Visa resultat

MPIDE 1213-1 Human-centered design, TDA486

Your own effort

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

17 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		1		5%
Around 20 hours/week»		4		23%
Around 25 hours/week»		3		17%
Around 30 hours/week»		5		29%
At least 35 hours/week»		4		23%

Genomsnitt: 3.41

- Too much to do the first weeks, between labs, homeexams and answering questions » (Around 20 hours/week)
- Too many parts that all demanded much time... The average time spent was somewhere between 30-35h/week.» (Around 30 hours/week)
- I think it took too much lecture and laboratory preparation and attendance time so there was not so much time for the project.» (At least 35 hours/week)
- Total time spent on the whole study period is probably around 60-70h/week.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

17 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		0		0%
75%»		2		11%
100%»		15		88%

Genomsnitt: 4.88

- Missed one lecture.» (75%)
- Confusing what was mandatory and what was not mandatory,» (75%)
- Well it was mandatory.....» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

The goals are difficult to understand»		3		21%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		9		64%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		2		14%
I have not seen/read the goals»		3

Genomsnitt: 1.92

- Have know idea still what they are?» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- The goals are vague and general. It uses the concepts of UCD and HCD but it doesn"t go into specifics.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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

15 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		2		13%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		11		73%
No, the goals are set too high»		2		13%

Genomsnitt: 2

- I passed the course so i guess so.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

No, not at all»		7		43%
To some extent»		9		56%
Yes, definitely»		0		0%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		0

Genomsnitt: 1.56

- The feedback we got for the several parts of the home exam was very unhelpful. I didn"t know why we got the grades I did. Also for some reason Feng refused to share the grading criteria for the exam. It also feels like Fang didn"t read some of the home exams at all, though she graded them. One classmate failed a home exam question and it was very clear that Fang hadn"t read it. This is really, really bad.» (No, not at all)
- Not at all, apart from not solid and clear questions, the feedback give for home exams was rather poor if not existing at all. Not constructive at all.» (No, not at all)
- The home exams were divorced from the actual objectives of the course, even if they were related to the literature. The lectures and literature were disorganized and it was not clear how they added to the knowledge about HCD.» (No, not at all)
- Each of the three examinations, done during the course, only focused on a tiny detail within HCD and only improved my knowledge of how to write a report.. » (No, not at all)
- Random grade, teacher didn"t give fair grade at all.» (No, not at all)
- The examination is a joke for this course. The grading is subjective, without ANY written criteria, with promise of feedback on home exams, which we received, but it"s just ridiculous. Obvious evidence that they were only skimmed through, without any careful reading.» (No, not at all)
- The home exam questions was not clear enough and since the questions came from student during the literature seminars, the teacher herself did not know what she was asking for...» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		11		64%
Some extent»		4		23%
Large extent»		2		11%
Great extent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.47

- 1: The teaching was not good at all. Both the teachers" spoken and written English was not good enough to communicate their message clearly. 5: Both the teachers didn"t really understand what people ask in class or what we wrote in our home exams. 6: It generally feels like the teachers didn"t bother with the course at all. 7: The lectures didn"t help me at all for the project, they seemed completely unrelated. 8: The topics of the course were disconnected, and they didn"t seem to fit the theme of Human Centered design at all.» (Small extent)
- The guest lectures has been ok, but the other ones has been mostly boring as hell.» (Small extent)
- Very bad English by the teachers, in some cases outdated content. » (Small extent)
- The responsible teacher might have knowledge about the subject but she doesn"t know how to transmit it. She never understand the questions being made by the students so she is not capable of clarifying doubts.» (Small extent)
- Bad planning of lectures, extremely low quality on the English in the power point slides. Teachers responsible for the course often felt unprepared and stressed. » (Small extent)
- ABSOLUTLY NON AT ALL!!!!» (Small extent)
- The lectures are extremely boring, and presenting obsolete methodologies and such. Horrible teaching, zero evidence of care about the students, slides full of typos, unfortunately a total waste of time.» (Small extent)
- Got the feeling that the teacher didn"t know what she was talking about sometimes...» (Some extent)

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

Small extent»		5		29%
Some extent»		6		35%
Large extent»		5		29%
Great extent»		1		5%

