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.

TKITE 1112-2 Model Driven Software Development, TDA593

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-12-12 - 2012-01-12
Antal svar: 34
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 49%
Kontaktperson: Mattias Bingerud»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Informationsteknik 300 hp

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.

34 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»1 2%
Around 20 hours/week»9 26%
Around 25 hours/week»9 26%
Around 30 hours/week»10 29%
At least 35 hours/week»5 14%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

- 30 hours were spent on the project and lectures only, I didn"t have time to read the course material or to study for the "volontary exams".» (Around 30 hours/week)
- EXTREME work-load. Worst course in the IT-programme yet» (At least 35 hours/week)
- Way too much!» (At least 35 hours/week)
- Major weight on BP.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

34 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»2 5%
50%»1 2%
75%»11 32%
100%»20 58%

Genomsnitt: 4.44

- Stopped going since the lectures were too messy.» (50%)
- Really hard to learn from lectures with 2 teachers who discuss and disagree all the time! Really bad» (75%)

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?

34 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»7 20%
The goals are difficult to understand»2 5%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»11 32%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»14 41%

Genomsnitt: 2.94

- The formal course objectives in the Studentportal differ from the course objectives specified on the course homepage... Removed the notion of Design Patterns and added the notion of xtUML? That"s no fun. » (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.

30 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»28 93%
No, the goals are set too high»2 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

- I was kinds of confused when I read the problem description at the begining of each problem» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

30 svarande

No, not at all»3 10%
To some extent»13 43%
Yes, definitely»13 43%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 2.4

- Too many factors play a role for your grade, the amount of time spent on a course is not represented if you miss the voluntary exams.» (No, not at all)
- Several students got a "passed" grade without conttibuting to the project. Others went from 3 to 5 just because they were friends with most in the group.» (No, not at all)
- The main part of the work (models and report) seemed to be irrelevant to the grading.» (To some extent)
- No real knowledge assessment at the end of the course.» (To some extent)
- The grading was done in severe favor for the "volontary" exams. Which is ridiculous since the work load was heavily weighted toward the project. Working with the project was supposed to give enough knowledge to pass the exams well but I didn"t feel it was like that at all. I am very unhappy about the grading and personally feels cheated of the better grade I honestly deserve. I have learned a lot in this course, but the examination process didn"t allow me to display those skills in a good way.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

34 svarande

Small extent»8 23%
Some extent»11 32%
Large extent»11 32%
Great extent»4 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.32

- The lectures were not very helpful because they seemed to be unorganized, and covered only some specific topic, didn"t provide general understanding. Help during supervisions was small, mostly relating to book / bridgepoint help.» (Small extent)
- Föreläsningarna har varit röriga och ostrukturerade. Jag tycker att det är bra att de försöker förbättra föreläsningarna med mer aktivitet och inte bara slides, men föreläsningarna kändes oplanerade och ibland kändes det som att det inte kom någonstans.» (Some extent)
- Having two lecturers didn"t work very well. When they contradicted each other, it was hard to know who to listen to.» (Some extent)
- There really should have been at least one lecture on "How to work with Bridgepoint". We had a lecture on "WHY we should work with Bridgepoint" but that didn"t help much in decciphering the strange and buggy interface or explain peculiarities such as it not supporting synchronous calls between components. To be honest, regarding the workload, one could easily make two courses out of this one "Modeling" and "xtUML with Bridgepoint".» (Some extent)

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

34 svarande

Small extent»7 20%
Some extent»14 41%
Large extent»12 35%
Great extent»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.2

- As I mentioned earlier, there was very little time to read or do anything else than work on the project.» (Small extent)
- Den litteratur jag har läst har ofta sagt annorlunda än vad vi lärt oss på föreläsning. Det är svårt att veta vad som är rätt. Detta ämnet är dock lite luddigt där det egentligen inte finns tydliga rätt och fel. I så fall borde föreläsare ta upp detta på ett tydligt sätt och informera studenterna om vilka sätt osv som används i kursen.» (Some extent)
- Too big list of literature.» (Some extent)
- No good literature for BridgePoint! Impossible to master and takes too much study-time together with the time for implementation needed» (Large extent)

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

34 svarande

Very badly»2 5%
Rather badly»8 23%
Rather well»16 47%
Very well»8 23%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

