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 1213-2 Model-driven software development, TDA593|DIT945

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-12-20 - 2013-02-03
Antal svar: 40
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 28%
Kontaktperson: Börje Johansson»
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.

40 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»2 5%
Around 20 hours/week»9 22%
Around 25 hours/week»17 42%
Around 30 hours/week»6 15%
At least 35 hours/week»6 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.12

- We were "threatened" to not get passed, or at least not a better grade than 3 if not spending about 25h/week, and we had to report exactly how we spent our time on the course. I don"t think you should have to spend extra time if you"re efficient, and feel guilty if you don"t, so I really disliked this part.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- A little less the first weeks, a bit more the last weeks, but if averaged, about 25h/week.» (Around 25 hours/week)
- Vi jobbade mycket i gruppen varje vecka. Tyvärr fick vi väldigt lite återkoppling på handledningstillfällena (vi hade Jonas) vilket gjorde att det kändes som att vi arbetade i en "bubbla" och inte kunde vara säkra på att det vi gjorde var korrekt. Med ordentlig återkoppling hade vi kunnat lära oss mycket mer. Vissa veckor kändes det som att handledaren knappt läst igenom veckoinlämningen.» (At least 35 hours/week)
- Which was totally unnecessary, since it did not improve my grade at all.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

40 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»6 15%
50%»7 17%
75%»7 17%
100%»20 50%

Genomsnitt: 4.02

- I did not find the lectures very useful. There was hardly any introduction or information about Bridgepoint at all, which is funny since it affects the grade a lot. More information/education about Bridgepoint is definitely needed since it is impossible to get any clues what to do from the Internet, and not that easy to get any answers from the teachers/assiastants.» (75%)
- I skipped some lectures because I thought the quality was lacking.» (75%)
- Some lectures collided with obligatory tasks in another course» (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?

40 svarande

The goals are difficult to understand»4 12%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»15 46%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»13 40%
I have not seen/read the goals»8

Genomsnitt: 2.28

- The goals were not clearly explained and after reading the goals, I don"t believe that the examination reflected the goals. See 15.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- I think that it"s hard to put clear goals in this course since it"s very abstract and you can learn things in a thousand different ways» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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.

35 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»30 85%
No, the goals are set too high»5 14%

Genomsnitt: 2.14

- Have not read the goals..» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- I can"t really comment on this.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- The goals "produce an executable software model" and "verify the behaviour and structure of the executable software model" needs to be more realistic. Since there is no real guidance on how the executable model should be implemented for it to be a good model, it should not weigh so heavily when the grade is decided. No one responsible for the course seems to know enough about Bridgepoint either to make such judgement. The entire part focusing on Bridgepoint (executable models) in the course is a joke! The other goals are fine and reasonable though.» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

37 svarande

No, not at all»5 15%
To some extent»17 51%
Yes, definitely»11 33%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»4

Genomsnitt: 2.18

- The grade is (I would say) ONLY based on the so called voluntary exams. The exams start so early in the course too, so one does not really get the chance to actually learn anything from the course before they start. It would make more sense to test one"s knowledge in the END of a course rather than in halftime if one wants to make a fair assessment of a student"s knowledge. The voluntary exams also test things that have not been brought up during lectures, and which I could not find in at least two of the books (but there are about eight recommended books... No reading directions though...!). It makes no sense to test us on things we have not been taught! The only thing that can give you extra points (not stated how many, could be anything between 1-infinity) is the Bridgepoint project. However, no guidance on how to implement things in Bridgepoint is provided. All students therefore have to be self-taught, but still provide NICE code. How this is supposed to happen is beyond me.» (No, not at all)
- See 15.» (No, not at all)
- Actually, the tests were quite crappy, they were testing how fast you could write rather than what you knew. If they should continue with these tests coming years, they should be more serious when setting time limits. I haven"t heard of anyone who had time to finish the last test for example. And also, many people are stressed by having low time limits, so let the tests be an hour and put up detailed answers for the questions on the course page, rather than the crappy half ready answers we were given on the blackboard.» (No, not at all)
- The voluntary exams were the only way to obtain a grade higher than 3, and they were very poorly constructed, and often tested us on knowledge that we obtained after the exam.» (To some extent)
- It felt like the whole grade fell on Q if a student became a master of BP. What happened to weeks 1-5?» (To some extent)
- However, the stress factor during the exams resulted in that I didn"t feel that I could express my knowledge (since I was too stressed), however, it felt as if you did care a lot about that problem when setting the grades.» (Yes, definitely)
- Have not read 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?