Genomsnitt: 2.11

- 1: The literature was old and outdated, and Fang admitted herself that she didn"t read all the required literature. We had literature presentations where we had to answer questions about these papers, so how could Fang know what we were talking about if she didn"t read it? 2: One of the papers was of terrible quality (GAHYYUR et al., REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING PROCESSES, TOOLS/TECHNOLOGIES, & METHODOLOGIES), when I and other students pointed this out to Fang she admitted she hadn"t read it. 3: Some slides for the lectures were seriously written with poor English, which made them incomprehensible. The other slides were just copy-pasted from other lectures/presentations which could be found online.» (Small extent)
- Course literature was not read by teachers before handed out to us. Was just a stroke of luck if literature was good or not! Not acceptable» (Small extent)
- ARE YOU KIDDING? WORST EVER!» (Small extent)
- Unfortunately a total waste of time. The most useful part were the guest lectures from Dimi and Jonas, who actually did prepare for their lectures and delivered something quality and useful. Fang"s lectures are talking about totally obsolete things, ignoring what happened in the field (out of vehicle stuff) in the last 20 years.» (Small extent)
- a few papers good, some papers was horrible, did"nt read them all» (Some extent)
- Some resources were interesting and of high quality, but were also research papers of seriously questioned quality.» (Some extent)
- Most of the literature was terrible, either because it had poor quality or because it was only vaguely related to the subject. A small percent of the literature was interesting, and I think that the group presentations were interesting because we learned when making them but it wasn"t that related to HCD. A lot of the literature was also outdated, no papers from the last decade. It also seems like the teacher hadn"t read some of the literature.» (Some extent)
- Most of the papers seemed to be chosen on their titles, and not read through by the teachers. The teacher responsible for the course also confirmed this during a lecture. Therefore the quality of some were extremely low, others extremely hard to understand. Some felt totally unrelated to the course goals. » (Some extent)
- A few bad papers that hadn"t been read by any of the teachers before handing them out. Most paper were ok....» (Some extent)
- From my point of view most of the things we learnt was because of the heavy reading of papers. The lectures did not clarify many of the concepts that arose during the course. Eg, even if it was asked several times many students were not able to understand the differences between Human Centered Design and User Centered Design» (Large extent)

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

Very badly»		6		35%
Rather badly»		5		29%
Rather well»		6		35%
Very well»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Responsible teacher did not know when the deadlines of the examinations were, even though she was supposed to correct the previous home exam before the new deadline. At one occasion she also handed out some (~1/3) of the corrected home exams 1 day after the deadline for the next one and told the class that the deadline now was moved one day forward and that everyone was allowed to resubmit their exams.. Web page and information told in class were not consistent, deadlines changed throughout the course. Questions for the home exams were not done by the responsible teachers, rather, they chosen from questions handed in by students from the labs. These questions were often too big and loosely defined for a 2 page exam. Teachers also expected 8h of work on the exams, however, within these 8h students were supposed to find (at least) 4 related pages and base their answers on these papers and write the 2 pages. With the questions not being properly defined the total time spent on each exam was probably 16-25h (aiming for the highest grade). » (Very badly)
- Literature was often handed out too late. In some cases less than 24 hours before the deadline to read it. Not acceptable» (Very badly)
- Bad comunication! Teacher dident even know when the deadlines was.» (Very badly)
- Min did her best, but it"s obvious that she keeps her back for someone, who is bad. » (Very badly)
- The teacher assistant put a lot of effort in order to have a fluent channel of communication but the channels were not clear. Sometime news were in the frontpage, sometimes in our mail box. » (Very badly)
- 1: There were conflicting deadline dates on the website, more than once we didn"t know which deadline we had to follow. 2: The required literature was uploaded late on the website. In one instance a 30+ page paper required reading for a lecture was only uploaded by Min the day before the lecture. 3: The feedback on the first part of the home exam was given late, and some students got it first than the others, with at least 4 days in between. 4: The lab exercises felt really heavy in terms of workload when a group had to present them (explained in more detail in comments of question 11). 5: Some students got the information than the project was pass/fail, other got that it was graded.» (Rather badly)
- deadlines were different on different pages on the site.» (Rather badly)
- Too much confusion about deadlines and (some) papers were handed out very late, which made it almost impossible to schedule our time and be able to read them in time... Cred to Min for trying to sort things out the best she could.» (Rather badly)
- The webpage worked well but the literature was made available with little time to read it at some points in the course. Also, it seemed like the teacher and the assistant were not communicating about some deadlines.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		2		14%
Rather poor»		5		35%
Rather good»		6		42%
Very good»		1		7%
I did not seek help»		2