- This years home-page was impossible to find from studentportalen, got linked to 2010 years version even though this problem was brought up countless times during lectures» (Very badly)
- The web page was not updated correctly, information on how to get Bridgepoint working on our computers were scarse and confusing.» (Very badly)
- Föreläsningsanteckningar, och en del annat material var från tidigare års kurser och därför inte relevant för oss. Vi hade ett schema med föreläsningar som inte följdes och det låg information uppe om voluntary exams som inte gällde detta året. Detta var förvirrande. Det var också dålig information om vad som faktiskt skulle komma på voluntary exams.» (Rather badly)
- The weekly meetings with a tutor were pointless, as he (by his own admission) hadn"t read our weekly report beyond a cursory glance right before the meetings. Lack of feedback..» (Rather badly)
- Installing BridgePoint didn"t go smooth at all, on the contrary it was a tremendous hassle.» (Rather badly)
- The URL for website on student portal is invalid.» (Rather well)
- I would have liked more info about the subjects of each voluntary exam before each one. Such as what pages in the books it would concern.» (Rather well)
- Perfect. The best I"ve ever experienced at Chalmers!» (Very well)
- All was very well but the installation of software for the second part of the course.» (Very well)

Study climate

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

34 svarande

Very poor»1 2%
Rather poor»3 8%
Rather good»15 44%
Very good»15 44%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.29

- Good the first five weeks, abysmal after that. Our supervisor went for vacations during study week 6 and 7? Did not get the response/feedback we would have liked from the bridgepoint-master. Maybe the lecturers should try using the tool so you can guide us better? Putting all eggs in one basket is not desirable. What would you do if the Bridgepoint-master was sick during study week 7?» (Very poor)
- The help afforded to the bridgepoint implementation consisted of a tutor in the smallest room available. No room to work while you waited for assistance meant most left.» (Rather poor)
- Det varbra med veckomöten för projektets första del. Dock kändes det inte lika lätt att få hjälp vid implementationen. Även om vi hade en handledare som kunde hjälpa oss när vi hade frågor om Bridgepoint var inte han insatt i våra projekt.» (Rather good)
- Good during the supervisions.» (Rather good)
- In the beginning of the course this worked very well, but the supervision for BridgePoint was everything but good and good supervision for BridgePoint was very much needed.» (Rather good)
- Lots of help, lots of exercise and meeting opportunities» (Very good)
- Teachers were proactive and tried to help.» (Very good)

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

34 svarande

Very poorly»4 11%
Rather poorly»1 2%
Rather well»15 44%
Very well»14 41%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- The groups were too large.» (Very poorly)
- Some group members didn"t manage to understand each other.» (Very poorly)
- A bad egg in the group cooperation wise but nothing out of the ordinary.» (Rather well)
- Det var annorlunda om man jämför med många andra kurser att jobba i så stora grupper. Detta har dock funkat väldigt bra för vår grupp. Det var bra att det var så tydligt i början av kursen att vi skulle fokusera på mål osv så att alla var på det klara med vad som skulle göras och hur grupparbetet skulle fungera. Det var bra att kursansvarig la vikt på att grupperna skulle fungera och ha kul ihop.» (Very well)
- Best group ever» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

34 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»6 17%
High»19 55%
Too high»9 26%

Genomsnitt: 4.08

- Very balanced in the beginning but went completely of the charts by the end, the project consumed more than 30 hours on its own the last 6 days.» (High)
- I spent 35 hours a week on this one course during the first 5 weeks, then 50+ per week.» (Too high)
- We spent copious amounts of time working on the models and report, which in the end seemed to have little effect on ones grade.» (Too high)
- Too high because of unclear requirements of what is expected, at the beginning.» (Too high)
- The workload in this course is ridiculous. To acchieve a grade 5 I estimate I would need to spend at least 5-10 more hours a week for reading and preparing for the "volontary" exams, giving me a single-course work load of about 35-40 hours. » (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

34 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»9 26%
High»17 50%
Too high»8 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.97

- The other course I took was well balanced but this course got a bit extreme by the end.» (High)
- My other course took some time but this one made the whole study-period horrible. Worst time of my Chalmers-life!» (Too high)
- Both courses required a lot of hours for projects.» (Too high)
- Only because of this course.» (Too high)
- It was too high because of this course.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

