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.

Tangible interaction, CIU180

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-01-30 - 2012-02-06
Antal svar: 8
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Jon Mjölnevik»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Informationsteknik 300 hp
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Informationsteknik 300 hp

1. It was clear from the beginning what was expected of me in the course.

8 svarande

1, Do not agree at all.»1 12%
4 50%
3 37%
4, Agree completely.»0 0%
No answer.»0

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- The course description massively varied from the actual course content.» (1, Do not agree at all.)
- It was said there would be a home exam and a project but not where the focus would be or what we were supposed to be graded on..» (2)

2. Do you think that you had enough knowledge to take the course?

- Yes, no preknowledge was needed.»
- Yes i had»
- yes»
- Yes»
- yes»
- Yes, the Prototyping course in the previous study period was very helpful.»
- Yes»
- A big lack of electronics knowledge was a big problem for many of us I think.»

3. As a whole, how satisfied are you with the course?

- Completely unsatisfied. This course is a joke! The professor dealt with outdated knowledge, the excecises were playful - but useless "tinkering-around-sessions" (A waste of university-material!). The literature-seminars seemed to be totally random, outdated and a waste of time. The final "exhibition" demanded a lot of work but ended up in a useless event. (E.g.: The course-members were the only present guests.) The grading for the exams was not reasoned at all. Until now we did not get any feedback about the marks.»
- Yes i am but could have been even better.»
- 8/10»
- satisfied with the labs to satisfied with lectures and literature seminars»
- yeah, but i would like to have more time to do some exercises with more criteria and knowledge»
- The course was interesting and touched important parts of interaction design. However, the organisation and running of the course had some flaws, which were disappointing. I"d say the course had most focus on HCI, but a bit of artistic (interaction design) projects would enrich the course.»
- not very »
- Not at all..»

4. Regarding lectures, seminars, projects, etc you have participated in: Please mention three good things in the course and three things that can be improved.

- I honestly can not mention anything good about this waste of time. - outdated papers! - redundant papers! - no constructive discussion with the course/profs»
- Good things : team projects, hands on electronics-hardware-software»
- +The word haptic is burned into our minds forever +The projects were fun to make + -The exhibition was pointless -There was not so much theory, mainly showing examples -The in-between-presentations were pointless and waisting precious time»
- Labs were dynamic with an incredible grade of involvement of the Teacher assistants. Not only helpful on the pedagogic side but on the motivational side.»
- Lectures: Good amount of "general knowledge" about Ubiquitous Computing, and Tangible research (~Ishii). Lacking more state-of-art papers and focus, where is the field going. Guest lectures: The one we had was very nice, however some more would be even nicer (or have guests for labs, projects?) Literature sessions: The groups were too big to prepare presentations and present them, while everybody contributes equally. Several times big differences between papers, and questionable purpose of them. The very technical papers could be left out. Projects: Very appreciating that we were forced to mix Swedish and international students. Weirdly timed and scheduled projects, they *do* require time to work upon, we spent way more hours in Kuggen for several nights then what the course should require generally. All the projects was developed with strong compromises due to the hectic timing, I think the aim should be to develop outstanding projects, and not to get them done with some average way. The final project should have more time, and a theme which is more current. It would be nice to give more focus on producing projects which can appear in personal portfolio (so good ideas, and with enough time to develop them well). Right now they were kept on "proof-of-concept" level in most of the cases.»
- Bad things: The course was to wide in content. Very hard to see a connection between lectures/literature and exercises. As a newcomer in electronics I would have preferred to work solo with the "learn electronic components" exercises rather than in a group. The stressful schedule of course meant you had to rush through these exercises and did not really learn much. The big last part of the exercises could be done in groups, but there should be a clear aim with them, like a design problem, rather than do whatever you want. The fact that we had to present our ideas, and then final design meant a whole lot of lecture time spent on somethings that did not return a whole lot. Might be better to pair two groups and have them present their designs to each other and crit. Final designs could be presented to the whole class. Also bugged me that the electronics assistant took part in most lectures (as bystanders) while we did not have any assistant there during fridays. There paycheck would be better spent there as that was really the only day we had to work without being interrupted by presentations/lectures/seminars or other stuff. The literature for the seminars was a joke to be honest and it was very hard to learn something from it. It was to wide in content and the impression was that none of the responsible teachers had actually read the papers. The lectures felt a bit unsubstantial as well. The feedback on the individual report and the final project has been non existing. I have no idea what I did good and what I did bad. The final grade was based on these two things. Also in our group of 4, only 3 person really did any work on the final project while one person did nothing.»
- Good: learning by doing.. Bad: everything from organization to teacher to lectures to seminar to literature, i.e., most of the course. »

5. The information about the examinations was clear.

8 svarande

1, Do not agree at all.»4 50%
1 12%
3 37%
4, Agree completely.»0 0%
No answer.»0

Genomsnitt: 1.87

- Details about the examination-process were changed a lot (E.g.: the examination-dates were changed twice without informing the course). The grading seems to be total random and not reasonable.» (1, Do not agree at all.)
- The information regarding the examinations were given ~2 weeks before it was supposed to be handed in. But that information was false (wrong hand in date for example), in fact it was the home exam from last year with changed year. This information was then changed by the teacher during the following weeks, without any notice. Only the last change was notified, i.e., the content changed to fit this years seminars (after having the student representatives read through the new home exam to insure that he had not made any mistakes). » (1, Do not agree at all.)
- Was under the impression that the project work was the big part of the examination. However, in the end, the grade was mostly based on the literature essay. Also feels strange since 4 points was given to the project and 3,5 to the essay» (2)
- The deadline moving back and forth created a lot of confusion in the class» (3)
- It improved with time, for the first time it was confusing for most of the class. Having the extra time to have it done was very appreciated.» (3)

