Visa resultat

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

Your own effort

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

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

3. How understandable are the course goals?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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)
- GROUPS OF 8!?!?!? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU THINKING!?!?! THATS LIKE ASKING HALF OF US TO SIT AROUND AND DO NOTHING!?!?!» (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?

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?

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?

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

Genomsnitt: 3.04

- FUCKFUCKFCKFUCKFUCKFJFJDAOIUGpsngpiuf adbgm zslsf AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!» (Poor)
- 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?

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

16. Additional comments