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.

TKDAT 1213-3 Parallell programmering, TDA382|DIT390

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2013-03-15 - 2013-04-12
Antal svar: 48
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 40%
Kontaktperson: Maria Sörner»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Datateknik 300 hp

Opening questions

1. Which university do you belong to?

Some of our courses are taken jointly by students of the University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology. In order for us to be able to look at the answers of each student group separately, we would like you to indicate which university you are registered at.

48 svarande

University of Gothenburg»4 8%
Chalmers University of Technology»44 91%

Genomsnitt: 1.91

2. Are you a second-year student at the CSE Bachelor programme?

The Student Board of the Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) programme pays for a free afterschool meal, once per study period, for the class in the CSE programme with the highest percentage of responses to the evaluation questionaires. To make it easier for the Student Board to determine which class this is, please answer the question below.

47 svarande

Yes»23 48%
No»24 51%

Genomsnitt: 1.51

Your own effort

3. 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.

48 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»6 12%
Around 20 hours/week»24 50%
Around 25 hours/week»10 20%
Around 30 hours/week»4 8%
At least 35 hours/week»4 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- Most of it was doing labs and exercises.» (Around 25 hours/week)
- Labs take TIME...» (Around 30 hours/week)
- The assignment did take some time so good that they counts in the grades more than in other courses!» (At least 35 hours/week)
- To understand what to do for the assignments you had to do a lot of research since there were several new things in this course.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

48 svarande

0%»1 2%
25%»3 6%
50%»7 14%
75%»13 27%
100%»24 50%

Genomsnitt: 4.16

- The lectures were so bad that I only attended 3 of them before realising it was no use to go to them. You didn"t understand what the lecturer spoke of since his English is quite bad.» (25%)
- The labs, and during the first week, the lectures.» (25%)
- Did not attend the excercises» (75%)
- Not Prasards lectures, didn"t find them useful.» (75%)
- Attended every lecture and almost all of the exercise slots.» (100%)
- Great lecturers.» (100%)
- Really like Alejandro"s teaching style. Didn"t like the ones with Prasad. They where not as clear as Alejandros. I didn"t know what was important and not and I think it was a bit unreleated. I think, therefor that i was strange that the 3 LAST lectures was representing with 28 points of totatlly 68 points at the exam. Alejandro said before the exam that the shouldn"t be much question regardning the 3 last lesson. That was really bad I think. Not fair.» (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.

To review the learning outcomes for this course, click here. (Opens in new window)

5. How understandable are the course goals?

47 svarande

The goals are difficult to understand»2 4%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»14 29%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»31 65%

Genomsnitt: 2.61

- Alejandro said nothing about the Prasad stuff. And you couldn"t find ANYTHING about it before the 2 weeks before the exam. » (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- It was very clear which synchronization tools and patterns were important to learn. However, there was also a formal more mathematical part of the course. The goals of this part were harder to understand. One of the labs should have a discussion involving a formal proof so one would realize the importance of this formality.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

6. 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.

46 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 2%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»43 93%
No, the goals are set too high»2 4%

Genomsnitt: 2.02

- Except for having 28 points Prasad question.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- As a student from the IT program, functional programming was something new. However, recursion was part of our Java courses so I would say second-year student from the IT program are prepared for this course.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- I don"t know why on earth we had to learn 2 new programming languages and why they set the last week for us to learn Erlang, with our projects" deadline at the same time, there was not any time at all to fully grasp Erlang.» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

46 svarande

No, not at all»1 2%
To some extent»18 39%
Yes, definitely»26 56%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.58

- I feel disappointed that you said that content of the Prasad lecture would be 2 question on the exam, which it in fact where - but they where worth like 28p!! That is not fair in anyway. That is more then 41% of the exam.» (No, not at all)
- The exam felt a bit too easy. Especially compared to previous exams posted on the web page. » (To some extent)
- Except for having 28 points Prasad question.» (To some extent)
- i didn"t know that we were supposed to do diagrams and mathematics, which made med quite shocked during the examination.» (To some extent)
- The last question in the exam didn"t belong in this course at all, but rather in some discrete mathematics course.» (To some extent)
- Last 2 questions [edit] were no good [end edit].» (To some extent) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- Quite of a "typed" exam, however the questions from Prasads lecture were way too hard regarding to how much time the course assigned for his part, and they were a way too big part of the exam.» (Yes, definitely)
- The formal proofs were somewhat hard to predict and prepare for.» (Yes, definitely)
- Really good exam, not too hard and not too easy!» (Yes, definitely)
- The part on formal logic was worth too many points on the exam» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

48 svarande

Small extent»4 8%
Some extent»6 12%
Large extent»28 58%
Great extent»10 20%

Genomsnitt: 2.91

- Bra föreläsare, men värdelösa handledare. Dom hjälper inte tillräckligt mycket med så otillgängliga språk som exempelvis JR :(» (Small extent)
- During the exercises we got some help sometimes.» (Some extent)
- Alejandro is definitely one of the top five teachers I"ve had. Prasad is however a bit too formal, making the lectures a bit hard to understand. Remember that we"re new to concurrency!» (Large extent)
- Alejandro did a good job. Prasad was much worse.» (Large extent)
- I did not learn much of the lectures that Prasad held.» (Large extent)
- The teaching was good and easily understandable. Very slow-paced at times, however. » (Great extent)
- The lectures have been excellent.» (Great extent)
- Alejandros lectures were good, Prasads not so much - a bit to unstructured» (Great extent)

