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.

1011-2 Model-driven software development, TDA593/DIT945

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-12-17 - 2011-01-31
Antal svar: 65
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 63%
Kontaktperson: Wolfgang Ahrendt»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Informationsteknik 300 hp

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.

64 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»2 3%
Around 20 hours/week»16 25%
Around 25 hours/week»23 35%
Around 30 hours/week»17 26%
At least 35 hours/week»6 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- Very uneven. More at the end» (Around 20 hours/week)
- Most of this time was spent in group meetings, where I either thought about breasts or how much I wanted to kill my group members.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- At average, less in the beginning and much more in the end.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- More in the end with BridgePoint.» (Around 25 hours/week)
- almost 40h in the last 5 days prior to the demonstration» (Around 25 hours/week)
- Maybe 12-16 hours a week at the start, then over 30 during the final three. Crazy workload as there was some heavy work on my other course as well! Well over 50 hours a week during three final weeks! Not okay.» (Around 30 hours/week)
- At the end even more! Sooooo time demanding course!!» (Around 30 hours/week)
- The first four weeks it was around 25h/w, but the last four weeks we spent more than 30h/w. The workload wasn"t very well divided over the time. » (Around 30 hours/week)
- Last three weeks I spent crazy many hours» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

64 svarande

0%»1 1%
25%»4 6%
50%»10 15%
75%»23 35%
100%»26 40%

Genomsnitt: 4.07

- Staying late at thursdays for this shit? HAHA, no thanks.» (25%)
- I had all the theoretical background before, so it was not really feasible to go there» (25%)
- not really useful to attend lectures where you can"t understand what the lecturer is saying» (50%)
- Just missed one session!» (75%)
- kunde inte förstå rogardt» (75%)
- Ill for a bit (maybe ~10%) and a bit of priority.» (75%)
- Not all lectures» (75%)
- It didn"t always match with my other lectures.» (75%)
- Maybe a bit less, had to miss some lectures.» (100%)

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?

64 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»20 31%
The goals are difficult to understand»4 6%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»26 40%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»14 21%

Genomsnitt: 2.53

- The goal was to make us hate bridgepoint, right?» (I have not seen/read the goals)
- A lot of the time, we had to sit down and guess what was expected and what wasn"t. Some people got a U for following the guidelines laid out for getting a 3 due to the information on what was needed for the implementation part! Said on the course homepage that it was okay to do it one way, then said it wasn"t during presentation. I have no trust whatsoever when it comes to what Rogardt says.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- * 7. Design patterns could be more specified or examplified. * 9. What different analysis and design methods, specify.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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.

49 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»2 4%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»37 75%
No, the goals are set too high»10 20%

Genomsnitt: 2.16

- But easy at beginning, hard with bridgepoint» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Working in a group with random students having very different levels of ambition can be complicated enough as it is. I was only lucky to be in a good group. The other part of our original group of 8 had a terrible time because several of them just weren"t doing anything. The one person who passed had to do way too much work and ended up with a 3 because he couldn"t possibly implement what was required for a higher grade on his own.» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

54 svarande

No, not at all»12 22%
To some extent»21 38%
Yes, definitely»17 31%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»4 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.24

- I didn"t do shit and I passed. Guy who worked his ass off got same grade as me. Guy who was a dick who always wanted to do things his way got a 5.» (No, not at all)
- the examination method was not fair for me as I was not in Sweden for 10 days and I lost two of them. Any way I finally dropped the course.» (No, not at all)
- The examination tested your ability to perform under extreme pressure rather than your actual knowledge.» (No, not at all)
- Should be more deepending om the bridgepoint work than on the volentary exam» (To some extent)
- It was too much to do withing a week. Even it was hard to give answer withing 20 minutes. Most of the time you lost what you know just to read the questions.» (To some extent)
- Barely. I still feel that the goal of this course is very unclear. Spent more time working with and learning a terrible IDE (BridgePoint) than actually learning the valuable parts this course was supposed to teach. » (To some extent)
- But the grading was strangely balanced with Voluntary Exams as the heaviest of the grading "ingredients". Seems to me that it should only weigh the grade, as the other ingredients, not exclude the possibility of grade 4 and 5. Or that there should be a final chance/test to pick that up because it"s what you know at the end of the course that is most important.» (To some extent)
- There should be other ways than voluntary exams to get higher mark.» (To some extent)
- The VE didn"t, see further down.» (To some extent)
- the voluntary exams tested things not yet covered by the course and all grades above 3 where solely dependent on those. This meant you had to stay ahead of the course (which required 25h/week just to keep up) in order to get a higher grade.» (To some extent)
- It is REALLY hard to asses what single persons have done as the group size was way too big.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