Genomsnitt: 2.42

- When we asked questions we got an answer but it was lots of talk and not really an answer to what we asked.» (Very poor)
- Min was helpful, but too stressed most of the times.» (Very poor)
- We got opportunities to ask questions but the teachers didn"t understand the questions and ended up talking without answering them.» (Rather poor)
- Help for the project was scheduled, however, it felt more like it was for the teachers to know how we were doing with the project. Otherwise, the only time to ask was during the lectures, and the spare time there mostly went to arguing about course content and administration of the course.. » (Rather poor)
- Teacher was on a trip in the middle of and in the end of period. » (Rather poor)
- Sometimes when we send emails answers took some time be replied.» (Rather good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		2		12%
Rather well»		6		37%
Very well»		8		50%
I did not seek cooperation»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.37

- I had normal people in my team, not much to describe cooperation.» (Rather poorly)
- However, some students did seem to not care about deadlines and this problem was not taken care of by the teachers (instead they let them do the task the next, or following, week instead) so the other students had to bring up the problem in class...» (Rather well)
- Had a good group» (Very well)
- important since it was a demanding course!» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		5%
Adequate»		2		11%
High»		5		29%
Too high»		9		52%

Genomsnitt: 4.29

- I would have prefer a higher workload with better quality than the poor quality of the workload we got.» (Adequate)
- In the literature questions we had to answer usually 10 or more questions about a specific paper or topic in about 1 week. We had to research other papers, do the reading and prepare a 45min presentation on those questions. We felt it was way too much work for the given time.» (High)
- To much shit at the same time! » (Too high)
- With 3 home exams, 7 labs, lectures and a project on top (which was the only rewarding thing in terms of knowledge) the course work load was ridiculous.. » (Too high)
- When we finally get the chance to be at a real company, meeting real stakeholders and users, we should be able to focus on that, and don"t have to worry about 3(!) home exams. Better if it was 1 home exam / individual project report which was more connected to what was learned in the project, supported by articles, rather than 3 home exams + 1 project report.» (Too high)
- The course practically stole significant amount of time from the other course it ran parallel with, this is really not fair, especially that the other course is a compulsory one. The project was ridiculous, and learnt nothing about HCD within working on it. The home exams are ridiculous, come on, at least fix the BAD ENGLISH for the questions, to have normal answers for them. And write what the heck do you expect for answers, instead of telling us not to spend too much time on them. This is just self-contradicting, and really not respecting the students. » (Too high)
- There was an unreasonable amount of papers to read. These counting three home exams where we had to read a lot, if you want to do an exam and understand the topic and generate a concept and good answer. Some of the papers were hardly understandable and unprofessional (Lab 2: REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING PROCESSES, TOOLS/TECHNOLOGIES, & METHODOLOGIES MR. SHAMS-UL-ARIF, MR. QADEEM KHAN, S. A. K. GAHYYUR.) » (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		2		11%
High»		6		35%
Too high»		9		52%

Genomsnitt: 4.41

- High this study period only because of this course.» (High)
- 60-70h» (Too high)
- Read with IDP1.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		9		52%
Fair»		2		11%
Adequate»		3		17%
Good»		3		17%
Excellent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I feel that the teachers, especially Fang, shouldn"t be teaching this course. She wasn"t good at communicating, answering questions and giving feedback. Our complaints and suggestions on what could be improved were ignored.» (Poor)
- Useless course, don"t know what i learned» (Poor)
- The project was very interesting because it gave us the opportunity of experimenting how it is to work with a company. However, this had little to do with HCD and there wasn"t much from the course that we could incorporate in our projects. The lectures and literature discussions were mostly useless. Each new topic felt disconnected from the last and the way we got the questions from the literature discussion made them sometimes totally off topic. On the other hand, I don"t think this method of getting questions would be that bad if the literature was better.» (Poor)
- For being a master course, the course quality was far below expected quality in comparison with other courses. I can only recommend it to others if the whole course is redone and the responsible teachers are changed. » (Poor)
- Seriusly, such a bad course it"s fun. Only thing that was good was that we got to work with real companies.» (Poor)
- This course is really poor quality, students were very disappointed, including me. It"s not quite a justification of a course that students don"t quit it to have their CSN loan or the credits, I think. Truly believe, that this is the worst course offered by the Interaction Design division. » (Poor)
- The level of English of the teachers affected really negatively the results of teaching. Poorly prepared or outdated presentations with lot of mistakes that in the end resulted in not understanding what the author wants to say.» (Fair)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

16. Additional comments