ENKÄTER

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

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.

Real time systems, lp3 VT11, EDA222/DIT161

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-03-18 - 2011-03-24
Antal svar: 37
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 32%
Kontaktperson: Rebecca S»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Datateknik 300 hp

Your own effort

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

37 svarande

At most 15 hours/week» 11 29%

Around 20 hours/week» 16 43%

Around 25 hours/week» 5 13%

Around 30 hours/week» 2 5%

At least 35 hours/week» 3 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.18 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

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

37 svarande

0%» 1 2%

25%» 4 10%

50%» 4 10%

75%» 11 29%

100%» 17 45%

Genomsnitt: 4.05 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.12

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

36 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals» 6 16%

The goals are difficult to understand» 1 2%

The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer» 10 27%

The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn» 19 52%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

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

32 svarande

No, the goals are set too low» 4 12%

Yes, the goals seem reasonable» 28 87%

No, the goals are set too high» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.87

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

37 svarande

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

No, not at all» 6 16%

To some extent» 18 48%

Yes, definitely» 11 29%

I don"t know/have not been examined yet» 2 5%

- the questions were not normal and the last questions are too difficult and time consuming where we have to do a lot of useless computation. » (No, not at all)
- The exam was very hard. Too hard. If such a hard exam then more time is needed.» (To some extent)
- I was really shocked at the examination. A large part of the course was spent on Ada, and nothing about this was on the exam. Also, the exam questions about scheduling felt very far from what we had done in the exercise sessions and on the lectures. The course was good, except from the exam, which should have been closer to the content of the course or vice versa.» (To some extent)
- There was very little focus in the examination about communication.» (Yes, definitely)
- The exam time was not enough for the questions in the exam and we ran out of time» (To some extent)
- It was a bit unfocused I think. The schedule assignments were quite original but somewhat out of scope in my opinion. Also the third excersize was made unnecessarily complicated for this exam which made it too time consuming.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

36 svarande

Small extent» 3 8%

To some extent» 10 27%

Large extent» 18 50%

Great extent» 5 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.69

- it was overlapped with other courses » (Small extent)
- A very large part of the course is about parallel programming. I have already taken a concurrent programming course, so I didn"t learn anything particularly new about those things.» (Large extent)
- It"s great with the lecture notes online.» (Large extent)

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

35 svarande

Small extent» 8 22%

Some extent» 9 25%

Large extent» 12 34%

Great extent» 6 17%

Genomsnitt: 2.45

- i only read lecture slides » (?)
- easy course!» (Small extent)
- Didn"t use the course book. The lecture slides were important for my exam studies, though.» (Small extent)
- Course book not at all, lecture slides very much.» (Small extent)
- Did not get the course book, since you could find most answers on the internet.» (Some extent)
- I think that the course book was rather nice, but there could have been more material about the scheduling parts of the course. Perhaps you could switch books to a book more about scheduling and less about implementations (java, ada, c...) and let us learn ada by reading the pdf or some other online resource?» (Great extent)

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

35 svarande

Very badly» 1 2%

Rather badly» 1 2%

Rather well» 12 34%

Very well» 21 60%

Genomsnitt: 3.51

- Great online material» (Very well)
- The course homepage is very good, with lots of great content, and all lecture slides up before the lecture. Big plus!» (Very well)

Study climate

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

35 svarande

Very poor» 1 2%

Rather poor» 0 0%

Rather good» 14 40%

Very good» 18 51%

I did not seek help» 2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.57

- Risat was a very nice lab assistant. Thanks for all your help!» (Rather good)
- thanks alot.» (Very good)
- Extremely helpful lab assistants!» (Very good)
- Risat very helpful during labs, but the other guy wasn"t much of help at all.» (Very good) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

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

36 svarande

Very poorly» 1 2%

Rather poorly» 2 5%

Rather well» 8 22%

Very well» 21 58%

I did not seek coopeation» 4 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.69

