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.

Computer Networks, Lp 1 Ht11, EDA387/DIT663

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-10-10 - 2011-10-28
Antal svar: 40
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 16%
Kontaktperson: Åsa Samdell»

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.

40 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»9 22%
Around 20 hours/week»19 47%
Around 25 hours/week»8 20%
Around 30 hours/week»2 5%
At least 35 hours/week»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.22

- My group finished the API lab fast.» (At most 15 hours/week)
- I did not buy or read any of the books.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- I would say more like 50 + hours per week.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

40 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»2 5%
50%»9 22%
75%»12 30%
100%»17 42%

Genomsnitt: 4.1

- I couldn"t attend more because i had other courses at the same time» (50%)
- The lectures were not worth going to.» (50%)
- Most of the lectures were good.» (75%)
- >75% of the lectures were repetitions from earlier data communications course...» (75%)
- Close to 100%» (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?

40 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»7 17%
The goals are difficult to understand»4 10%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»16 40%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»13 32%

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)
- The goals are clear in the syllabus. But the course introduced topics out of scope which were not staded in the syllabus. e.g Self stabilizing methods.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- I can"t state the goals but I think the composition of the lectures gives me a clear view of it.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- I think this part of the course was not covered enough: 3. Judgement and approach The student judgment skills should include the ability to review Internet protocol specifications (RFCs) and their software implementation. In particular, the students should be able to point out cases in which the software inefficiently consumes the system resources.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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

No, the goals are set too low»2 5%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»28 75%
No, the goals are set too high»7 18%

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

No, not at all»3 8%
To some extent»21 56%
Yes, definitely»8 21%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»5 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.4

- Large parts of the course, for example networking API, was not covered at all by the exam.» (To some extent)
- The exam had no questions at all about BSD network API and had to much focus on encryption which was not very essential to the course. Also too advanced questions about routing. Routing was not discussed enough in the course.» (To some extent)
- I think it was good but it could be better. I"d like some kind of a test maybe based on the post lecture questions. Maybe 1 or 2 tests giving a few bonus points for the exam. It would help me keep track of my progress and help you see the state of the class.» (To some extent)
- The exams were considered joke to most students, most points in the exam covered material that was taught in the last week before the exam. So it made me feel like someone was rewarded more for having attended lectures in the last week than having attended for the whole period. This was totally absurd as we all worked alot but am very sure grades will not reflect this.» (To some extent)
- Why question about cryptograpgy ?» (To some extent)
- Yes, except "Judgement and approach" in the course goals.» (Yes, definitely)
- Strange system with more points than max on the exam (if I understood Elad right).» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)

Teaching and course administration

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

40 svarande

Small extent»9 22%
Some extent»13 32%
Large extent»15 37%
Great extent»3 7%

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)
- Very minimal! Teachers and associate teachers never made an effort to provide support to students. I would be pleasantly to see how many students have actually received help from anyone in this course. » (Small extent)
- I donot know but over all the teaching method on this department must be changed » (Small extent)
- Ali Salehson always had very good lectures.» (Large extent)
- Especially the API-lab and to some extent also the IPv6/DNS lab. Both were very valueable.» (Large extent)
- I could be more active on the lectures but it gives me a good basis for doing work afterwards understanding the lectures.» (Great extent)

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

40 svarande

Small extent»8 20%
Some extent»10 25%
Large extent»16 40%
Great extent»6 15%

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)
- The book Internetworking is very relevant, the other 4-5 books is totally overkill.» (Some extent)
- I like Stevens" book. I do not like Comer"s book. I think the lecture notes on Self stabilization are a mess.» (Large extent)
- Hard to understand if there was a compulsory book (Comer?) or many voluntary books.» (Great extent)
- The books are really good and interesting. The Unix Socket one by Stephens is superb.» (Great extent)

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

40 svarande

Very badly»8 20%
Rather badly»12 30%
Rather well»16 40%
Very well»4 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.4

