ENKÄTER

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

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.

MPSOF 1213-2 Software evolution project, DAT265

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-12-20 - 2013-02-03
Antal svar: 22
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 59%
Kontaktperson: Börje Johansson»

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.

22 svarande

At most 15 hours/week» 0 0%

Around 20 hours/week» 7 31%

Around 25 hours/week» 11 50%

Around 30 hours/week» 2 9%

At least 35 hours/week» 2 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.95

- 16 hours group meetings + 5-6 extra for documentations/log files/metric measurements/posters etc...» (Around 20 hours/week)

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

22 svarande

0%» 0 0%

25%» 0 0%

50%» 0 0%

75%» 3 13%

100%» 19 86%

Genomsnitt: 4.86

- There were no lectures as such, but I am referring to the cross group meetings and the meetings with Matthias» (75%)
- Not much teaching though.» (100%)

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?

22 svarande

The goals are difficult to understand» 4 20%

The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer» 12 60%

The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn» 4 20%

I have not seen/read the goals» 2

Genomsnitt: 2

- They goals is okey but the iso standard is a joke and hivas explanation is even worse.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- The course goals are clear, but they are very poorly related to the course contents. They could just as well had been written for another course.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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.

18 svarande

No, the goals are set too low» 1 5%

Yes, the goals seem reasonable» 17 94%

No, the goals are set too high» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.94

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

21 svarande

No, not at all» 6 31%

To some extent» 11 57%

Yes, definitely» 2 10%

I don"t know/have not been examined yet» 2

Genomsnitt: 1.78

- The goal of the course is learning how to improve the quality of a existed software. However, the content of the course is developing a new software and measure its quality. In addition, the criteria of grading is not clear, it seems that the grade is based on how much you developed instead of how much you learned.» (No, not at all)
- I was asked about the parts I worked on but I felt that I didn"t have enough time to be evaluated for everything I did and also to get some feedback about my performance in a form different than just a number in the end.After all I worked a whole semester on that project so I believe I deserve a more detailed form of feedback than the one we get from written exams.» (To some extent)
- Rather than evolving software, the course had us developing new software, albeit within an existing framework.» (To some extent)
- The oral examination was a bit too focused on pure coding. It"s not a course in Modeling/EMF/Java. right??» (To some extent)
- Course was a bit light on the evolution and focused a bit to strongly on new software development» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

22 svarande

Small extent» 7 31%

Some extent» 8 36%

Large extent» 6 27%

Great extent» 1 4%

Genomsnitt: 2.04

- None» (Small extent)
- Supervision meetings were good in order to progress with the project, but I would have preferred if we"d had some lectures on software evolution» (Small extent)
- Whenever I had a difficulty I could get help from the teacher which in turn increased my overall learning.» (Great extent)

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

22 svarande

Small extent» 14 63%

Some extent» 5 22%

Large extent» 2 9%

Great extent» 1 4%

Genomsnitt: 1.54

- It was not used» (Small extent)
- There were hardly any materials.» (Small extent)
- No course literature.» (Small extent)

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

22 svarande

Very badly» 1 4%

Rather badly» 1 4%

Rather well» 13 59%

Very well» 7 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- Some of the information were given to one person in the group which did not tell the rest. » (Very badly)
- Wiki was a bit confusing with pages that were added and never updated (the problem pages)» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

22 svarande

Very poor» 2 9%

Rather poor» 2 9%

Rather good» 8 36%

Very good» 10 45%

I did not seek help» 0

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- Hiva did not know anything! And some times she pretended to know and sad wrong things. » (Very poor)
- Problems with getting help from Volvo» (Rather poor)
- Volvo guys didn"t know anything of value.» (Rather poor)
- The ability to visit the teachers office and get feedback on the development was good, but the lack of knowledge and documentation about the software the customer representatives liked us to use was not so good» (Rather good)

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

22 svarande

Very poorly» 1 4%

Rather poorly» 3 14%

Rather well» 7 33%

Very well» 10 47%

I did not seek cooperation» 1

Genomsnitt: 3.23

- Lies were a reoccurring event in communication.» (Very poorly)

11. How was the course workload?

22 svarande

Too low» 0 0%

Low» 0 0%

Adequate» 10 45%

High» 12 54%

Too high» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

- Good, but too effort was put into doing things that I feel didn"t give me any useful knowledge» (Adequate)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

21 svarande

Too low» 0 0%

Low» 0 0%

Adequate» 5 23%

High» 13 61%

Too high» 3 14%

Genomsnitt: 3.9

- Two semester projects = Extremely high load of work!» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

22 svarande

Poor» 4 18%

Fair» 2 9%

Adequate» 7 31%

Good» 7 31%

Excellent» 2 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.04 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Worst course ever!» (Poor)
- - The system that is chosen should be smaller so it"s easier to understand and you can get started working on it quicker. - It should not be modelling based! - Some cross-functional groups were totally unnecessary.» (Poor)
- Irrelevant course goals, no lectures or literature, subjective examination, lot of effort in administrative things, no actual "evolution", lack of interest on Volvo"s part. » (Poor)
- Should be more evolution in the course.» (Adequate)
- Well executed by Tichy but the aim was off.» (Adequate)
- Not really sure what the learning outcome was.» (Adequate)
- Should have focused more on the evolution aspects. It was interesting to have customer contact but the customer should not recommend technologies they have poor knowledge about.» (Adequate)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Nothing, it was not even a software evolution project.»
- The communication between teams to work together as parts of a bigger project is the best characteristic of this course. Industry collaboration. Agile method of working. »
- The wiki page and supervision sessions are helpful»
- The cross functional meettings. If they are organised they provide big benefit to the teams and a nice experience.»
- Open source project»
- Collaboration with industry»
- The structure with related projects and cross group meetings, but with the meetings actually contributing to the outcome of the project.»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Everything! »
- Cross functional roles should be organized better.Some of them were not useful at all and some were given the most focus. Quality metrics should be introduced earlier in the project and make sure that are being tracked as early as possible.»
- Proper lectures should be added»
- Try other forms of projects.»
- - The software system. - Fewer cross-functional groups!»
- Better undestanding of the goals and what we are expected to do during the course. What will be important for our assesment, what is the benefit that we as students should try toget from this course should be more clear from the beggining.»
- Let us choose an open-source project instead»
- the content should include "evolution". Also the criteria of grading should be clear.»
- This course should have teaching assistants with more software development experience. Also make sure that the content of the course is aligned with the goals. The course was more about software development rather than software evolution.»
- Go into more theory of software evolution»

16. Additional comments

- I don"t understand how chalmers could allow the course in the first place! Collaboration with Volvo was not good Matthias sad one thing and the Volvo guys another...»
- The supervision to groups should be fairly. Also students should be encouraged to use new tools rather than stick to current java programming due to the requirement from industry.»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.04

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.04
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.51

Kursutvärderingssystem från