64 svarande

Small extent»14 21%
Some extent»22 34%
Large extent»25 39%
Great extent»3 4%

Genomsnitt: 2.26

- This would have needed to option "No extent".» (Small extent)
- I can"t understand what rogardt is saying most of the time.» (Small extent)
- The handler for the bridgepoint part of the class was not competent enough with the software in order to answer any questions. Lectures where useless since one could not understand what the lecturer said.» (Small extent)
- The teacher would be a really good teacher if you could hear what he says...» (Small extent)
- I did not understand Rogardt"s accent. Altogether the lectures were not useful for me.» (Small extent)
- Handledningen var bra, föreläsningarna mindre så. » (Some extent)
- Only the group meetings with the supervisors. The lectures (föreläsningarna) hasn"t helped me that much» (Large extent)
- The lectures were good, though inconsistent with the course material. Different syntaxes were used and the course book, Rogardt and Håkan contradicted eachother on many details. » (Large extent)
- Especially the weekly meetings and the guest lectures.» (Large extent)

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

64 svarande

Small extent»15 23%
Some extent»22 34%
Large extent»22 34%
Great extent»5 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.26

- I was supposed to be learning something from this?» (Small extent)
- The book for xtUML does not give a guide on how to begin with Bridgepoint. Moreover, the tutorial on GPS system seems too difficult. We felt like lost in the beginning. You have a lot of OAL on the slides, but we didn"t really know where to place them. OAL is not difficult but tell the students where to place this OAL. Give them a live demonstration! » (Some extent)
- Good material. Too bad Rogardt doesn"t seem to agree with a lot of it?» (Large extent)
- Literature is crucial in this course, to get all the details right and be able to recap what"s been said on the lectures.» (Great extent)

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

64 svarande

Very badly»2 3%
Rather badly»6 9%
Rather well»37 57%
Very well»19 29%

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- Took me 3-5 tries to install bridgepoint before I realized that if you change anything from the default value the program wont work. Also: How bout not giving us zip files that include files with path names longer than windows can handle? Also: Bridgepoint is a buggy piece of shit that makes me want to kill myself.» (Rather badly)
- It was not always clear and we had to ask the course» (Rather badly)
- Vill ha kommentarer på veckoinlämningarna elektroniskt också» (Rather well)
- Upload the slides earlier» (Rather well)
- During the first part, it was excellent. During the second part, information was sometimes outdated or outright wrong.» (Rather well)
- Unclear structure of information on the web page.» (Rather well)
- We missed that there were bridgepoint help times which was very unfortunate, otherwise it worked good.» (Rather well)
- The version of bridgepoint linked at the course homepage should correspond to the version installed on the computers at chalmers. They differing caused some compatability issues which forced my group to work in the EDIT-building.» (Rather well)
- webpage could use some reorganizing.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

64 svarande

Very poor»2 3%
Rather poor»9 14%
Rather good»24 37%
Very good»29 45%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

- Jonas, our supervisor, spent most of his time helping other groups. In average, we got around 15 min/week.» (Rather poor)
- Not enough opportunities» (Rather poor)
- During the last few weeks there was no help at all to get in BridgePoint, there was no one to contact and there is no API and there is no guides on the internet. You are fumbles in the dark and guess a lot of the time. This needs to be adressed! There have to be some way to get help, either by tutorial where you can ask someone about THE HOTEL SYSTEM (does pre-tutorials was total crap) or a list of commands and functions. It was total chaos with BP and none to turn to when you needed help. There should be more guidance during this part.» (Rather poor)
- Daniel did in 9 of 10 cases refer to the built in reference in bridgepoint which didn"t answer the matter. Some improvment on this area is required in my opinion.» (Rather poor)
- God if you needed help with models, bad if you needed help with your soul slowly dying.» (Rather good)
- The bridgepoint help wasn"t always so good.» (Rather good)
- There was lots of opportunities to ask about the written part of the project, however i would have liked if there had been more opportunities to get help with Bridgepoint.» (Rather good)
- The bridgepoint help-sessions should be held in a larger room.» (Rather good)
- Mandatory meetings, BridgePoint sessions and Håkan was very good at answering his mail, so opportunities for asking questions was simply excellent.» (Very good)
- We were granted extra supervision time = excellent» (Very good)