6. The information about schedules was good.

8 svarande

1, Do not agree at all.»0 0%
2 25%
3 37%
4, Agree completely.»3 37%
No answer.»0

Genomsnitt: 3.12

- This has been the only course where we supposed to follow TimeEdit by the book. A detailed schedule in Google Calendar would be nice, which can be embedded on the website.» (2)
- Time was not enough or well planed. Sometimes we came to the lectures only to find out that we should have a presentation which we did have time to prepare for. Many of us also spent long nights working on exercises that would only help us pass the course..» (2)

7. How did you experience the physical work environment?

- The physical work environment was OK in the beginning (good supply of tools, material, etc). Whereas the workshops turned into a total mess in the end. The course-staff simply omited to set up a working workshop-organization. Furthermore the course did not supply anthing for more advanced Tangible-interaction-projects (like Touchscreens, etc) instead the students had to solder together blinking Button-LED-artefacts which are not really what a market-oriented tangible-interaction product could look like... »
- Lots of work, many teams were staying almost 4 to 5 hours more every time to be able to complete projects.»
- Very Good»
- good»
- The room fits well this size of class, and we really had everything to tinker. It"s perfect.»
- Good»
- Okay. But in the end there was trash and work tools everywhere which made it harder to work.»

8. How did you experience the psychological work environment?

- At times it was really fun to try out various things with the available tools and materials, even though it was very frustrating and abvious to every student in the course that the stuff we were doing was more that useless.»
- Stressful in most time.»
- Good»
- good»
- Especially with the final project we spent way too much late nights in Kuggen, that was very tiring. Having the course running in parallel with Graphical Interfaces didn"t really help, as it was also very overwhelming course. »
- Good»
- Not good. Too much stress and not knowing what was expected of you led to dislikes and loss of interest in the course. The ignorance and lack of interest from the teacher did not help either.»

9. The course literature such as books, articles, and compendia functioned as a good support in your studies.

8 svarande

1, Do not agree at all.»4 50%
3 37%
1 12%
4, Agree completely.»0 0%
No answer.»0

Genomsnitt: 1.62

- The literature-sessions were based on outdated material from the 1990s, which is inacceptable for a course dealing with such an urgent and pioneering topic like tangible interaction» (1, Do not agree at all.)
- The papers list should be revived, many are questionable in usefulness, and in relevance. I miss papers aiming for the future of the field.» (1, Do not agree at all.)
- See above» (1, Do not agree at all.)
- The text for the seminars were not read by the teacher, he only chose them by title and author and what they had written before (e.g., "this author wrote a good paper before this so therefor I thought this would be interesting for the course"). Something he confirmed to student representatives during one of their meetings. » (1, Do not agree at all.)

10. You have acquired the knowledge and skills specified in the goals of the course plan?

7 svarande

1, Do not agree at all.»1 14%
1 14%
4 57%
4, Agree completely.»1 14%
No answer.»0

Genomsnitt: 2.71

- What was I supposed to learn? I learned how to Google related research papers and build stuff with electronics.. The home exam was to read the papers and reflect with your own thoughts and words. Feedback to our home exam was never given.. Therefore no one know why they got a 4 or 5 or how the teacher evaluated the answers (which were pure reflections)..» (1, Do not agree at all.)
- At least I learned something about basic electronics, but I have learned nothing that could be industry-relevant!» (2)
- Aim of Course: After the course you will be able to demonstrate skills and knowledge in tangible interaction design and physical computing, and have developed critical thinking and design skills concerning tangible interaction techniques, strategies. Learning Aims: a) Knowledge and understanding - Understand how computional technology can be used as a material for design of interactive systems - Understand how knowledge about human cognition and motor skills can guide the design and evaluation of tangible user interfaces - Understand and draw on theory and history of tangible interaction. b) Skills and abilities - Design and realize interactive prototypes using tangible interface components - Make sensible and economic use of advanced components and corresponding techniques - Reflect on the relation between spatiality, form, and temporality in tangible interaction design. c) Judgement and approach - Criticize and discuss computer-based tangible artifacts - Question in what way computational technology is shaping our present and future society and way of life - Reflect on sustainability issues such as energy consumption and material waste caused by novel computational systems and devices.» (4, Agree completely.)

11. What do you think about the teachers’,,pedagogical abilities? (Could they explain course content in a comprehensive way?)

- The technical-teaching assistants did a really good job and I think they could have run the course alone way better than together with Mr. Fjeld. Mr Fjeld"s lectures were a boring text-slideshow with almost no real value for the students.»
- Teaching was structured in a way that i could not identify any pedagogical abilities by the teachers. Even answers to our questions some times were vague and not helpful.»
- Morten and the TA were good»
- morten was good but amir and farshid not so good, they didn"t help so much on coding or electronic issues.»
- Not the most exciting lectures, but huge knowledge on the field, especially ongoing research. Good help in labs, however »
- Really bad, not happy at all with the teacher»
- Unfortunately this was a missing ability of all the teachers.. »

12. It was clear from the beginning what was expected of me in the course.

8 svarande

1, Do not agree at all.»0 0%
2 33%
4 66%
4, Agree completely.»0 0%
No answer.»2

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- Sam answer as i stated in question No 1.» (No answer.)
- Redundant question?..» (No answer.)

Kursutvärderingssystem från