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

37 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		4		10%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		31		83%
No, the goals are set too high»		2		5%

Genomsnitt: 1.94

- but i thought that introducing system design with DSP implementations isn"t the best way for non DSP background students like me. Is it not possible to take a more generic design like for example an ALU? We do adders in the Digital Design course anyway» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- But another approch to reach them is needed. Creating an entirly new course with least possible effort did not work in this case.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Svårt att svara på. Jag har fortfarande inte förstått vad kursen gick ut på.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

10. Did the examination, including the labs and the project, assess whether you have reached the goals?

No, not at all»		10		24%
To some extent»		22		53%
Yes, definitely»		2		4%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		7		17%

Genomsnitt: 2.14

- Worst.Exam.Ever. That wasn"t questions about "our general understanding", that was rediciously specific questions!» (No, not at all)
- The exam was terrible, not testing essential knowledge but vendor specific, irrelevant details.» (No, not at all)
- Labs were ok but exam had nothing to do with the course and the project was bad administrated, no body knew the hardware platform.» (To some extent)
- Some questions seems valid. We should have some basic knowledge of pros/cons of ASICs, FPGAs and PCBs.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		23		52%
Some extent»		16		36%
Large extent»		5		11%
Great extent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.59

- My learning is based on the labs. » (Small extent)
- Lectures are handled really badly. No one understands what we are supposed to learn and the lecture slides are very bad! It seems like the teacher does not want to be a teacher and just rushes through everything.» (Small extent)
- They had not prepared enough to be able to answer our questions.» (Small extent)
- Föreläsningarna var dåliga och labhandledarna var dålig insatta i labbbarna.» (Small extent)

12. To what extent did the lectures help you learning?

Small extent»		28		63%
Some extent»		14		31%
Large extent»		2		4%
Great extent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.4

- Almost nothing. Some comments to the course literature on the lectures didn’,t say more than the book.» (Small extent)
- Uninspired lecturer that show slides from a vendor» (Small extent)
- Did not attend very much. Read on my own.» (Small extent)
- The lectures where the slides were created by the person talking, it was great. The rest not so good.» (Small extent)
- I learned more by reading them by myself. » (Small extent)
- Här skulle det passat med ett alternativ "very small extent" alternativt "none at all".» (Small extent)
- Lectures were just reading of Xilinx provided lectures - I could have gained all that knowledge on my own at home» (Small extent)

13. How was the subject coverage of the lectures ?

They covered too little material»		11		25%
About right»		18		40%
They covered somewhat too much material»		8		18%
They covered much too much material»		3		6%
Don"t know/did not attend»		4		9%

Genomsnitt: 2.34

- Why repeat binary addition etc instead of going deeper into DSP?» (They covered too little material)
- The lecture slides were meant for on-screen reading and not for lectures. Too much and too small text.» (About right)
- They offered shallow insights in advanced mathematical procedures that weren"t even the focus of the course, nor in the prerequirements. This together with detailed product information and useless xilinx information» (They covered somewhat too much material)
- It covered parts that weren´,t relevant and left out parts that were.» (They covered somewhat too much material)
- Det kändes som en dålig föreläsningskurs i signalbehandling/kommunikationssystem blandat med Xilinx-propaganda. Inte en generell introkurs i elektronikdesign.» (They covered much too much material)
- Has been on too few lectures. Simply because Lars just read in the Xilinx material with little or nothing added so they were just useless and waste of time in general. Better to read my own, but not good though because the Xilinx material too large.» (Don"t know/did not attend)
- sick 2 weeks but seemed to be mostly overheads of a large field » (Don"t know/did not attend)

14. To what extent did the labs help your learning?

Small extent»		8		18%
Some extent»		17		38%
Large extent»		14		31%
Great extent»		5		11%

Genomsnitt: 2.36

- They were not so good as stated earlier, the labs just included reading a text then doing what the text said. No explanation on what the lab was supose to do.» (Small extent)
- The labs in short consisted of: "open this project and observe", although sometimes it wasn"t even clear what to observe.» (Small extent)
- It was too much signal processing, wich I am fond of but it wasn´,t relevant to the course.» (Small extent)
- The lab exercises were only prepared examples. We run the examples and receive a delay, a speed and a number of SLICEs. But the results were never anylised. We answered some questions, but still it did not give much. The TA"s said themself that they did not know so much about "signals/filters". My group had came further than the TA had so they could not help us. It was also not clear what that was important with the labs. Should we learn how many nr of SLICEs how to make filters or so. I still do not know.» (Small extent)
- Not syncronized with lectures, lab assistants couldn"t answer our questions and a computer system from hell!» (Some extent)
- This is where I have learned something.» (Some extent)
- De komplementerade föreläsningskursen och gav en del förståelse. I övrigt var de en katastrof.» (Some extent)
- mostly repetition on filters and digital technologi» (Some extent)
- half of the task wasn"t completable» (Large extent)
- The labs were quite good when we had a licence to Simulink so we could do the lab as planed. But the connection to the lectures was missing. » (Large extent)