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

48 svarande

Small extent»23 47%
Some extent»13 27%
Large extent»7 14%
Great extent»5 10%

Genomsnitt: 1.87

- The number of times I"ve opened the book can be counted on one hand, the book is way too formal and abstract in order to actually learn something.» (Small extent)
- Som vanligt inflation på meningslös text, och det finns i princip inget material på JR att tillgå online, vilket är katastrofalt. Kan inte förstå hur dom kan förvänta sig att man skall lista ut allt man behöver till lab 3, utan i princip någon handledning.» (Small extent)
- Statediagram... But there wasn"t even solutions available for students!» (Small extent)
- Good literature but the lectures were excellent.» (Small extent)
- I think i read in the book once.» (Small extent)
- Not that great or even interesting course book - you were much better at teaching.» (Small extent)
- The book was almost pointless, until the last lecutres on formal logic, but even then, it wasn"t that important» (Small extent)
- Few people that I know of have read the book. It is good, though. » (Some extent)
- The course book is good. » (Some extent)
- Did not buy the coursebook» (Some extent)
- Course slides.» (Large extent)
- The labs» (Large extent)
- Laborations mainly» (Large extent)

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

48 svarande

Very badly»1 2%
Rather badly»2 4%
Rather well»25 52%
Very well»20 41%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- only problem was the way to axcess the web page. From studenportalen you ended up on page from the course this fall. And you had to google to find the right one. comfusing!» (Rather badly)
- The supervisors and graders clearly didn"t have the same view of what an assignment should include and therefore there were a lot of confusment.» (Rather badly)
- Instructions for the labs could be clearer. » (Rather well)
- There were one lab supervisors that did not grade the lab within the 4 days limit.» (Rather well)
- The website didn"t link ti the right year, kinda stupid in my opinion. Otherwise good.» (Rather well)
- The course-page was up to date, and the lecture slides were available in advance, which I appreciate.» (Very well)
- Very clear and concise responses from the graders. This saved us some time.» (Very well)

Study climate

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

48 svarande

Very poor»1 2%
Rather poor»1 2%
Rather good»18 37%
Very good»22 45%
I did not seek help»6 12%

Genomsnitt: 3.64

- För få timmar handledd labbtid. Minst 4h behövs.» (Very poor)
- Most of the time, the lab supervisors were to great help, answering the questions well. Alejandro also were available to ask questions during the lectures.» (Rather good)
- It was good.» (Rather good)
- Didn"t ask for help alot, but it was possible the few times I needed» (Rather good)
- If you just went to the right sessions, the lab supervisors were available without us having to wait for long. » (Very good)
- Good with the google group.» (Very good)
- Attending at lectures and discussing with my lab partner was enough.» (I did not seek help)

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

48 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»2 4%
Rather well»10 20%
Very well»36 75%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.7

- Outside the exercise slots, we discussed the lab assignments and helped eachother to understand what was expected.» (Very well)

13. How was the course workload?

48 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»3 6%
Adequate»34 70%
High»9 18%
Too high»2 4%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- would be nice to have more time with erlang» (Adequate)
- Especially in the end, the las lab was a bit confusing since we"re completely new to Erlang.» (High)
- especially the last week with the erlang lab, would have preferred 2 weeks for that lab.» (High)
- Good! » (High)
- Learning erland the last week before examination?? That is really cruel.» (Too high)

14. How was the total workload this study period?

48 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 2%
Adequate»17 35%
High»22 45%
Too high»8 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.77

- A lot of labs to be done.» (High)
- The bachelor thesis requires 25h/w. Nothing that this course could do anything about.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

15. What is your general impression of the course?

47 svarande

Poor»1 2%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»5 10%
Good»28 59%
Excellent»13 27%

Genomsnitt: 4.1 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Could have been excellent if skipping the Prasad stuff. It is not fair to tell us about that kind of stuff 2 weeks before exam -and he"s classes was really unclear. Not fair to have 28/68 points at the exam about Prasad.» (Good)
- Very nice assignments» (Good)
- Good labs! Good workload.» (Good)
- Best course yet expect that I feel cheated on the exam. I feel disappointed that you said that content of the Prasad lecture would be 2 question on the exam, which it in fact where - but they where worth like 28p!! That is not fair in anyway.» (Good)
- Good overall. Especially appreciate the dedication shown by both the lecturers as they both seemed genuinely interested in both the material and the students" progresses. One negative aspect though was that the parts held by Prasad could"ve been introduced earlier in the course.» (Good)
- Probably the most interesting programming course so far, depending on both the concept concurrency and that Alejandro is such a great teacher.» (Excellent)
- Best course I"ve read so far.» (Excellent)
- I loved that we had K.V.S. Prasad teaching us how to do formal proofs. His lectures were truly inspiring.» (Excellent)
- Fascinating subject and excellent lectures.» (Excellent)
- I liked the effort put into the train-lab simulation» (Excellent)
- Very good, enjoyed it a lot.» (Excellent)

16. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Alejandro.»
- Having both Alejandro and Kuchi teach parts of the course. But I think that if Kuchi got more time, and Alejandro went over his part of the course a bit faster, there would be better balance between the theoretical and practical parts of the course. »
- The labs are good»
- The point system for the labs. Good that the labs count towards the final grade of the course instead of just the grade on the exam itself.»
- The lecturers and the labs.»
- Alejandro!!!»
- Alejandro!»
- Erlang.»
- the outline of the labs were very helpful in learning what the course is about.»
- The assignments»
- Labs. Erlang!»
- Nothing»
- Erlang»
- The labs! They were meaningful and fun. »
- Good labs.»
- Alejandro is a good teacher so you can keep him!»
- Alejandro Russo, great teacher!»
- You - the teacher.»
- Choo, Choo, im a train! (I really liked the train simulation labs) Actually I liked all the labs.»
- The labs, I Think the lectures were great as well.»
- The labs»
- Both of the lecturers and the labs.»
- Prasad»
- The labs were good and interesting»

17. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Less formal and abstract stuff, like Prasads part in the course.»
- Need answers to questions regarding the things Prasad covered»
- There should be a more challenging exam. Also, I think that having 32% of the final exam"s score depend on the labs is too much. »
- More time on Erlang and less on "monitor - lab"»
- The three last lessons with prasad didn"t impress me at all. Alejandro is a much better teacher with better slides and examples. I think that K.V.S Prasad lessons had a great lack of quality. The material was messy and it was hard to follow his statements.»
- Lowering the number of points for the second lab to maybe 5, as the lion"s share of the code for the lab is written in the first lab, and distributing those points amongst other labs instead. Also less time allocated for the second lab as it is fairly simple compared to the other labs. Instead more time added to the fourth lab so that students can put more time towards studying during the exam week instead of working on a resubmission in the case the lab gets rejected on the first try.»
- If the exam will have formal proofs, make sure one of the assignments has at least one. This will definitely make students understand this part of the course much better instead of just looking at old exams and memorize how to answer such questions. Yes, one could use the book, but most students focus on doing and understanding assignments.»
- Either spending more time on theory and reasoning, or making it a smaller part of the exam (one question tops). JR is okay, but is virtually unknown, so maybe choose something that is widely applied in the industry instead?»
- The bonus point system. It did not feel like it was completely fair. If you try hard to get the assignments correct and there is a small thing that you forget or missunderstand and could change with just a couple of rows of code two minus points is pretty much. On the other hand I suppose you could do a less ambisous work and get it graded and be told what is wrong, change it and get six "bonus" points as well. If the bonus point system shall remain it feels more fair to have more points, say ten, on each assignment and make an overall assessment of how many points the work deserves. Then the spread of the points would probably increase.»
- The bit with Prasad felt a bit confusing... It needs to fit better in the course next year.»
- The "Prasad" part of the exam should have less points.»
- New lecturer, clearer guidelines of what will be included in the examination, better graders with clearer objectives, less workload and restructuring of the course.»
- Lab 1 took far too much time for what was learned about semaphores, a lot of time was put into learning how to use the simulator.»
- more time for the last lab»
- The last part about logic should be introduced better. Maybe have some exercise about it. I didn"t know what to study for the last question in the exam. And I still don"t.»
- Make it more clear that the Prasads content is more like 50% of the course or just not give 28p for those questions of a 68p exam.»
- There should be something like a pdf on the homepage regarding the JR knowledge for the course, explaining it in a better way than the slides from the lectures. Although I did like the part explaining synchronization by stuff like "send", "receive" and such, it could have gone into more depth on the behavior of "inni",and some proper explanation of op, cap, how to use them, and mostly, the actual difference. I used "clock.jr" to learn most of this, and it was not the clearest example.»
- The bonus point system for the laborations.»
- Prasard»
- I think a bit more time for erlang would be good. It was quite hard to understand in such a short time. »
- Alejandro is great, but can sometimes be a little confusing in his way to speak. His lack of eloquence is especially apparent in contrast with Prasad, whose english, and speaking in general, is excellent.»
- Having two different lecturers wasn"t that good. Perhaps the formal logic and proofs could be spread out throughout the course, instead of waiting to the end and do it all at once with a separate lecturer? »
- [edit] Not fair to have 28/68 points about Prasad"s [end edit] stuff. I find it very unrelated to the other stuff we were doing at the course.» (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

18. Additional comments

- Great and educational course.»
- Funny course overall!»
- This is the worst course I"ve taken so far.»
- Cant stress it enough that I really loved the course but the exam was very unfair. The content covered in the last 3 lectures (Prasad) where over 40% of the exam. The content where not near as interesting as your lectures. Good labs and good opportunities to ask for help.»
- Thumbs up!»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 4.1

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 4.1
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.77

Kursutvärderingssystem från