40 svarande

Small extent»14 35%
Some extent»11 27%
Large extent»11 27%
Great extent»4 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.12

- Ostrukturerade föreläsningar.» (Small extent)
- The lectures are very confusing and do not really provide any help for me as a student. I sometimes think going to the lectures confused me more than not going at all, so I would rather just try to find the material online or in a book.» (Small extent)
- Very bad lectures with a lot of off-topic comments, combined with scheduling collisions of lectures IN DIFFERENT BLOCKS OF THE BLOCK SCHEDULE made me prioritize other courses.» (Small extent)
- It was difficult to understand the teacher because of English accent. They asked us to let them know whenever we did not understand them. However, I could not interrupt them every minute to repeat their word. Therefore, I missed out most part of the lectures.» (Small extent)
- The lectures were quite disorienting and confusing» (Small extent)
- The lectures were for the most part okay, but too much time were spent on small details/syntax of (xt)UML and too little on the big picture, how all parts fit together and what was considered elegant. I would have liked to have had an introductory lecture on BridgePoint and part of a lecture dedicated to design patterns within BridgePoint, but since I did not attend all of the lectures I"m not sure whether there was or not. Also, it was not helpful when the two lecturers disagreed during a lecture and no consensus was made on the given problem. This happened several times and was very confusing.» (Some extent)
- Lecture quality varied wildly.» (Some extent)
- The lectures could be quite chaotic when the teachers disagreed with each other.» (Large extent)
- It"s however difficult to study the subject in the literature we have since the opinions of the teachers can disagree with the literature without the student knowing if they missed a class!» (Great extent)
- The lectures were very good, especially the discussions when making examples with the course registration system. However, such examples should be done for the state charts as well. I felt as if we got too little examples of that part (less than with the use cases and so on, and we have seen that model before and know some about it), it would be better to spend a bit more time at the diagrams that are new to most people and a bit less at the models that they have created before. Also, on one lecture you introduced a diagram with devices, I never understood why you did introduce it and when we should use it. I believe that it is better to focus on the diagrams we use.» (Great extent)

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

40 svarande

Small extent»19 47%
Some extent»13 32%
Large extent»7 17%
Great extent»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 1.75

- Due to the fact that the teachers acknowledge some course books but then teaches something that isn"t correct according to them, they didn"t help.» (Small extent)
- The course literature often conflicted with the opinion of the lecturers, which was what was graded.» (Small extent)
- Did not read the course litterature because what was tought in lectures and what was in course litterature was not always the same. » (Small extent)
- I would appreciate if we could have a limited number of resources so that we could concentrate on learning them rather than seeking for any possible material on the Internet.» (Small extent)
- The course book (first one) took like half the course to arrive (it wasn"t available at cremona or dc), and when I got it, we were obviously through with the part covered by that book, and should have a new one. I guess there was some text about this on the course page, but honestly, course literature should be covered on the first lecture, and it wasn"t.» (Small extent)
- Books were OK.» (Some extent)
- The recommended course litterature had some connections to the course, but it was only partially useful» (Some extent)
- I got the books "UML distilled" and "Applying UML and patterns" which were really helpful. There were a lot of books recommended for the course, and I did not feel like I could afford all of them. I really missed a book about implementing executable models in Bridgepoint, since no one responsible for this course seems to be able to teach us.» (Large extent)
- However, since the standards used by the literature did not correspond to what the teacher used, it felt as though there wa no way of knowing what was right.» (Large extent)
- The recommended books (Larman and Mellor/Balcer) were really good and are books that I want to keep. However, one needed to do some googling to understand everything.» (Great extent)

