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.

Advanced software architecting, lp3 VT11, DAT220/DIT542

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-03-18 - 2011-03-24
Antal svar: 51
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 36%
Kontaktperson: Rebecca S»

Your own effort

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

51 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»15 29%
Around 20 hours/week»10 19%
Around 25 hours/week»18 35%
Around 30 hours/week»5 9%
At least 35 hours/week»3 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.43 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

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

51 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»5 9%
50%»6 11%
75%»21 41%
100%»19 37%

Genomsnitt: 4.05 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.24

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

51 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»6 11%
The goals are difficult to understand»6 11%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»23 45%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»16 31%

Genomsnitt: 2.96

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

47 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»5 10%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»34 72%
No, the goals are set too high»8 17%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

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

51 svarande

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

No, not at all»3 5%
To some extent»22 43%
Yes, definitely»18 35%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»6 11%

- Yes, considering that the lab assignments are part of the examinations.» (Yes, definitely)
- Yes really the exam assess my potential that i have understood the concept or not.» (Yes, definitely)
- What goals? To create architecture for embedded-systems?» ()
- The exam asked the core knowledge in this course and I studied it well.» (Yes, definitely)
- There are too much to read, the whole book, many papers and too much content in slides, and the deadline is just before the exam week. I need to prepare for other exams too, so I can"t make it to the exam.» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)
- They were more about my understanding rather than what I memorized. I prefer this style.» (Yes, definitely)
- The exam was based on what we learned in lectures» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

51 svarande

Small extent»8 15%
To some extent»24 47%
Large extent»17 33%
Great extent»2 3%

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- Lecturer was sick most of the time so it caused to loose the focus,even some lecture we studyied by our self» (Small extent)
- It seems that more and more teachers are fond of open up for discussions during lectures. This is for some people contraproductive since the discussions tend to be speculations from some students leaving other not remembering what was important.» (Small extent)
- Teachers has been sick a lot» (Small extent)
- The main purpose was asking question because provided description of assignment was not sufficient even to understand what should I do» (To some extent)
- Being more specific towards software architecting and digging into architectural patterns instead of some abstract examples on hardware specific architecting for large scale products would make better for me.» (To some extent)
- I feel that the lecture were rushed abit at the end. (But that is understandable as it was due to english). Also try not to assume that the audience have taken courses in some course related subjects.» (To some extent)
- A lot of lectures was canceled... » (To some extent)
- Confusing lectures, where examples added to more confusion rather than explaining.» (To some extent)
- The teacher knows a lot, but he is very hard to follow, and I"m sure I"m not the only one who feels like that.» (To some extent)
- domain used in teaching was difficult to relate to.not all of us are familiar with cars and planes» (To some extent)
- I think the architecture was more realted to software for embedded systems and not for other software such as Mobile applications, Web applications, etc.» (To some extent)
- AADL introduction could have been clearer. On the regular lectures it might have been nice to get a bit more of an introduction to the topic(s). Often it would only become clear during the lectures that many of us were missing bits of background information that was important for understanding the subject. But it was very good that there was enough time for detailed questions and discussions.» (Large extent)
- Good lectures in general. Sometimes too much time was given to critical questions from the same students over and over. I would rather seen that we spent that time on going over the planned material for the lecture, which often was not nearly completely covered in lectures. I see how it is hard to get the right balance in this issue since some questions are of great value, but I think that generally they were given too much space.» (Large extent)
- on the course. He tells more than the slides.» (Large extent)
- The discussion in the class which give me some real time knowledge what exactly happens in the industry.» (Great extent)

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

51 svarande

Small extent»2 3%
Some extent»19 37%
Large extent»25 49%
Great extent»5 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.64

