|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENKÄTER | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visa resultatHär 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.
Computer Networks, Lp 1 Ht11, EDA387/DIT663Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2011-10-10 - 2011-10-28 Antal svar: 40 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 16% Kontaktperson: Åsa Samdell»
Your own effort1. 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.40 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.22 - My group finished the API lab fast.» (At most 15 hours/week) 2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?40 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.1 - I couldn"t attend more because i had other courses at the same time» (50%) Goals and goal fulfilmentThe 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?40 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.87 - The goal are a bit confused me becouse there is a lots of diifrent teachers they are talking about diffrent topic and its hard to figure out where the course will be lie.» (The goals are difficult to understand) 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.37 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.13 - A large part of the course overlapped with a previous course in computer communications.» (No, the goals are set too low) 5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?37 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.4 - Large parts of the course, for example networking API, was not covered at all by the exam.» (To some extent) Teaching and course administration6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?40 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.3 - Non of the teachers where good at teaching. The worst of the teachers was Elad who had som speech problem which made it very hard to understand what he said. He also explained things very poorly and made a mess of everything.» (Small extent) 7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?40 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.5 - My friend had the book, it was useful doing the labs. I think the post lecture questions are a really good concept that should be used even more.» (Small extent) 8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?40 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.4 - Pre/post lecture questions, lab feedback. Very sloppy» (Very badly) Study climate9. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?39 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.51 - Not good at all they seems opend for the question but when you ask them they are not reay to answer the question.» (Very poor) 10. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?40 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.52 - Student vs. student relationship SUPERIOR, student vs. teacher relationship POOR.» (Very well) 11. How was the course workload?40 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.47 - Labs were very simple. Lots of repetition from earlier communications course.» (Low) 12. How was the total workload this study period?40 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.82 - There was few times I thought there was too much to do. Again one more lab in this course might have done it.» (Low) Summarizing questions13. What is your general impression of the course?40 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.05 - I dont like too much the lecture notes and I thought the course would be in a more attractive way» (Fair) 14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?- Both the API labb and the DNS/IPv6 labb were good.»- The interactive class sessions should be preserved because I learned a lot from this» - Routing part, but extended.» - The post lecture questions.» - The labs, maybe more of them. The things we study doesn"t start to matter before you do something with the material yourself. » - The Labs and Assignments on DNS & IPv6,that was the most interesting part in this course ,in my opinion. It was well organized,with the proper introduction and the professor gave us a good guideline. » - The content is well organized and interesting.Also, the lab is a bit challenging. As a result, both of them should be preserved.» - Lab2 - IPv6 and DNS was very educating Lab1 - was very well constructed» - The IPv6/DNS lab assignment. » - Socket API» - - Labs» - The contents cover a very large spectrum over computer networks ...which is good as long as you don"t go into many details.» - .» - The webpage is well maintained all the time.» - The labs» - Nothing to say preserved for next time they should change the whole thing from personal behaviour to teaching aspect.» 15. What should definitely be changed to next year?- The network API part should be explained better. Self* - methods are a bit too hard to understand too.»