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

40 svarande

Very badly»2 5%
Rather badly»11 27%
Rather well»23 57%
Very well»4 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.72

- There was no real introduction lecture. The course had lectures in the wrong block (which made me get a bad grade in another course). The web page worked well in the sense of getting updated and containing all necessary information, but it was very poorly organised, so it was easy to miss out on important information, sadly.» (Rather badly)
- Sometime the webpage would go "403 - forbidden" which is not that great... Our supservisor suggested that we should look at slides from the previous year to pick up on stuff that were not in the lectures, if those slides were so good, why are they not on this year"s website?!» (Rather well)
- There are inconsistencies on the website. It states that we should have a final examination. See 15.» (Rather well)
- Creating groups was stressful, scared of being "left over". But result was good. Web page felt a bit sloppy. Contained material that was contradictory and clearly left from previous years.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

40 svarande

Very poor»4 10%
Rather poor»8 20%
Rather good»18 45%
Very good»10 25%
I did not seek help»0

Genomsnitt: 2.85

- Our supervisor did not have any answers to most of our questions, which made it really hard to get our implementation right. We felt that we did not get any feedback on what we were doing, but during the presentation it turned out the supervisor did not approve of our implementation at all. It would have been nice to have a supervisor that would have let us know earlier...!» (Very poor)
- Almost nonexistant help regarding bridgepoint. The supervisor we got (can"t speak for them all) lacked initiative, seemed to lack motivation, and couldn"t answer our questions. He also failed to mention flaws in our design that apparently turned out to be quite substantial with regards to the grade we were aiming for (which he knew about)» (Very poor)
- Om vi mailade handledaren fick vi antingen inget svar eller ett sent svar.» (Rather poor)
- Jonas was awesome.» (Rather poor)
- We could ask for help on specific issues but we never got good feedback on larger issues. See 15.» (Rather poor)
- Much more help was needed towards the end of the course than what was provided. This being said, a simple summary of how to perform basic things in Bridgepoint (as well as what can"t be done in Bridgepoint) would have done a lot to improve the horrendous learning curve that comes from "Here, build this project using this broken/unfinished tool. Good luck!"» (Rather poor)
- Lecturers good at answering questions in lecture break. Hard to get hold of "handledaren" though. » (Rather good)
- Not good enough during the Bridgeport task!» (Rather good)
- Jonas supported us very well as a course supervisor. The teachers were also responsive during the lectures.» (Rather good)
- We got nice help and answers to questions at the "excercise" sessions, where we had Håkan supervising our group one hour a week. Bad thing though was that we often got bad or no answers on our emails (most of the time a reply without an answer, but a statement of what our questions were).» (Rather good)
- Weekly sessions with Håkan were brilliant. » (Very good)
- Though there was a great disadvantage to be the second group visited during supervison, less time, and the time before can"t be spent on something useful since there are so many questions.» (Very good)
- One could ask during breaks or the supervision, and the explanations were very good.» (Very good)

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

40 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»21 52%
Very well»19 47%
I did not seek cooperation»0

Genomsnitt: 3.47

- We who worked did it well together, but those that dropped the course did not work well with us.» (Rather well)
- Some were easy to coop with and some were not. » (Rather well)
- Groups of eight was a lot to handle» (Rather well)
- There are always some students that have hard to cooperate with others (or with some type of people). E.g. we had a couple of persons in our group that take a lot of place, and even if other group members tell them to back down a bit to let others (that aren"t taking a lot of space naturally) speak and choose tasks, or don"t want to write down tasks at all since "one can always find something to do and just do it" (which doesn"t work for everyone). Both categories of people need to work on their problems (taking too much place or taking to little), but that will always be an issue in large groups so I don"t think that you can do a lot about it. Maybe doing the peer review week 3/4 also, so that such problems can be dealt with earlier (as it may be hard to deal with them if some people don"t really listen if there aren"t input from a teacher) (it will also be easier to remember how much people contributed at the "beginning" when many weeks haven"t already passed since the "beginning").» (Rather well)
- It would probably have been better with smaller groups than 8 people, and we had some disagreements about how to split the work etc. in our group, but in total it went quite well.» (Rather well)