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

64 svarande

Very poorly»3 4%
Rather poorly»10 15%
Rather well»17 26%
Very well»34 53%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- I had never before such a terrible group ...» (Very poorly)
- Too large groups.» (Very poorly)
- Form smaller groups. When we started with 8 people, only 4 were actually working. 6 are enough. I guess it"s difficult to supervise more small groups, but the students will become more productive. » (Rather poorly)
- för stor grupp att börja med. kursen bör sättas under en läsperiod då inte andra kursen är individuell för att undvika schemakrockar» (Rather poorly)
- Some people quit the course, which is very unfortunate for those left behind.» (Rather poorly)
- During the implementation, it was splendid thanks to a great group. During the planning/modelling, however, it was terrible. Some people did absolutely nothing. As far as I know, this was reflected in their grades later on (U).» (Rather well)
- Mostly good, however some of the members of the group didn"t do enough, although, this is not really due to the course. In the end the persons that didn"t do anything didn"t pass, so I think that the examinators did a pretty good job in keeping those kind of people to take advantage of those that really wanted to finish the course.» (Rather well)
- With most of them :)» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

63 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»11 17%
High»30 47%
Too high»22 34%

Genomsnitt: 4.17

- Most weeks the assignments could be done in about 1-2 hours. But if you are in a group of eight you need to multiply this by 5 to include the time needed to ARGUE ARGUE ARGUE PLEASE SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP I HATE YOU AAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!» (Adequate)
- Uneven» (High)
- projekt ok, bridgepoint något stressande att hinna med» (High)
- Almost to hight at the end.» (High)
- In the end the workload was too high» (High)
- There was a good amount of work to do for the laborations every week and the exams where difficult and needed a lot of studying.» (High)
- As mentioned earlier, normal workload of 20h/week on my other course, while this one was higher resulting in 50h/week to 60h/week total some weeks! After exams and presentation of the final implementation, I was completely exhausted. Still a bit fuzzy in the head.» (Too high)
- However, this was due to the fact that not all of the group members did what was expected from them.» (Too high)
- It wasn"t "hard" it was just so damn time demanding and repetitive slaving...» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

64 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 1%
Adequate»17 26%
High»30 46%
Too high»16 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.95

- I had only one course.» (Low)
- This course took a lot of time (see meetings) and I still didn"t learn anything. I did however get confirmed that working in groups is a failsafe way to turn a course into shit.» (High)
- tda566 also» (High)
- It was okay though, fun group made the workload ok.» (High)
- Entirely due to this course. The workload in my other course (Functional Programming) was perfectly reasonable.» (Too high)
- Although this was the effect of my own choice.» (Too high)
- Two courses with intense projects» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