34 svarande

Poor»6 17%
Fair»4 11%
Adequate»8 23%
Good»11 32%
Excellent»5 14%

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- Fix this course!» (Poor)
- Poor feedback, no evidence of "evidence-based" grading, lectures hard to follow, unclear what was to be covered in coming voluntary exams.» (Poor)
- The first "half" of the course was quite good, but BridgePoint took this course to the level known as "bad".» (Poor)
- Despite really good attitude of teachers, some parts of the course (especially lectures) seemed messy and chaotic.» (Fair)
- Feelings throughout course: Yay, yay, yay, yay, yay, Bridgepoint!, Bridgepoint?!, BRIDGEPOINT?!!!. Bridgepoint is not suited for making Hotel systems. Forcing it to be such a big part of the course really brings down the grade. Bridgepoint is adapted for hardware-close programming, not for large scale Hotel businesses. Forced to use signals between components? What the fuck? Not allowed to use arrays? Wow... No sending of objects or references in operation calls or returns? Really?? But then, this might be what object oriented programming is all about. If it is so, then I withdraw my complaint and will instead direct it towards the first two and a half years at Chalmers. Being forced to spend 20+ hours in study week 7 just to hard code the behavior of arrays or references is bad, very bad. When you spend more time trying to overcome weaknesses of the tool than on applying the knowledge you"ve accumulated during the study period something is wrong. Please, find a better tool in the future. Is Ericsson paying you under the table so you can educate us in BridgePoint? Tell them to go to Data or Elektro, they are more into these signalling systems than we are. :) tl,dr: First five weeks - Grade: Excellent Final three weeks of BridgePoint - Grade: Poor. Summary Grade: Adequate.» (Adequate)
- Only because BridgePoint feels like a beta-test. It was not a good program to work in. You could only work on one computer, pictures disappered, it didn"t always work. Otherwise the thought of such a program to use is a good idea, but then it has to work properly. » (Adequate)
- The project and moodeling part of the course were nice and fun. We put in a lot of work but it felt worthwhile since we learnt alot. The hours and hours of work we put in to redoing our model to fit in Bridgepoint I feel were completely wasted. xtUML is great and some day it might very well be the standard way of developing applications but right now Bridgepoint seems way to limited. I personally would have loved talking more about patterns instead of xtUML and feel that would have been a much more worthwhile study. xtUML and Bridgepoint could be factored out into its own course where it can get the attention it needs and deserves.» (Adequate)
- I just love project courses, I think its a better way to examine students than exams and I learned a lot of valuable techniques and practices.» (Excellent)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Group-work and lectures»
- UML.»
- the teachers!»
- The teachers were very enthusiastic about the course, and I really got the feeling that they were determined to make the course as good as possible. »
- Voluntary exams.»
- Bridgepoint, was good that we were "forced" to learn bridgepoint by ourselves.»
- guest lecture»
- The good connection between lecture subjects and project hand-ins. Supervision time.»
- The pair lecturing The voluntary exams»
- Two teachers every lecture is nice»
- the pair teaching and group supervision»
- The division of the first, more theoretical part of the course and the second, more practical part. »
- The project»
- The teaching spirit.»
- The project»
- Weekly hand-ins, the group project (even if it might need to be a bit smaller)»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Grading-system! The current grading-system does not even remotely give a good picture of how your understanding of the course. Too much workload! Extreme workload! Don"t keep pair-teaching!!! (as it was this year)»
- Bridgepoint. »
- bridgepoint project should either become the focus of the course (i.e. implementation phase) or be removed altogether. groups should be small from the beginning (4 as opposed to 8 persons per group)»
- Smaller groups. Make the course optional. Have only one lecturer on the course. »
- No teacher duos. Håkans incessant questioning of what Rogardt said got really tedious. Stop bickering.»
- Bridgepoint (might be the best option available though)»
- Clearer course goals, should maybe have smaller groups from the beginning? »
- Have an introductory lecture on Bridgepoint, just a live-show of the basics of the program. More tutorials wouldn"t hurt.»
- To short time on the voluntary exams, or a bit too extensive content on them. It became to stressful so I gave up doing them. Also I felt upset to rate my friends. Didn"t feel right when we all worked equally. But Rogardt and Håkan changed that part a bit to the better :D»
- More time and/or easier assessments.»
- if it is possible, please dont let us give ranks to group member»
- Better support for course software installation on personal computers.»
- I wouldn"t wish the Bridgepoint part of this course on my worst enemy. It seriously needs to be droped or heavily reinovated.»
- To have a mandatory course in which the students must learn a tool, such as Bridgepoint (used by 3 companies in the world?!), which is working poorly, does not have any documentation and is extremely buggy is insane.»
- Bridgepoint should be included over the whole course period, and design question assistance should be availible.»
- More concrete information on how to use bridgepoint.»
- The fact that you can only get a 4 by doing the voluntary exams, its the project that consumes so much time and proves that you"ve learned something from the course material but it can only give you a grade of 3 which I find inadequate. Keep the voluntary exams for getting a 5 and when the 4 is on the fence (much like for a 3 now). And this course would be perfect.»
- 1. BridgePoint - Stop using it! It is just plain bad! 2. The lecturer - No offence, but someone who can speak understandable English would be preferable. 3. The voluntary examinations - They don"t reflect what a student knows about modeling in a good way, especially not what a student knows it the end of the course which should be what counts. 4. Lectures - They need to be better planned (and executed), it felt like they was very much improvised. Use PowerPoint or PDFs and not only the blackboard. »