11. How was the course workload?

40 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 2%
Adequate»6 15%
High»21 52%
Too high»12 30%

Genomsnitt: 4.1

- I spent about 25h/week and I felt that I learned a lot and that the project was "good enough". Of course, it would have been even funnier to spend more time on the project and make it even better, but one need to think about the time one has.» (Adequate)
- Because our group shrunk from 8 to 5 persons.» (High)
- Mostly because of the learning curve of Bridgeport, too much time is spent learning syntax during that task!» (High)
- We had to do too many things in a short time.» (High)
- Actually, the course is quite easy, but we had to spend a lot of extra unnecesseray hours to pass (or at least that was how it sounded). Like, I was able to get some points below a five from only attending lectures as learning source.» (High)
- Trots att vi jobbat så mycket i kursen känns det som att vi inte har lärt oss så mycket.» (Too high)
- We spent way more time than we apparantly needed on this course. In the end it turned out that it did not even matter how we implemented the executable model, since our grades were solely based on the voluntary exam. It does not make sense that we spent so much time trying to impelemnt something with LIMITED KNOWLEDGE (since we were not provided any help, how much can you ask for?) but still did not improve our grades by doing this.» (Too high)
- All because of having little-to-no help with how to actually use Bridgepoint, as well as unclear aims of what was expected of the finished xtUML project.» (Too high)
- Throwing us a project in an atrocious development environment and a language that no one uses (let alone can provide help for), without giving us the proper support isn"t a good thing.» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

40 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»9 22%
High»25 62%
Too high»6 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.92

- the workload was average until at the end, the last two weeks the course took up way too much time due to bridgepoint and the very limited availability of actually getting help in this area» (High)
- I was lucky that i had another course which wasn"t very time consuming. Others had it worse.» (High)
- I spent all my time working on this course and neglected the other course. I am very disappointed since it did not help me get a higher grade, and I could have just focused on the other course and made a half-assed attempt doing this one. It would not have mattered anyways.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