64 svarande

Poor»8 12%
Fair»10 15%
Adequate»20 31%
Good»23 35%
Excellent»3 4%

Genomsnitt: 3.04

- Not the worst course I"ve had (that would be Human-Computer Interaction which is now removed...), but it was unfocused, the workload was too high, information on some issues (more detailed earlier) were wrong or difficult to understand and I"m not sure what I was supposed to learn or what I actually have learned. The subject is very, very important, and I feel this is not the way to teach it.» (Poor)
- The software used (bridgepoint) is so far from actually finished and usable that it will drive you mad. Lectures didn"t feel very well planned and it was very difficult to understand what the lecturer was saying. Voluntary exams felt poorly planned. » (Poor)
- I do not like this way of programming and I will never work with many of these methods. (Hopefully!)» (Fair)
- Det där med att det inte är någon programmering/kodning var ju i vart fall ren lögn.» (Fair)
- The course I like but the grading of the course is insane and unfair. Why should ~ 1,5 hours of voluntary exam define your grade instead of round 100-150 hrs of work on the bridgepoint project. I understand that"s it"s easier from the examinator to decide grade from a number rather than from the participation and quality of the project.» (Fair)
- Deserve a higher grade because the course layout is good, but with exception of the grade evaluation methods.» (Fair)
- I thought the Design/Analysis part of the course was going to be very useful in the future. Learning BridgePoint felt like a waste.» (Adequate)
- I must really question whether having Bridgepoint as a part of the course is a good idea.» (Adequate)
- The modelling part was good. But bridgepoint was buggy and the voluntary exams killed motivation.» (Good)
- Sincerely, if only the lectures could be a bit clearer. Maybe by putting more of keywords on the board, because the speech can sometimes be hard to apprehend. And by missing a couple of keywords, or the context you can lag behind an entire conversation. It"s a also very hard to ask a question about what would seem to be implied, because it would make the questioner look really stupid and break the flow. It"s a lot better if the context and the important words are there from the beginning (this is apart from what reading before the lecture can give you).» (Excellent)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- First part of the course»
- Jonas»
- The group work»
- Group work should not be a part of final grade.»
- The supervising meetings every week»
- Grading and ranking fellow students»
- The project»
- Working on a project in groups! It was great getting practise communicating modelling ideas.»
- Labs»
- project was good »
- The project.»
- The project.»
- The great enthusiasm and desire to improve the course shown by the entire crew.»
- The assistants were good and helpful, that is rare.»
- All the examination methods.»
- Håkan!»
- double teachers!»
- the project»
- bridgepoint help-sessions»
- Working on a project, analyzing and implementing»
- anything except teachers»
- Group work. Was great woking with projects. »
- Course contents should be revised.»
- Disbutating against another group, gave a lot of learing and.»
- every thing »
- the project layout of the course. »
- Håkan Burden, if possible. Very clear and pedagogical.»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Bridgepoint. I understand why we have it but for all that is holy in 0/1-land, we can not work with a program that have a life of its own. Most of the work that we had to do in this course was to threaten, wrestle and try to lure Bridgepoint to do what we wanted. If there had been some documentation about the program it would have been better but what we got was just a small part of what we needed.»
- It might be a good idé to let the students speak during their presentation. Two of my group members had to do extra work to pass the course even though they had contributed alot to the project just because "they didn"t said enough during the examination". They didn"t had a chance to say anything because Rogardt spoke about other things than our project 95% of the presentation time. I think its a very bad way of grading 8 weeks work when you don"t let the students do their presentation. »
- Voluntary exams should be changed, or at least change the name to mandatory exams. Since it"s missleading to call them voluntary and base the entire grade on the results of these exams.»
- Nice with looking at one other groups report but it would be instresting to see what other made in bridgepoint also»
- I do not prefere voluntary exams. If so, some feedback would be great to have before the oral exam. »
- Change the bridgepoint groups into two. Even though I wanted to program much it wasn"t really easy with 4 people on the same computer. An alternative could be to have a guide for a SVN or something likeworth»
- BridgePoint.. very Beta.»
- the voluntary examinations»
- Bridgepoint is a pretty poor tool. If it was more stable it would have been better to work with. It is hard to make your system work if you do not know if you have encountered a bug in your program or a bug in Bridgepoint. It did not help that Bridgepoint is poorly documented and tricky to learn. I don"t feel the tutorial sessions were enough to learn Bridgepoint. This meant that it took unnecessary time from the project to learn BridgePoint. I would have favoured if we had used Java, since that is a language that is very common at Chalmers (though I understand not everyone has encountered it, moving to Java from another language is not hard). That you could not work concurrently in BridgePoint also meant we constructed the system at 25% of our real pace. I think that we need more time for the implementation. I may be a coder kind of person, but I think spending 5 weeks writing a (rather dull) report and then just 2 weeks implementing feels weird. A lot of text we wrote was written and never read again, which means the text was completely unnecessary apart from a pedagogic exercise»
- BRIDGEPOINT! BridgePoint was one of the worst parts of this course! Not only is that IDE completely irrelevant to the course, meaning the time we had to spend learning it was utterly wasted, it is also a terrible tool to work with. There"s little to no oversight of the project, you can"t work together on it as a group properly, it"s buggy beyond belief and not only crashes itself, but sometimes also your computer. It"s not rare to see it crash when you try to save, undoing your work! I never want to touch that filthy piece of software ever again, and I don"t want any other person in this world to be forced to deal with it, ever.»