15. How was the coverage of the lab exercises?

They covered too little»		15		34%
The covered about the right amount»		20		45%
They covered somewhat too much»		7		15%
They covered much too much»		1		2%
Don"t know»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 1.93

- They should have been more interactive. the lab supervisors weren"t even interested in the results we got from the exercises, instead they printed up some own questions. Good initiative, do that for the whole thing next year.» (They covered too little)
- ..but we didn"t understand them properly...» (The covered about the right amount)
- The coverage on the labs was about right but there was no connection between the labs and the lectures.» (The covered about the right amount)
- They were no» (The covered about the right amount)
- Framförallt kom inte labövningarna i fas med föreläsningarna så det var svårt att förstå vad man gjorde medan man gjorde det. Förståelsen kom i efterhand. Utrustningen krånglade (licensproblem) vilket gjorde att ett labtillfällle i princip försvann. Handledarna var dåligt insatta i labkursen och kunde inte bistå med den hjälp som behövdes.» (They covered somewhat too much)
- The xilinx laboration paper covered quite much, perhaps too much. I think that the lab questions were of a "follow the recipe" kind of way and therefore the learning outcome was reduced.» (They covered somewhat too much)
- a little to much cant really get deap into any of the filters just run the test files and see output.» (They covered somewhat too much)

16. To what extent did the mini project help your learning?

Small extent»		13		29%
Some extent»		19		43%
Large extent»		6		13%
Great extent»		6		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.11

- Not at all related to the rest of the course» (Small extent)
- just problems no knew anything» (Small extent)
- If we need to train how to make specification then why don"t we just train doing specification and skip the rest?» (Small extent)
- We weren´,t even able to get help when we got stuck.» (Small extent)
- Learned nothing new. It was only review of previous knowledge.» (Small extent)
- It was the first thing where you actually had some own thinking involved. » (Some extent)
- I learned some more VHDL in the miniproject. But there has so far not been one comment on the product specification, the oral presentation or the report. Without feedback on our work it is very difficult to improve the work. I have no idea if the specification was bad, average or good. I do not know what was good and what was bad. I do know it can be much better but I do not know how. The same goes for the miniproject report. But we have not been approved on the course yet so we might get comments on the report before we get approved. I do hope so. » (Some extent)
- Fun to actually get to do something yourself, although we didn"t get to practice this in the course first.» (Some extent)
- Det var ganska smärtfritt och stundom ganska kul, bidrog kanske inte med så mycket ny kunskap, men en bra repetition.» (Some extent)
- Very good» (Great extent)
- like when one has to build stuff and not just see what happens, but its an introductunary course so good to remeber syntax of VHDL» (Great extent)

17. Was your background in VHDL sufficient

Not at all sufficient»		1		2%
Not sufficient»		4		9%
Sufficient»		39		88%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- I"ve read a VHDL course before, but this course was suposed to theach VHDL also as there is no course in the Högskoleingenjörs programme that teach it before this course.» (Sufficient)
- I only used VHDL in the first lab.» (Sufficient)
- Det hade ju dock inte skadat om man hade fått lära sig lite mer. Det hade behövts till metodologi-kursen om inte annat.» (Sufficient)
- though my lab partner had never used it before.» (Sufficient)
- The VHDL part was rather easy.» (Sufficient)

18. Was your background in digital filters sufficient?

Not at all sufficient»		4		9%
Not sufficient»		16		36%
Sufficient»		24		54%

Genomsnitt: 2.45

- We don"t know what baseband is or how you demodulate a signal.» (Not sufficient)
- Didn"t anything about adaptive filters or CIC-filters. Not good enough about FIR/IIR-filters either. St» (Not sufficient)
- there was no need for repitation» (Sufficient)
- För att inte vara en kurs i signalbehandling kändes dock nivån väl hög.» (Sufficient)
- Not sufficient if we were suppose to understand everything.» (Sufficient)

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

Small extent»		20		47%
Some extent»		14		33%
Large extent»		6		14%
Great extent»		2		4%

Genomsnitt: 1.76

- No literature» (?)
- The book was not really a “,study book”,. It gives "short" explanations to a lot of things and it is good for refreshing what you already have been thought. Not for learning.» (Small extent)
- Where"s the option "Slim to none?"» (Small extent)
- This Xilinx material contains too much information and cannot be used. Don"t know what to learn of it.» (Small extent)
- What course litterature? The crappy slides from Xilinx? » (Small extent)
- give us some real course literature.» (Small extent)
- The pdf"s were all we had, and they were basically commercials for xilinx products» (Some extent)
- Tog in all kunskap i princip från Xilinx föreläsnings-slides» (Large extent)
- if your talking about, learning new things , very little, but good reflection.» (Large extent)