- Pre/post lecture questions, lab feedback. Very sloppy» (Very badly)
- Pingpong is awful, the pages are badly structured. News, assignments and material are mixed and it"s confusing when it"s referred to pages in english when students are using pingpong is Swedish. Also, I couldn"t access the course page before I asked Elad to manually accept me.» (Very badly)
- Pingpong is a really, really bad system. On top of that, things moved around, got added and removed from the course page. » (Very badly)
- PingPong works great but not if someone moves things around all the time. It was mostly very diffcult to find stuff on the home page.» (Very badly)
- The structure of PingPong was not ideal at all. It was _REALLY_ difficult to find what you need, when you needed it. Duplication of information at different places didn"t really help either. Extremely difficult to find the pre- and post lecture questions at times, and it was not helpful that they disappeared when they expired. You should keep them in one place, and when they expire, just make it unable to actually do the questions, don"t remove them.» (Very badly)
- Hard to find what chapter the lecture will cover. It should be at the summery where you could find handouts and pre and post questions. The information was spread all over the home page so it was rather hard to find what you were looking for.» (Very badly)
- the pingpong thing is a mess!!» (Very badly)
- Its realy hard to find some material on the course website so this must be organized » (Very badly)
- Sometimes i had problems with the ping-pong and the post pre quetions» (Rather badly)
- The homepage is a low water mark. Hard to navigate. » (Rather badly)
- All relevant information was certainly published. The structure could be improved. For example, home assignment solutions were spread all over the place. Some assignemnts seemed to be corrected by the teacher and others not.» (Rather badly)
- Ping pong is the most disturbing system. Though the biggest issue was that the material was completely unstructured in pingpong, eg. labs were not under Labs, but under some other section...» (Rather badly)
- The website (pingpong) was not reliable at all and the slides were updated VERY frequently. It was really hard to keep most current copies of the slides.» (Rather badly)
- The material was good but the web page was confusing. Just take a look at the DAT270 homepage, simple HTML code, nothing fancy but good!» (Rather well)
- ping pong site felt rather unstructured or messy» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

39 svarande

Very poor»2 5%
Rather poor»5 12%
Rather good»10 25%
Very good»15 38%
I did not seek help»7 17%

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)
- Very good from Ali Salehson. Elad is more difficult. If he states a question during a lecture, and noone knows the answer, he does not provide the answer. Instead he makes it a "home assignment"» (Rather good)
- I"d like one more lab working with the later parts of the course. There was little time to complete the second lab with so few oppertunities.» (Rather good)
- I don"t like Ali"s attitude towards students. I don"t feel like asking him questions.» (Rather good)
- I met a good lab partner.» (Very good)
- Emailed Elad once, quick reply.» (Very good)

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

40 svarande

Very poorly»2 5%
Rather poorly»1 2%
Rather well»13 32%
Very well»22 55%
I did not seek cooperation»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

- Student vs. student relationship SUPERIOR, student vs. teacher relationship POOR.» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

40 svarande

Too low»1 2%
Low»3 7%
Adequate»18 45%
High»12 30%
Too high»6 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.47

- Labs were very simple. Lots of repetition from earlier communications course.» (Low)
- Maybe it could be a bit thougher, I"d like one more lab and/or some "duggas".» (Adequate)
- Much to do if the pre/post-lecture questions were madatory. But they weren"t, right?» (High)
- The first lab was quite too long. It should be devided in smaller lab» (High)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

40 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 2%
Adequate»15 37%
High»14 35%
Too high»10 25%

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)
- Too much time has been spent on theory and very little on hands on experience. Grad school students are here to master their skill therefore hands on experience is vital if they want to succeed in the real world. If the goal is to produce innovative students than the work load need to be reduced and more time should be spend in labs getting things done instead of reading 500 pages book in period of month an a half. The goal is not to go over 58 power point slides in one class session, but rather teach us something that will stick with us forever. Rushing to finishing up the slides is not acceptable at this level and such an institution at Chalmers. » (High)
- Because this is my first period in Chalmers and i take 3 courses which is really imposible to do» (Too high)
- three courses, so quite difficult.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

40 svarande

Poor»4 10%
Fair»10 25%
Adequate»8 20%
Good»16 40%
Excellent»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- I dont like too much the lecture notes and I thought the course would be in a more attractive way» (Fair)
- Very sloppy structured. Very hard to get direct answers. Unclear goals.» (Fair)
- Mainly because there was no time to review the material, student-teacher communication was very minimal.» (Fair)
- Course felt rather unfocused. Especially since you have several lectures dealing with different subjects during the same week.» (Fair)
- Mostly repetitions from earlier course and the new material were called non-important, so I do not see the point of having the course.» (Adequate)
- In the end I learned a lot which must mean that the course was good for me. But I can understand if students were confused by the course. The course is quite shattered.» (Good)

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.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från