- The book recomended by the lecturer is hard to read,,english language used in it its not easy in students level » (Some extent)
- When the teacher gives the lectures, he doesn"t follow the slids, which is confusing.» (Some extent)
- Mostly used the slides» (Some extent)
- I learned how I can architecting software for embedded systems.» (Some extent)
- A lot of information had been obtainde from the course book and system description.» (Large extent)
- Lamppost article were very good.» (Large extent)
- It is very important in this course to have a course book. The slides are of really low quality. The slides should in my opinion work as a study help more than a guidance for the teacher. If one use bullets in slides then there should be delimitations, sentences should not continue on a new row. » (Large extent)
- Book was ok. I believe there is better. Slides had very mixed quality. AADL material was immature.» (Large extent)

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

51 svarande

Very badly»2 3%
Rather badly»5 9%
Rather well»36 70%
Very well»8 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.98

- Why have two different systems?? (studentportalen and pingpong..) it is extremly confusing! for instance, the exam date differed in the both systems... why don"t focus on using one system, and make that system usable!?» (Very badly)
- Chaos.» (Rather badly)
- Lectures were cancelled with very short notice. Several times I traveled to Lindholmen just to find out that that lecture was cancelled. Very frustrating since I had other commitments at Johanneberg.» (Rather badly)
- I can see how it is hard to give notice early of sickness but I was sitting on the bus from Borås when I read the emails about cancelled lectures every time.» (Rather well)
- Ping-pong works kind of okej. Hand-outs and information where made in time. But one thing that takes this course from getting a top grade is the fact that it always seem to fail for some students to get registrated in ping-pong. This is not specific for this course, other has this problems to. For instance were there students in this course that were registrated but still not in ping-pong. I think that the course assistants at least should know what to do and take care of it and leaving it to the student. In one case the student had to figure out by himself to contact the ping-pong support and get a manual registration in ping pong. Not ok. » (Rather well)
- I am a student of chalmers i used pingpong in this some of the information didnt update properly. For instance, Last class is not updated in schedule in pingpong as well as time edit so i missed the class.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

51 svarande

Very poor»1 1%
Rather poor»3 5%
Rather good»19 37%
Very good»26 50%
I did not seek help»2 3%

Genomsnitt: 3.49

- Three times were the course assitants asked question through mails (from our group). Two times no one answered. I can"t find words for this.» (Very poor)
- Contact with lab assistants was not working well. Slow answers to mails.» (Rather poor)
- Did not get very good answers from TAs, even if they were eager to help.» (Rather good)
- Particularly the QA session prior to the exam was very good.» (Very good)
- Even a bit too much questions and answers during lectures. However, teacher gave very good feedback to students, but in my opinion should have stopped them a bit earlier.» (Very good)

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

51 svarande

Very poorly»3 5%
Rather poorly»5 9%
Rather well»19 37%
Very well»24 47%
I did not seek coopeation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

- The idea of 8 people in a group for architecture modeling is not good. Second we have to search for group by ourself, it was really difficult task to find group members who will work with motivation. Architecture should be designed by small team but with their mutual discussion. Unfortunately this was not scene in our group. Secondly there was not runtime check on the group by lab teachers, but their should be check on the progress of group by lab teachers. Unfortunately working in group for this course was very bad experience for me. » (Very poorly)
- High amount of communication difficulties due to that none of the students in my group seemed motivated for this course» (Very poorly)
- Only about half of our group contributed to the group work. This happens almost every time :(. Its a shame that the grade on the group assignment will have such impact on the final individual grade.» (Rather poorly)