16. Additional comments

- I learnt much and I understand why it"s good to learn but the way that it was taught this year is not acceptable.»
- Första delen av grupparbetet tyckte jag var bra och relevant. Projekt i grupp för att förstå modeller, diagram etc funkade bra för mig. Andra delen av kursen när vi skulle implementera vårt system i bridgepoint var inte bra. För det första känns det konstigt att vi i en obligatorisk kurs ska lära oss ett program som används på tre företag i hela världen. Jag kan tycka att det kan vara bra att ha sett och använt ett sådant program då, som jag har förstått det, det faktiskt används en del liknande ute i arbetslivet. Då kanske det är så att Bridgepont är bästa alternativet, men i så fall tycker jag att det är viktigt att poängtera för studenterna varför man ska använda just Bridgepoint, och varför det är viktigt med sådana programvaror. Det andra som var dåligt med Bridgepoint-delen är att vi bara blev ombedda att "implementera vårt system". Det var dålig introduktion på hur man använder Bridgepoint överhuvudtaget och det var svårt att förstå hur det fungerade och vad man egentligen skulle göra. Det var dessutom omöjligt att hitta information om det på egen hand då det inte är ett vida använt program. Det var lite svårt att knyta ihop implementationsdelen med de första fyra veckorna. Förutom att man fått domain knowledge och ett klassdiagram kändes det lite som att man började på en helt ny grej. Voluntary exams som vi har haft fyra stycken är ett bra sätt att få studenterna att hänga med i kursen. Dock kan jag tycka att det är dåligt på så sätt att om man skulle hamna efter kan man inte ta ikapp. Det ska vara det man lärt sig vid kursens slut som är det viktiga. Dessutom var de utförda på ett konstigt sätt med tanke på att de är betygsgrundande. Att sitta i en hörsal bland massor av studenter gör det väldigt lätt att fuska. Och dessutom fick vi skriva namn och personnummer på våra exams. Vi har anonyma tentor på chalmers av en anledning. Jag vet inte riktigt hur man skulle kunna lösa det på ett bättre sätt. Ett alternativ skulle kanske kunna vara en dugga någon gång efter kursens fjärde vecka? Något som var bra var att föreläsare/handledare var engagerade i studenterna och i gruppernas projekt. »
- Great lectures. Lecturers actually seem alive and thinking. Some of my peers complain about you not being structured, I think it seems more like you are very confident in the subject?»
- you made us design the model first and then implement it. that"s hardly incremental development. exercises would be welcome to prepare for voluntary exams. no, the project work doesn"t count as exercise because it is not individual work and it makes you believe you know more than you do. voluntary exams should be obligatory, how about 2 mini-exams (dugga) instead?»
- A big applause to Rogardt and Håkan for a fun course and for their fun and caring personalities.»
- Very good course, but the workload was a little bit too high and the assessments could be seriously improved.»
- I enjoyed the dual-lecturer style, it was interesting, especially when they had different ideas about how you should do things.»
- Something that annoyed me quite a lot during the course was the teachers attitude of "if you don"t like some part of the course, you come up with an idea how to do it better". It is the course responsible"s responsibility to plan and execute the course not the students. Some parts of this course was horribly bad and yes, constructive criticism could be asked from us students, but it is not our job to "design" and plan the course! And seriously, STOP USING BRIDGEPOINT! »

Kursutvärderingssystem från