- No voluntary exams, or at least grade the voluntary exams faster so that it"s possible to know what grades are still possible to get.»
- Bridgepoint and the voluntary examinations, there wasn"t enough time to do them in only 20 minutes, and they where often not related to the current lectures or the project.»
- Lab sessions, you really should be able to get help with the labs.»
- divided member group to tow part ( 4 people) was not good idea because for example in my group one person didnot continue course, another did not take part in meeting we were just 2 ,that time quality of project going to low and so bad ,that was not good idea »
- Lessen the impact the voluntary exams have on the final grade. We were told at the beginning of the course that they were only a part of the grading, yet more than half-way in we learned that you absolutely had to have reached certain number of points for the different grades, making them more important than first stated.»
- TEACH THE STUDENTS HOW BRIDGEPOINT WORKS! Remove those stupid voluntary exams.»
- Somewhat the grading.»
- Bridgepoint should not be in the course. Because we had no time to implement, no education on how to use the program, no good place to get help and the program was VERY unstable. The "voluntary exams" was a motivation killer too. We were tested on things before we had learned them. We didn"t know what grade we COULD get. For me I know I did poor on them and therefor I was screwed, motivation killed. »
- Either the teachers who are stuck to strange methods of assements or those methods be revised.»
- Send the lecturer on a course in speaking english. His accent makes almost everything incomprehensible and the more excited he is because what he talks about is important/interesting/exciting he becomes even harder to understand leading which makes you miss the most important parts of the lecture.»
- *Mer fokus på BridgePoint tidigare i kursen, om det momentet ska behållas. *Gör om systemet med voluntary exams, det är löjligt i vad som på ytan är en dedikerad projektkurs. Vill man nödvändigtvis ha något ytterligare eximenationsmoment vid sidan av själva projektet vore det mycket mer rimligt med något slags inlämningsuppgift eller laboration, istället för de hetsförhör som varit nu. Som student har man större möjlighet att faktiskt lära sig något av den typen av uppgifter. Så som det var nu hade många stora problem med att både lägga tid på projektet och att försöka plugga till duggorna.»
- Either make sure BridgePoint is bug free, or use another tool.»
- bridgepoint»
- more grading from the project. less from vol. exams»
- the groups should be fewer than 8, rather 6. i know there "is no money", but in that case the excersies and labs should be re-designed. a group of 8 is too hard to manage and get everyone involved.»
- Voluntary exams were not fair at all. You kept saying they didn"t matter much but in the end the whole grade came down to how well you scored. It felt like the project didn"t even matter and morale was low the last couple of weeks due to this. There was not enough time during the exams, you had almost no time at all to actually think about what you wrote. If you realized you"d done the design wrong there was no time to go back and fix your answer. Lots of people disliked this part of the course.»
- teacher»
- The way this course is examined it is possible, just like it was in our group, that people who did not contribute much but did good on voluntary (voluntary? really... come on, don"t call them that because they are mandatory for higher grade) exams got at higher score. We ended up with grades that almost did not reflect the work effort at all. The guy who did practically everything difficult and had the most knowledge at the END of the course (which is what should matter right?) got grade 3 while another got grade 5 when spending much time looking at youtube-clips during our meetings. If this is to be kept then the message is that if you have not scored well on the voluntary exams (due to being one step behind in the course or something?), don"t put effort into the BridgePoint at all! Because you will still get a low grade, but those having more time on their hands can get good voluntary exams and then lean back for the rest of the time. Sort this out!!!!! Maybe have an extra exam in the end for those who have only scored 3 or 4 so far in the vol. exams and want to show the knowledge they have acquired in total towards the END of the course. I felt so bad for this guy in our group having done all the difficult work and then not being rewarded for it whilst the sloppy people got higher grades.»
- Not using a bugged program like Bridgepoint during implementation. Very much of the extra time spent during these last weeks was because of Bridgepoint which was a big part during the examiniation.»
- The exam.»
- The VE. At first you say and we read on the website that they are voluntary, with other words, it shouldn"t matter if you to do them at all! After the first or close to the first your approach about them change and it"s almost like you say you have to range a certain number of points in order to pass the course, that is not voluntary in any way. THIS WAS REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD. I know a large number of students feeling this way, but I don"t know if they remembered to take this up. Change them to exams you have to take and lower the score to pass if you really want students to take them but not be the overall grade setting value. Because failing someone because s/he didn"t take enough VOLUNTARY exams, ie something you don"t need, is really really wrong and, sorry for the harsh words, FUCKED UP.»
- Grading and removal of voluntary exams!»
- the way of examination "4 exams" should be passed or failed»
- new lecturer, new software (bridgepoint), make the voluntary exams actually test what the course have covered so far.»
- Group size!»
- Sättet att sätta betyg är inte särskilt bra. En person i min grupp som inte borde blivit godkänd blev godkänd bara sådär på sin redovisning medan jag och en person till som arbetat betydligt mer fick göra en extrauppgift. Rimligt? NEJ. Läraren hade varit jättebra om man hade hört vad han sa.»
- examination»
- The examination. The voluntary exams could stay, but instead give bonus points to a real exam at the end of the course. Because of this early evaluation/exam procedure there were alot of collisions with laborations in the other course. This led to a lower grade for me, which i don"t think is fair, given the time and effort I was putting on the course. I tried to reason about this with the teachers, but with no success.»
- Voluntary Exams!»

