Visa resultat

MPSOF 1112-3 Advanced software architecture, DAT220/DIT542

Your own effort

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

31 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		2		6%
Around 20 hours/week»		16		51%
Around 25 hours/week»		9		29%
Around 30 hours/week»		3		9%
At least 35 hours/week»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.51

- This subject has such a heavy workload as others in the Software Engineering master programme. However and unfortunately, it does not guarantee a good learning experience. Dozens and dozens of papers to read, unrelated topics between lectures, assignments and sometimes exams did not provide me a good outcome. Just to make it clear, that is a general critic because other subjects have the same learning approach. To decrease the coverage of topics/workload, provide practical, realistic examples, well stated tasks and goals would help us a lot. I have been spending much time wondering and stressing myself just trying to figure out what I"m supposed to do in many subjects. To mail the teacher in order to elucidate every single ambiguity in the task/assignment statements is not a proper way to solve this.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- the first weeks less...later on definately more!» (Around 20 hours/week)
- A couple of weeks close to the exams, even 35+» (Around 25 hours/week)

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

31 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		1		3%
50%»		7		22%
75%»		17		54%
100%»		6		19%

Genomsnitt: 3.9

- Didn"t attend the lectures» (50%)
- Was sick for almost three weeks» (50%)
- After figure out that the content of many lectures had no relation with the team group assignment and written exam I decided to focus on get the assignment done. That"s why I didn"t attend 100% to the lectures.» (75%)
- I wish I hadn"t attended Abdullas "extremely important" sessions (there was a board game and some tutorial on AADL). felt like a waste of time to be honest.» (75%)
- Missed some lectures because of sickness» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		4		12%
The goals are difficult to understand»		3		9%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		12		38%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		12		38%

Genomsnitt: 3.03

- We struggled many times trying to understand about what we were supposed to do. Some of the feedbacks gathered from teachers was: "It is up to you". In the real life things do not work like this in companies. In addition to that, we someone say that something is up to us it means that any thing can be right then. Therefore, it is very difficult to make a precise assessment on that.» (The goals are difficult to understand)

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

29 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		1		3%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		25		86%
No, the goals are set too high»		3		10%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

- Design Patterns should have been part of the learning goals.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- However, since this was a course in embedded software, it might have been useful to have had a course on that prior to this one.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- You need more experience in real time and hardware b4 taking this class » (No, the goals are set too high)
- The course is part of the Software Engineering master"s programme, yet has a large focus on embedded systems - something we are not familiar with.» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

No, not at all»		2		6%
To some extent»		13		41%
Yes, definitely»		12		38%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		4		12%

Genomsnitt: 2.58

- The exam was mostly about memorizing the slides.» (No, not at all)
- lacked ATAM, otherwise good.» (Yes, definitely)
- Don´,t remember the goals» (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?

Small extent»		9		29%
Some extent»		10		32%
Large extent»		11		35%
Great extent»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.12

- Diffuse/no related content was being discussed in different classes.» (Small extent)
- Only one teacher present when working with the project. Didn"t really have time to ask any questions because he was busy helping the other groups.» (Small extent)
- The AADL tool support was rather poor in the sense that there where some doubts on how to best use the tool, and the assistant responsible was unable to give out clear answers» (Small extent)
- The only interesting lectures were the ones with Mathias, the new teacher. Styles and patterns relevant for my other studies.» (Small extent)
- The lectures were basically a summary of the course book and were mostly filled with too much text and no further visualization.» (Small extent)
- Jörgen and Mattias were good lecturer"s, though I"ll come back to the problems I had with the content.» (Some extent)
- The professor is great,the assistants not that much in their part of the course.» (Large extent)

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

Small extent»		5		16%
Some extent»		13		41%
Large extent»		10		32%
Great extent»		3		9%

Genomsnitt: 2.35

- Dozens and dozens of papers to read but without a well stated purpose.» (Small extent)
- Did not read anything in the book, seemed unecessary since it didn"t say anything.» (Small extent)
- Got the book, but it was quite boring to read.» (Some extent)
- As the slides consisted mostly of the content from the book, the book wasn"t really necessary.» (Some extent)

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

Very badly»		3		9%
Rather badly»		10		32%
Rather well»		12		38%
Very well»		6		19%