39 svarande

Poor»12 30%
Fair»8 20%
Adequate»6 15%
Good»11 28%
Excellent»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.56 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I didn"t learn anything new, i.e. the 7.5 hp I got from this course I could have gained from studying something that I could have used in the future. But because this is a mandatory course I couldn"t.» (Poor)
- This is probably the worst course I have taken so far at Chalmers. The grading is unfair, the supervising is lacking and the lectures are confusing. The grade is based on the voluntary exams, which start in week 3. In week 3 we are still very new to this course, and it does not make sense that my entire grade should be based on how fast I am able to learn stuff. The fact that all things you need to know for these exams is not even presented during lectures does not exactly make it easier to get a good score, unless you read minds of course. It is also embarrassing that one of the supervisors at the oral examination had not even read our report before he decided what grade we should get. The goals for the course clearly state that we should "write a pre-study for the development of a software system.", which suggest that the grade should at least be influenced by how good said report is. However, it seems that does not even matter, even though our supervisor told us otherwise. The Bridgepoint executable model clearly has too big impact on the grade, even though we are not even taught how to use Bridgepoint properly. It does not make sense that we should be graded on our skills with using a tool we were not even taught in the first place. This course is a disgrace!» (Poor)
- It started out well (except for the missing intro lecture), and the first part when we were modelling seemed like good knowledge. Though the course took a big dive when we were going to start implementing. To me it"s not very serious to use pre-alpha software as a big part of a course at university, on top of that without documentation. When asking about it we were told that we got to use (this great) program for free in exchange of being beta testers. I"m totally not fine with this, if I am to test someone"s very crappy, unstable and inconsistent software, I want to get paid for submitting my opinions, since it"s a really frustrating work. I think it would be much better to make the whole course about modelling and spend the time on learning modelling and making a really good model instead. I think most students would benefit much more from that.» (Poor)
- My opinion of this course fell rapidly in LV5 when we started implementing in BridgePoint, there was hardly any help to be gotten on a concrete level, and there was basically no feedback.» (Fair)
- Not very well structured course. Did not like the concept of two teatchers because it gets to messy. I like Rogart, he is very likable, but he is a bit unstructured so he is hard to follow in lectures. Håkan was easier to understand and teached in a more structured manner. Jonas was also nice, but it was quite apparent that he did not want to teach this course, he did not prepare much for "handledning" and could not give very much help on the project. » (Fair)
- I think the examintation is very very unfair. I feel that many students who have put great work into their group get a lower grade than they deserve because the get stressed during the voluntary exams. Time pressure can be a great factor of how some student perform! The project should affect the grade more.» (Good)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- UML-Parts.»
- Group project»
- Project»
- I liked the report. It made sense, and provided the group with lots of good discussions. I just wish it would have been included in the actual grade (and that someone would have actually read it).»
- BridgePoint (if it is used in the "real world").»
- The meetings with the supervisors are gold!»
- Project, group work»
- Håkan is good, and also Magazinius. The concept of two lecturers is good in theory but needs to be refined. Voluntary exams are good and the main assignment felt really worthwhile. »
- The project.»
- The project.»
- UML. »
- The project examination.»
- Two teachers.»
- The peer lecturing (the discussions and Registration system examples), the exams (I hated them at the beginning, but later I understood how much I gained from studying in that detail about each subject at the same time as we used that knowledge in the project, if people wouldn"t have studied as much, the project would be suffering), the help slides (what should be studied for each exam), and the project and supervision (of course).»
- The pair teaching in lectures»
- Two teachers and the procedure of their teaching.»
- The group part when making a model (not implementing in bp though).»
- Rogardt"s enthusiasm!»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Bridgepoint. A very bad tool that has so many flaws. And since it"s not that common in the industry it"s pointless.»
- No executable UML (bridgepoint), I can"t see the reason to why we should learn a software that is only(?) used by ericsson and volvo and not go deeper into models (it"s a pretty wide area). Remove the "two teachers" thing, it only makes it confusing when they contradicts each other. the view on what a requirement is.»
- Almost Everything, even how the Project is planned»
- More guidance for bridgepoint should be available»
- Fler handledningsmöten och framförallt byt ut handledare som är mer intresserade av att få kursen överstökad än att genuint hjälpa och lära.»
- Remove the voluntary exams and prepare a PROPER exam for the end of the course instead. This way it will actually test how much you have learnt FROM the course, rather than how much you knew BEFORE the course, which is the way it is now. Remove the entire Bridgepoint project. There are no exercises on how to use Bridgepoint, and none of the supervisors seems to know how to use it properly. It is also a very limited tool that no one (except Ericsson) seem to use. The documentation is poor and searching for anything related to Bridgepoint on the internet yields no suitable results (Bridgepoint has 1 hit on StackOverflow...).»
- More structured lectures. And lectures where you can train on what you"ve learned during the lectures. Material on what"s been taught MUST be able to get on the coursepage. Especially when the teachers put the lessons in the wrong block.»
- Emphasize the voluntary exams so that we know beforehand that they are key to achieving a high grade in the course.»
- Consider switching out BridgePoint»
- 1. The supervisions. We did not get any meaningful feedback from our supervisor even though we clearly stated that we aimed for a high grade. We had to constantly ask for feedback on specific issues and it was difficult to get any concise answers regarding the larger issues such as the overall design of our solution, our report or our project. It seemed like our supervisor never really read our report in it"s entirety. When we asked about general feedback we were usually just asked to fix cosmetic details in the report, nothing that improved our solution or got us thinking about better ways of doing things. At last, it says on the website that we should have had two scheduled hours of supervision time each week, we had only one. Example: When asked about what grade our supervisor would give our report at it"s then current state, our supervisor said something along the lines of "A 4, since it"s a bit unstructured and there is a lot of whitespaces". So, what exactly was it lacking to be considered a 5? We spent a day working on the structure and clarity of the report but never heard anything about it during the grade meeting. 2. The examination. Neither the course goals nor the website states that the voluntary exams are more important than the report or project, so why were they the only thing considered? At the grade meeting, one of the supervisors even told us that he had not read our report. (Which we spent 4 weeks on) It is not stated anywhere that the voluntary exams are this important and we spent a lot more time working on the other "examination" tasks. (Personally, roughly a 1-25 ratio) - Please look at and evaluate what you tell us to do in the course. Especially since the report and project tasks are very time consuming. - Please add a scheduled supervision meeting a day or so before the project presentation. (We tried emailing our supervisor during the weekend but got no answer, so a final meeting would make it easier to get help when it"s needed the most, given that the supervisor actually supervises the work being done) - Please make sure that the supervisors are competent and that all supervisors agree on what is a good solution to the given problems. Maybe even rotate the supervisors between groups. Please make sure that the supervisors actually evaluate the student"s solutions thoroughly and that common pitfalls are brought up during the scheduled supervision times.»