Summarizing questions

11. What is your general impression of the course?

51 svarande

Poor»7 13%
Fair»13 25%
Adequate»10 19%
Good»15 29%
Excellent»6 11%

Genomsnitt: 3

- No real structure, no clear content, very vague lectures. » (Poor)
- The worst course i have taken at any university ever.» (Poor)
- To much of the course has nothing to do with the software engineering which have been taught up to this point in Chalmers.» (Poor)
- Expected to learn more about software architecture, but the course seemed to focus more on hardware» (Poor)
- The Program Manager (Miroslaw Staron) for our Master program did a poor job by not checking the relevance of the course to the program and the background of most students. The course seemed more relevant to Embedded Systems Master Program at Chalmers. The course instructor did quite well to improvise mid-way the course. Excellent course if I was an Embedded Systems student.» (Fair)
- Although my answers in the previous questions are positive, the overall impression I"m left with is "adequate". I do not at all doubt the intent, and I appreciate the effort put in, but for a number of reasons the course did not fulfill my expectations entirely: As described in a comment to an earlier question, the lectures were sometimes difficult to follow, because of a lack of background knowledge as well as the overall structure of the course. I often had the feeling that I was dropped in the middle of a subject, trying to figure out how it relates to everything else as well as to my own background. By the end of the course it was a matter of trying to piece the different chunks of information together. Before the course I was expecting to learn much more about architectural strategies themselves. Maybe this was not the right expectation, looking at the course goals, but I would still have liked to learn more about it. Obviously during the course many different strategies were referred to, but without knowing what they were exactly, it is hard to relate to them as examples. A few strategies were explained in some detail (Voting and BlackBoard if I remember correctly), and that was great, but more would have been better in my opinion.» (Adequate)
- We lost alot of lecture time due to sickness so its hard to give a fair evaluation, but I would have liked to have seen more focus on how to apply patterns to architectures to achieve qualities. AADL was given too much focus, the OSATE tool was, in my experience, not mature enough to be used for any kind of production, more of an experiment stage.» (Adequate)
- The course is good, i really love to be architecture but the domain of real time system is out of my scope.» (Good)
- I was expecting a lot before I take this course, I thought there will finally have a good course in Lindholmen. It"s good, but need to be improved, not as good as I expected. I think more resources and attention should pay to this course, since this topic is important and it"s compulsory course for us.» (Good)
- The course is really good but while coming to the lab session in very short time period we cant able to complete on time.» (Excellent)
- I think, the course and the teacher were matched with each other and I could understand all the chapters.» (Excellent)

12. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The group work on the project.»
- ATAM »
- The subject itself and the book.»
- lab and group work»
- The guest lecture was great. Most lectures, when not too interrupted, were also very good.»
- Course itself. But with large of improvements.C»
- If the lecturer is sick so it would be better if there are two lecturers maybe or...»
- Everything is good.»
- No idea...»
- group work and AADL project.»
- The teacher is experienced, that"s good. The book is interesting too.»
- course contents, AADL»
- nothing»
- Using of new tools.»
- ADLs ATAM Quality attribute discussions and scenarios»
- Practically creating the architecture and doing the ATAM»
- lab and lectures »
- The Lamposts and Quality attributes»
- Guest lecture»
- Examples that students can relate to. We have not worked in industry.»
- lessons for finding quality attributes and the related tactics»
- the practical part of the course »

13. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The assignment and their description. Try to be precise. »
- AADL should be familiarized during 3 laboration sessions to get general understanding the application of some concepts from the book, an that should be done after couple of initial chapters from book are read, understood. No need for extensive assignments with many phases. Too much. Direction should be showing Architecture patterns,structures,views and their application in desktop software production. Hardware specific orientation approach does not seem to be relevant. Many examples from industry are a bit time consuming and not to the point. Slides are a bit repeating well known things from requirements engineering and telling the same things again and again from different perspectives.»
- The AADL labs were very difficult to get a grip on. The tutorial for the first assignment merely related to the use of Osate, not so much to AADL itself. More guidance in this would be better.»
- more assignment( group work+ individual report + written exam ) i think that is so most for one course»
- More experienced TAs. Less focus on AADL and OSATE.»
- Course Content, Some examples from software industry , Small Groups, Check on the group.»
- reading material»
- Lab syllabus should be changed in the coming year. Limited time period we cant able to do everything in a short time period.»
- More focus on learninig what architectural pattern exist and how they work»
- reduce the lab section »
- There has to be a really clear learning outcome defined for the course. I still do not ubnderstand what the purpose of this course was?»
- Assignment was horrible, the entire course was based on embedded-systems which almost all students were unfamiliar with, which lead to ALOT of confusion.»
- the schedule should be within the course period.»
- Maybe the teacher could try to give lectures in a way which is more understandable, also please try to avoid complex expression. Another thing, since we need to use AADL in the assignment, I would recommend to give more instructions to architecting use AADL, not just ask us to follow a tutorial. To expect everyone to learn from a document how to architect a software is not realistic. The course slides can be improved.»
- no idea»
- the whole course content »
- Architecture examples should refer more to classical software, rather then having hardware and embedded systems so much. Else, better explanations are required in advance.»
- Scope of the assignment was underestimated. Starting part 2.2 of the assignment was almost like starting a new project and it was in the last week before the exams. Not at all enticing. AADL is not very suited for some of the systems. It was however very interesting to learn how to use it.»
- More focus and relation to what we have done and are expecting to do after school in a real work place. No hardware (belt self-reminder!?) but software architecting.»
- CBAM exercise should also be included.»
- no thin to change but the course lectures »
- Project»
- Assignment durations»
- Lecturer should not assume we know things.There should be a substitute lecturer in case the prime gets sick.This will avoid rushing through things»
- Architecting software just for embedded systems.»
- not exactlly changes i would say that the course should content material related to architecture patherns »