Genomsnitt: 2.67

- Description of assigments different in slides, assignment description and hand in on pingpong. Not clear when the assigment should be handed in until a few days ahead. » (Very badly)
- please ditch pingpong. no one else uses it and there is a reason for that. if you insist, please manage it properly. it was very poorly updated, it didn"t even list course representatives in the fourth week. also, assignment submissions were not posted until the 11th hour, etc etc. information scattered, pdf"s not updated. please clean it up..» (Very badly)
- Especially during the first week of the course there was a lot of confusion on what times we were scheduled and details regarding the project. The material on the course web page was poorly organized throughout the course.» (Rather badly)
- You can"t expect 2 groups (up to 16 different people) to find a time slot where EVERYONE has to be present. It"s ridiculous. First evaluation we were 10 people, the 2nd time we were 8. You should just hand everyone a slot and expect most of the members to be there instead. Same goes for deciding which groups had what time slot for working with the assignment. Ping pong is also rather horrible, but that"s not your fault.» (Rather badly)
- Lab assignments were put up late on the webpage. One could not submit the assignments in beforehand, they were enabled the day before submission (hard when away from school perticular days). Requests on literature references to corresponding lectures were never updated on website, though we requested in early in the course.» (Rather badly)
- The lecture slide files were not enumerated or linked to a date. There was no recording of the lecture on video. Lecture slides were uploaded with delay. The lecture was not really linked to what we did during the labs.» (Rather badly)
- Main problem is unclarity in the submission deadlines. I don"t think it"s acceptable to give the deadline of reports 3 days in advance when the deadline probably was set by the supervisors weeks ahead. Also there were some inconsistencies in the assignment descriptions between the actual assignment handout and what was described in the lecture.» (Rather well)
- Felt a bit unorganized during the firist weeks. Perhaps it would help if you only sign up for lab sessions at one time.» (Rather well)
- Submission page could be up earlier in the week before deadline.» (Rather well)
- PingPong likes to spam whenever comments are made.» (Rather well)
- Except when the lecture was canceled and didn"t receive any mail (however not the lectures fault)» (Very well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		3		9%
Rather poor»		5		16%
Rather good»		14		45%
Very good»		9		29%
I did not seek help»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- As I said, only 1 teacher to help when working with the project.» (Very poor)
- Only one scheduled supervised time slot per week. When attending, the teacher was on his office and did not do much help in our assignment. We kind of worked in the dark.» (Very poor)
- Hard to get help during labsession.» (Rather poor)
- There weren"t sufficient time slots for getting help on the labs. Only one assistant had been assigned for the labs which is not enough concerning the difficulty of learning a new modelling language with a tool that is rather hard to handle.» (Rather poor)
- Abdullah wasn"t very good at explaining or understanding questions» (Rather good)
- Excellent possibility to ask questions every class and then the last lecture that was completely filled with own questions» (Very good)
- A very positive thing was that the professor provoked us to ask question and initiate in dialogue!» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		5		16%
Rather well»		10		32%
Very well»		16		51%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- 2 members worked more against us than forward » (Rather poorly)
- Work group usually doesn"t work very well and it is because people have got different backgrounds, they have different purposes and agendas. Some of them are student just to keep their visa in this country, some of them only care about to pass, some of them only care about to reach the highest grade (rarely) and some of them care about to learn something useful to be able to find a job as Software Developer. I know we have different people working together in companies, but in real life, if some of them do not contribute to the team sure they will be punished accordingly and that"s not the case at University. Beside this, sometimes it is very difficult to express your opinion about a certain topic because some people take over the assignment. Personally, I perform better in individual assignments. » (Rather poorly)
- Worked very well with most of the project group but some individuals were more problematic. Their lack of abilities in the English language resulted in many hours of correction and backtracking work in the reports. » (Rather poorly)
- Ok, but would be better if the groups were smaller. We were 7 people, most of the time 3 people worked and the other ones just observed (not because they were lazy, but there was no work to be carried out).» (Rather well)
- The success of the project (not yet graded though) was that we were used working together.» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		2		6%
Adequate»		11		35%
High»		16		51%
Too high»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.58

- Hard to say since we"ve not been graded yet. If we pass, they workload was too low. Else it was unclear how much time you need to spend in order to pass.» (Low)
- Too much work at the last weeks of the Study Period. The final assignments should have been scheduled to be delievered at most during week 7 and not after the final exams!» (Adequate)
- I would say that the main assignment (2) should start one week earlier. This would not have been a large problem and it would have allowed better time time to study for the exams as well as better quality on the reports.» (High)
- I can see now that this heavy workload is such a common thing in Sweden (only?). But, for some people like me, this is not a big deal, actually this is a big problem that constantly try to push me out from University. Firstly, I have to work to afford my living cost, I haven"t got any student loan, scholarship or whatsoever. In addition, I"m having to give up on my parallel work because I"m supposed to spend almost 60 hours studying per week in only 2 subjects. It is simply unfeasible for me and for any people in my condition. I know this is a personal issue but as I"m a student of this University I think I have to share my struggles while I still try to be a Chalmerist. And by the way, I have been in other countries and they still can offer good education with lowest workload. » (Too high)
- The biggest flaw of the course was that we had to submit for the assignment even during the EXAM WEEK!And the part we had to deliver wasn"t actually anything important,just time consuming.We only had to merge things we already accomplished.Not happy with that!» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		3%
Adequate»		10		33%
High»		16		53%
Too high»		3		10%