Summarizing questions

11. What is your general impression of the course?

36 svarande

Poor» 2 5%

Fair» 2 5%

Adequate» 8 22%

Good» 21 58%

Excellent» 3 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.58

- The course is interesting, but needs some changes to be a really good course.» (Adequate)
- Much of the course was repetition for me (concurrent programs and low level programming), so those parts weren"t especially fun. The new stuff was very interesting though (eg. scheduling), and presented in a good way.» (Good)
- As a whole, a very good course. A little disappointed with the lab, since we did not get to work on an actual hard-ware system. Also, I don"t quite like Ada95. » (Good)
- Good lectures and good exercise sessions.» (Excellent)

12. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The lab»
- teacher, TAs»
- The guest lecture about software architects from the Chalmers researcher was really good, and my first contact with the world of software architecture.»
- The online material.»
- The scheduling part of the course, the lab with a couple of modifications.»
- the lecturer»
- everything»
- exercise session should be preserved.»
- THE LABS AND ALL THE COURSE MATERIAL»
- The lectures was good.»

13. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The exam»
- lab is too complicated»
- content, lab work»
- The lab. It"s almost the same as the one in concurrent programming, so that makes it boring. The variable and procedure names in the skeleton source files are bad: what does "swrite" even mean? It"s also a bad thing that the programs we write can only be tested in the lab sessions, because that means we only get a few hours every week for programming and testing them. Since we have so little time, we must ask the lab assistants more frequently instead of trying stuff on our own –, which means we don"t get as many opportunities to experiment, find and solve the problems of real time programming, and learning to code Ada95. Also, the verification part of the course could be more present in the lab.»
- The lab pm, definitely! I felt that I needed to ask the lab assistants a lot of unnecessary questions just because the lab pm was vague or unclear. A better lab pm would make the labs more fun and lessen the burden on the lab assistants.»
- The lab was too simple and dealt exclusively with mutual exclusion and nothing with time-critical tasks. Keep the current lab and add another one in which the tasks are time critical, have the students calculate the WCET of the code they"ve written and determine the temporal correctness of the program using schedulability analysis.»
- We should not have to program Ada95 (even if it"s not a THAT bad language). We should use C instead and learn more about the hardware of the microcontroller (which is what you usually do when implementing the system in real life). Also, I wish there would have been a real train instead of simulated one in the lab.»
- type of the questions in the exam»
- NOTHING»
- Less train lab, more scheduling.»
- The lab. I think a better way to run the course would be in reverse. Now we did not got a chance to experiment with the scheduling and real analysis of a real-time system. If the course started out in the other order the lab could maybe be done in another way. »

14. Additional comments

- This year exam (2011) was very different to the others. I was very well prepared for exam but some of the problems were not presented on the lecture/exercise classes and difficult to understand.»
- Risat should try to talk a bit slower during exercise classes :)»
- As a new master student in chalmers, Jan and Risat were the best teacher and asistant. Both were really helpful as well as perfect in teaching. In my opinion, the only problem appeared on the exam day. Couse the exam"s questions needed more than 4 hours, most question were tricky and absolutly more difficult than what was solved and tought in the exercise sessions. Since nobody left the exam session untill the last seconds, it shows how difficult and time-consuming questions were asked. stilL, I can not forget how useful and atractive were the lectures. »
- THE LAB ASSISTANTS ESPECIALLY(THE ONE WHO HELD EXERCISE SESSIONS) AND THE LECTURER (JAN)DID A VERY VERY GOOD JOB. THEY TRIED THEIR BEST TO MAKE US UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPTS AND PROBLEMS UNDERLYING REAL TIME SYSTEMS DESPITE THE TECHNICALLITY OF THE COURSE. BESIDES THAT, THE LECTURER AND THE ASSISTANT WERE ACCESSIBLE TO HELP OUT IN QUESTIONS WHICH MAY COME UP AFTER THE LECTURES. TO ME, I FEEL THIS COURSE INDUCED ME TO EVEN TAKE THE ADVANCED COURSE IN REAL TIME SYSTEMS. THANKS TO JAN AND Risat. THANKS A LOT AND PLEASE KEEP UP THE SPIRIT. »

Additional comments

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.12
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.53

* obligatoriska frågor

Kursutvärderingssystem från