14. Additional comments

- Hard to identify on the lecture the meaning or certain results of the talk. The discussion is all the way around the problem without going inside (AADL, ATAM - exclusion)»
- Overall I am going to read the book one more time for myself to understand what was eventually all about, even I have some clue now, but was expecting more clarity in the end of course than now it is.»
- teacher behavior influence class environment, even i fear ask some thing , i do not feel comfortable in this class »
- I sometimes wondered if some of the students were taking the wrong course, and program. They didn"t seem to think of software development as a engineering practice.»
- The project was a good intention but it was a assignment that was not easily divided among the group members. There were too many members for the assignment and extremely easy for people to avoid doing anything. And again, the courses seem to let project work stand for half of the grade. They could as easily let a dice decide the outcome. And it is always the good students that get the bad end of the deals, everytime! Amazing that course after course are doing this. Lazy!»
- 1. Course structure is really good.»
- Change the name of the course to architecture for embedded systems. it would be more suitable than the existing naming.»
- Change context from embedded-systems to something that students can apply to their existing knowledge!»
- Good course for future career.»
- The teacher give examples of his experience in his fields, that"s good. However maybe he didn"t realize the students have different back ground with him. I would suggest the teacher to develop more specific examples to show us, not just grab any example during the lectures. Since lack of instruction to AADL, most of the student don"t understand AADL that much, even the teacher keep saying AADL is better than UML all the time. Another thing, this course is in Lindholmen, I went to the student office, learned somehow we can"t have any access to any of those buildings in Lindholmen. That"s a big joke, very inconvenient.»
- since the lab work was carried out in group of 8 students that was problematic to manage this much people with meetings and work distributions.»
- This course is named advanced software architecture and the course description that it is this that the course is about, but I have during the course learned to model a real-time embedded system"s architecture with somewhat focus on the hardware. In fact, we did not actually model any semantics of the software in the architecture. The course book is much more focused on software and perhaps the whole course should be. I expected to learn how to develop a software architecture, how one should start and how to think and perhaps what patterns are appropriate for what purposes. In reality, I learned how to evaluate a system architecture. Maybe the course should change name to Advanced System Architecture?»
- No other comments.»
- I have a strong feeling that many of the students have little or no background doing any architecting. The book does a good job of explaining how differnet quality attributes are mapped onto software structures and realised using architecturel patterns. Little or none of that was covered in the course lectures or tested at the exam. In my opinion that is more important than most or even all of the other material covered. »
- The course was brilliant in short..»
- Program Manager is responsible for adding an out-of-scope course and making it mandatory. This created a lot of problems for many students. The course instructor Dr. Hansson was helpful and improvised, but the Program Manager did little to fix his mistake.»
- I expected to learn something about design patterns such as SOA, Client-Server, etc.»
- the course was generally acceptable to some extends »

Additional comments

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.24
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.56

* obligatoriska frågor

Kursutvärderingssystem från