Genomsnitt: 3.7

- Didn"t like to have the evaluation and hand in on the examination week, since it leaves no room for studying for exams.» (Adequate)
- Was quite reasonable, if one thought it was too low, one could always do more work as there were no upper limit on the workload.» (High)
- No time during week 7-8 to study for the exams!!!» (High)
- Many whole day group meetings. It is also important to mention that some of us has been getting health problems because of stress and bad nutrition as Cremona and other food places close very early.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		10		32%
Fair»		3		9%
Adequate»		5		16%
Good»		13		41%
Excellent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.67 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- * No connection between lectures and labs/project * Project extends into exam week * How do you expect students to pick up a new language (completely new /kind/ of language in some cases) and use it to design an architecture in three weeks? How are they supposed to be able to evaluate it? There"s no time to consider tradeoffs at all, everyone just goes with what they can get working first. * Either AADL is inadequate for describing software archs., or not a single student learnt how to use AADL properly. * We were probably introduced to a grand total of five architectural styles, and then pretty much only the names and gist of them. Where"s the information about pros/cons, dos/don"ts etc?» (Poor)
- My main issue with the course is the focus on embedded systems. This was applicable in some part to Jörgen"s lectures and in large part to the project. The project, in turn, seemed decoupled from the lectures and was badly administrated. The basic introduction to AADL was a point-and-click tutorial which admittedly gave a certain understanding of the tool, but provided very little in terms of actual understanding AADL.» (Poor)
- Before this course started I was excited to learn software architecture and software principles for building large scale software (eg. high-level views of software). I was eager to learn this, because I really need it for my future work! But instead we learned stuff on a very low level (WAY TO LOW LEVEL), such as threads and processes. I don"t want to bother with this stuff. If you have a great software architecture (not talking embedded now), you won"t have to bother about threads since most of that is taken care of by the other layers. I"m not planning to build rockets or super-critical systems in the future, and maybe you should consider the fact that most of us won"t. If I wanted to learn about embedded systems, I would have chosen a course about embedded systems. We had to do a lot of guess-work when designing our architecture. How should we be able to design something realistic about threads, periods and such when all we know is software? I mean, with the amount of guess-work we did in this course we would have probably exploded many rockets if we had to do this kind of work in the future.» (Poor)
- Overall not up to par with the other master courses due to some management and confusion to what we were supposed to do in the project. There needs to be more consulting and feedback earlier to know what path we are on and if its right, we just did our best without actually knowing how to measure if we were on the right path or not.» (Poor)
- Read previous comments. Bad structure, unclear relevence since im not focused on embedded studies in my other studies, but rather against general software development. Could be more general since the whole lab focused on real time systems.» (Poor)
- Probably the most disappointing course so far. Was looking forward to it but it felt like a big let down. First, it is completely focused on embedded systems which as far as I understood, almost no one in the class a) had worked with b) cared about. Why not rename the course embedded software architecture? AADL felt like quite a useless thing to learn. Extremely specialized. Why not let the projects utilize more of the styles & patterns part of the course?» (Poor)
- In my opinion the idea of Problem Based Learning (PBL) has been misused in many subjects at Chalmers. To give us dozens of papers to read, books, big assignments to get done, few lectures talking about it and a room to do the group meetings is not the proper way to us get educated. If this university want to be an "International Organization", it must understand the differences among students that come from different countries. I don"t know about Swedish students but at least in my country, this is not normal to every single student be such an autodidact/self-taught person. Yes, we do need help and closely guidance when we are learning new things, specially because many of us haven"t got a good basic education. Once more again, just to get many papers, books to read, and Internet tutorials to do should not be the proper way to learning things at University. If I"m wrong on this... I wonder why should I not be at home learning those things on my own instead of being spending time and resources to be at my University.» (Fair)
- Probably due to my initial expectations on the course, further explained in question 15.» (Fair)
- Having a report done in the exam week isn"t a good thing. Instead move the first assignment a week earlier, it isn"t that hard.» (Adequate)
- There should be more focus on how to solve architectural problems.» (Adequate)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

16. Additional comments