- The lectures could use a bit more planning. Sometimes I would go to the first half but leave the lecture in the break because of the lack of coherence and direction. I really had a hard time understanding Rogardt because of the way the he speaks. When he gave lectures on his own, the quality suffered greatly. And quite frankly, even when I could make sense of what he was saying, I really don"t think that he structured his teaching that well. Very often, I felt that the lectures just jumped into the middle of some topic, without giving us any context to relate to. Other times it would feel rushed and stressed. All in all, much of the lectures was confusing and frustrating. To be honest, given the present quality of Rogardt"s teaching, I think the course would be better off with just Håkan giving the lectures. I feel really bad saying that, because I can really see how much enthusiasm Rogardt brings to the course. But it just doesn"t make up for the confusion and misunderstandings. There should be an entire lecture dedicated to the bugs and strange behaviours of BridgePoint. There should be live walkthrough of BridgePoint during a lecture. There were some lectures where points were made about BridgePoint before we had had the chance to start working with BridgePoint. This is silly. We learned nothing, because we knew nothing off the context. Guest lecturers were kinda meh. Not that worthwhile. The voluntary exams sometimes felt like they had nothing to do with the actual lectures. I would stumble upon entirely new concepts in the exam. Felt disheartening.»
- While I"m not convinced that "Pair Lecturing" is necessarily a bad thing, you"re certainly not doing it right. Keep your lectures to the point, you"re wasting the time of hundreds of people when you fail to be to-the-point. Furthermore, the volountary exams decided way too great a portion of the grades for four 25-minute quizzes. Each of these quizzes should have been granted at least another quarter of an hour to transform each test from something on the form of "How fast can you draw a sequence diagram?" to "Can you draw a sequence diagram?".»
- Much clearer instructions, both on reading, volonary exams, the oral exam and basically all formalia. Not have volontary exams every week, and to not have to sit crammed in a lecture hall when taking it. We sat so tight that it was impossible to think without leaving your answers open for the whole world to see.»
- The voluntary exams should be skipped, and the bridgepoint part really needs more guidance.»
- Better documentation of Bridgepoint. »
- Bridge Point. Took too long to learn. »
- Do something about the examination (vol exams). Inform about the project better and how it will be graded. This was very unclear to me.»
- There should be like 1-2 exercise sessions during the last 2 weeks since alot of unnecessary work to understand the used software could be minimized and more focus could be given to the actual course.»
- Maybe change BridgePoint to something else or do another project like controlling a lego robot with it. Volontary exams was too short to be able to write all you know. There was no time to think your solution through.»
- Grading based on mostly BridgePoint-activity.»
- I believe that there should be an additional peer grading at the middle of the course. More importantly, I believe that the help slides (that really hepled for thinking about subjects and questions that could come at the theoretical part of the exams) should be expaned with a set of examples (of varying difficulty) for the practical part (as the examples one think of often is about what one know already). The examples don"t need answers, the important part is that one may think about some problems (that one normally doesn"t consider) before taking the exam. It would also be nice if the exams could be 5-10 minutes longer only to be at least 30 minutes long, as that will lower the stress factor (at least many other students I"ve talked with feel that the time should be sufficient for answering the questions, but the fact that it is less than half an hour makes one being stressed so that one does not feel as one have time to answer). Another thing to help the stress is to add some information to the practical tasks of the exams (e.g. to the state chart with a branch, in the states add a SHORT comment about what the code in it does so that people don"t waste time about thinking if something is done in the states so that a new state is needed or not).»
- More time on the voluntary exams. »
- The time of the course and the constant change of rooms every week»
- The way the course was planned. The course overlapped with our project and had high workload. The literature must be reinforced and more specified. »
- If the final project is supposed to be done by bridgepoint it should be taught and practised much earlier. »
- Remove implementing in bridgepoint (or some other half ready software). Also stick to your block with lectures!»
- Take bridgepoint out of the course. The course is about modeling, and that can be done in other ways than with bridgepoint. It is a horrible development environment that only makes for confusion and frustration. OAL is a bad language, and it is made worse by the fact that no help or introduction to it is given. The workload is distributed in a very skewed way, the voluntary exams that effectively determine the grade is not very difficult, while the project takes a great deal of your time and only in special cases add to the grade. Either this distribution should change, or Rogardt and Håkan needs to be MORE CLEAR about the fact that the voluntary exams is where students should focus their attention, and that the students should put down as little time as possible in the project without failing it, since this is how the course actually works. The current method of examining and grading the projects is intrisically unfair. The groups that is examined the first day of the week have a significant disadvantage, not only in time spent, but the late groups have the advantage of knowing what feedback the early groups got (students probably shouldn"t talk to each other about that, but they do anyway). There is also the problem that the examiners doesn"t seem to agree about the specifics in the requirements for extra score on the project (specifically regarding HOW to solve the concurrency problem (which, by the way, is never stated by the course material or the supervisors and still there apparently is a "wrong" way of doing it)) The pair lecturing is a neat concept, but R and H needs to communicate more, because the impression you get is that they have somewhat different agentas and are unaware of the agendas of each other. It all just becomes confusing.»