16. Additional comments

- macversion av bridgepoint? samt fixa licensstrulet»
- Make the half time review opponent mandatory. Our received feedback was quite bad.»
- This course needs a complete overhaul, alternatively be turned into an elective that no-one will take (like HCI).»
- Try to know who works well on the projects by having individual follow up than giving exams every week. The exams leads to temporary reading not to deep knowledge. This is what i understand it from my self and from friends.»
- I think it was strange to have a book that advocated UP, even an agile UP, while the work we did was a Waterfall Process (except for the BridgePoint implementation) I understand that this is necessary for pedagogic purposes (since you can"t learn "a little" about Use Cases, and "a little" about Class Diagrams) but I think it is something to consider if there are alternative ways of teaching the material. I am worried that people who finished this course are going to be totally unfamiliar with even UP. Another thing I thought was strange is that we created requirements before Use Cases. The book did it the other way, and derived requirements from Use Cases. It felt really weird coming up with just requirements. I thought this course was going to teach us GoF design patterns, but I was disappointed it was only touched upon very briefly. »
- While Rogardt wasn"t very good, his two assistants were. Both were helpful and informative and responded quickly and precisely when mailed.»
- Good luck»
- I was away during half this period. And my other cours was a hard-ass cours. So testing was not priorotized. Really regret it becouse it was a intressting and funny cours.»
- Too much focus was given on a specific program instead of modeling. Also we were not often given explanations why you should use some stuff, for example I still don"t get the point with unreadable sequence diagrams.»
- I worked extremely hard, and I really learned a lot from this course. But unfortunately the grading and asessment system was too flawed. My grades fail to reflect my ability and the learning I had!!!!»
- Det bästa vore om kursen splittades upp i två. Analysdelen och implementation/BridgePoint-delen skulle båda vinna på att tas upp i egna, separata kurser. Det blir för rörigt att hinna med allt från båda områdena på sju veckor. Specielt med tanke på att BridgePoint som miljö är minst sagt krävande, man hinner inte mer än att börja komma in i det så är kursen slut och man hinner mest inse att och hur man skulle kunna få ordning på sina misstag. Jag kommer aldrig frivilligt att använda BridgePoint igen!»
- No further comments.»
- Scottish accent of teacher was difficult to understand. Secondly they did not provide us feed back on out voluntary exams. Along with that they announcing the class test as voluntary but actually they were not so they were making confusion or mis-guiding the student up to 2nd last week of the semester..so there should be clear policy about grading of the course. »
- Find a way to work with bridge point in a smarter way. Was a pain being 4 people taking turns with one computer.»
- I didn"t get much out from the lectures, since it was very hard to understand Rogardt. The first lecture he did speak understandable for about five seconds before he started speaking rubbish and kindathinga.»
- It was very bad experience having this course.»
- This is nothing personal against Roghardt, he has a lot of knowledge and sure is a nice person, but it was impossible for me to follow the lectures. I couldn"t understand half of what he said, even at the end when we should have learned his accent. I stopped going to the lectures after half the course, because they didn"t give me anything. Time was better spent on the project and learning by reading. Maybe you should think about having Håkan or Jonas doing the lectures so students can benefit more from them. FYI, I passed the course without any problems, so this is no personal vendetta.»
- I personally found that the questions in the "voluntary" exams were sometimes too focused on the course literature. As I know UML very good, i did not read any of the books. Therefore, it was impossible to answer some of the exam questions»

Kursutvärderingssystem från