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

Very badly»		5		11%
Rather badly»		11		25%
Rather well»		26		59%
Very well»		2		4%

Genomsnitt: 2.56

- It is not okay to set a deadline for next monday on thursday afternoon.» (Very badly)
- See chalmers "Tentamensregler" and follow thoose. No "Kurs-PM" and so on» (Very badly)
- Okay. (Between rather badly and rather well) No handouts and webpage was okay but not good.» (Rather badly)
- The execution of the mili-project was catastrophic. Saying that you want specification 4 days after telling it is absolutly not acceptable.» (Rather badly)
- Only problem was how some information was a little late in the last lecture for the week with tasks to be done the first lecture of the week» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		3		6%
Rather poor»		13		29%
Rather good»		16		36%
Very good»		7		15%
I did not seek help»		5		11%

Genomsnitt: 2.95

- The lab assistants didn"t know the answer to many of our questions» (Rather poor)
- Good on labs» (Rather poor)
- There were no problem asking questions but you weren"t able to get any help since the teachers lacked the knowledge.» (Rather poor)
- In the labs we had help but sometimes we had to wait since we were many students.» (Rather good)
- Förutsatt att man frågade föreläsaren, eller Lennart Hansson.» (Rather good)
- Lars and the TAs are very helpful. But the TAs could not answer on everything.» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		2		4%
Rather poorly»		5		11%
Rather well»		19		43%
Very well»		18		40%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- Could not really agree with "teammate"» (Very poorly)

23. How was the course workload?

Too low»		3		6%
Low»		16		36%
Adequate»		24		54%
High»		1		2%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.52

- The only time I spent outside the scheduale when I looked on the lecture slide» (Too low)
- More training in front of the computer.» (Low)
- it did depend on what project one took » (Low)

24. How was the mini project work load?

Too low»		2		4%
Reasonable»		32		72%
Too high»		6		13%
Much too high»		4		9%

Genomsnitt: 2.27

- Executed too late in the period. Also too low level on the project. » (Reasonable)
- Efter de att vi bytte från ett "audioprojekt" till ett simplare.» (Reasonable)
- again depends on how big a project one takes on one self » (Reasonable)
- It is really stressing when you can"t get help when you are stuck.» (Too high)
- I ended up doing most of the project work» (Too high)
- bad planning» (Much too high)

25. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		1		2%
Low»		5		11%
Adequate»		19		43%
High»		15		34%
Too high»		4		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

- More pressure early in the study period.» (Too low)
- other course hard » (Adequate)
- The workload on this course was quite low but the Digital was very high so for the period it was high.» (High)
- Kjell såg till att hålla tempot uppe i MCC090 » (High)
- The other course takes a lot of time.» (High)

Summarizing questions

26. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		24		54%
Fair»		7		15%
Adequate»		8		18%
Good»		4		9%
Excellent»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 1.88

- Worst course ever. Everything was a nightmare.» (Poor)
- Badly disposed between lectures and labs. should have been more lab hours and no lab hours after 17» (Poor)
- no planning and bad lecturer, he looked like he was sleepwalking» (Poor)
- I learned some from the labs but almost nothing from the lectures. Without feedback on your work (specification, reports etc) it is difficult to improve.» (Poor)
- I really thought that it would be more specialized since it required previous VHDL knowledge.» (Poor)
- Worst course I have experienced on Chalmers so far.» (Poor)
- Except for some repetition of VHDL I really don"t understand what the course was supposed to learn us.» (Poor)
- It is a very good concept for a course but it failed miserably.» (Poor)
- En meningslös skitkurs. Helt klart bland de sämsta jag läst under mina år på Chalmers, även om ämnesområdet var intressant.» (Poor)
- The course goals and contents are good but probably the method of teaching was poor.» (Poor)
- I think that the most important thing to get after this course is to get well knowledge in a design flow. We have to get all basics knowledge in VHDL and to be able to code anything and easily in VHDL. I think that for the major part that is not the case!!! » (Poor)
- Im sorry but have to say that I have learned very little in this course.» (Poor)
- Although interesting contents, the lectures should have been carried out with more grace, and the lab setup should have been more thoroughly checked before the starting of labs.» (Fair)
- The course literature and lecture slides were too much in each sessions without looking deep into them. The final examination, in my opinion did not evaluate the student knowlege based on the literature, it was not also based on the goal of this course. there were some questions which you as an engineer need to know but you do not need to memorize. there were some questions asked in detail which he just passed very fast during the lecture. I made myself ready for this exam in a way that to have a general knowlege about different parts while remembering how they will be implemented in hardware as his description during lectures implies. but the examination was not based on that. » (Fair)

27. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

28. What should definitely be changed to next year?

29. Additional comments