16. Additional comments

- As an answer to the question of why they didn"t teach according to the course material they answered with that they probably had more experience than the writer, well let them write a course book that can be used then.»
- This course needs to be modified as soon as possible. Not only did I find that it was a really poor excuse for a course, several students who have taken this course earlier had already warned me about how bad it actually was. Seeing as this course has such a reputation it is truly remarkable that it has not been revamped earlier... It really needs to be fixed!»
- Please make the lectures better. Just have one lecturer and give us the information we need. Give us more knowledge in BridgePoint so it isn"t as much a circus as it is now.»
- Time report puts focus on spending time, not learning. I found myself just sitting of the time and counting hours instead of reflecting over what I needed to learn.»
- Thank you!»
- I actually liked the course responsibles. They were very nice and I know they really tried their best to help out. But it"s just a rather confusing course over all, and that"s frustrating.»
- It was hard to know if the volontary exams or the project had the most influence in the final grade. Please be more clearer about how many points the project can give you in addition to the volontary exam points.»
- »
- The course was nice the both the professors were very good in teaching and helping the students!»
- Both the teachers and supervisor were responsible and eager to teach as well as they can. I appreciate their efforts.»
- All in all it"s probably the worst course I"ve had at Chalmers so far, but I think it would be quite easy to make it a good course instead, by placing all the focus on modelling and skip implementation (we already know how to make programs after 2.5 years at IT programme).»
- Beneath the layers of crappy bridgepoint and unmotivated supervisors, the core of a good and informative course can be found, but as it is now, I think some work is needed to bring it out.»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.56

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 2.56
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.39

Kursutvärderingssystem från