- Be very clear of the intentions of pre/post lecture questions. No unclear statements like, i quote, "its not mandatory, but you have to do them...."» - The lab time should be increased» - The three teachers should co-operate better. Now, it feels like two different courses with different teachers. And then poor Marina with only two lectures with repetition material.» - The labs in the API part. There wasn"t real teacher help, no teacher in the lab giving some guidance.» - Some more post lecture questions with some kind of a carrot to actually do them.» - The course seems to have a "idea", but it is not presented successfully. The course has to get more focused. » - The material of this course was too extended,so the professors had to rush through the lectures in order to cover all the fields.It was very hard to follow the pace of the professors most of the time in lectures. The professor was not targeting correctly to the students" needs,making sometime the lectures boring and tiring.» - Some parts of exercise should be changed.Some typical problems should be focused instead of giving answers to lots of problems.» - The administration structure in PingPong. It was unusable this year.» - Far too many subtopics were included in the course: self-stabilization, network security did not really belong to this course I think. These parts will be treated in other courses. Better to focus purely on Computer Networks (which is the course title!)» - Some of the pre and post questions were to hard. I think that the idea of these question is to get the student some interest in the subject, not make them scared that they can"t answer the questions. The more advanced questions should be taken up during the lecture, not in the post questions. » - Take the Prerequisites for taking the course seriously: don"t focus so much on basic TCP/IP stuff that the students are already required to know. A student that does not fulfill the prerequisites should not take the course.» - - Syntax highlighting for the code slides. - Code discussion should be improved. Sometimes it is hard to follow without talking about what every line does. - Self-* methods were hard to understand. Maybe the explanations can be improved here.» - Pre- and post-lecture quizzes. Especially be clear about that it is not affecting the grades, instead of hinting that it is so everyone feels obliged to perform well on them. They are probably good if they are kept optional.» - More specific focus on some issues rather than a general approach of too many things» - .» - self stabilization and network security should be taken out of this course. these two increase the course load and yet they have dedicated programs that cover them in detail.» - Too much literature and materials to read for each lecture, and the examination ranges should be more specific.» - Cut down the study material, introduce quest speakers and even throw in an extra lab. A review session is also helpful before the exams, in fact we should have at least 2 or 3 sessions dedicated to reviewing the material we have covered during the entire period (term). It is not OK to introduce new material 3 days before the exam and then expect the students to know everything in details about that material. Structure the program to where you have plenty of time to dedicate to teaching and reviewing. You can not have a program designed to teaching only....what about reviewing?» - less topics, excpecially on the network protocols part... a choice should be made» - First lab (as said previously), More explanation on pre/post lecture question and clear deadline for the teacher to post pre-question.» - the amount of materials to read and the lab assignments were too much.» - Evrything must be changed in my understanding the teachers must be opend and freindly when we ask them a question instead of troublesome on us. Specially one teachers his behivour toward the student must be changed otherwise chalmers will produce bad student.» - The pre/post lectures is a good concept but needs more work. Sometimes it felt like they didn"t follow up on the lecture (especially when Ali was one lecture behind schedule...)» - Elad does not know anything about teaching. To many teachers overall. No pre- and post- lecture questions. The system clearyly did not work. Cryptography should not be included in this course. There was also too much overlap with the course "Datakommunikation".» (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand) 16. Additional comments- Elad has good intentions, but he fails on some points when trying to break the normal pattern of how to answer questions etc. His style of not answering questions on the lectures is really frustrating.»- The course was presented very well considering this is the first time, this was achieved by the fact that there was room for consultation.I got to learn a lot about networking, therefore I am satisfied» - The lab graders has done a very bad job. A month after submission and nothing has been corrected.» - I think there is room for improvment in elads lectures, maybe he should view someone elses lectures or have somebody review his lectures. It got better towards the end. The slides information is good but ut was relative to other lectures a quite bad layout.» - API lab not accepted or commented on six(!) weeks after submission (and one week after course finished). » - Nobody really understood if the pre- or post-lecture quizzes were mandatory. Elad once said that they affect the gradings, but revised that answer later on... Labs has still not been graded or confirmed done, 10 days after deadline.» - We still haven"t received feedback for our lab assignment which was handed in weeks ago.» - no more.» - I think chalmers is wants to keep his name all over the wordld toward the teaching system and the quality of the teachers as well. But On Networking department chalmers luck lots of thing so it must be improved.» - The exam was unfair, but only from Elad"s side. It is not normal that after we had almost half of the lectures in socket programming and after we worked for the API lab for almost the same time and also attended 3 labs, not to receive at least one question of that kind. And for Cryptography we had only 1 lecture (splited in 2 actually) and received 2 high points questions. This is not right! Not to say that he clearly specified that some kind of programming question will be on the exam.»
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22%