|
|
| ENKÄTER | |
Visa resultatHär 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.
DIT 524 Project Systems Development VT2013, DIT 524Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2013-05-27 - 2013-06-07 Antal svar: 31 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 36% Kontaktperson: Björn Olsson» Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: GU Klass: Övriga Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: GU
1. Learning outcomesThe Learning outcomes as stated by the course plan is:5. Learning outcomes 5.1 Knowledge and understanding Specify requirements on software and develop applications from these 5.2 Skills and abilities Document requirements in the form of a requirements specification Design software and document outcome of design work Implement a documented software design 5.3 Judgement and approach Relate requirements, design, and implementation artefacts to obtain tracebility between the three Carry out requirement, design and implementation activities methodically Organize and conduct teamwork methodically Do you feel that this course met thoose Learning outcomes, i.e Create requirements, develop against those requirements, create supporting documentation and work together as a team? - 5.1 yes 5.2 yes 5.3 yes
even though the robot wasn"t the best choice for term 2 project» 2. What can be improved in the course?- more robots since it"s not working having only one robot during 3 hours since the robot likes to crash or buying robots from CRF since they have many different robots that can be used for the course. better software since choregraph had compatibility issues with linux and windows. Also have a teacher that can come to the class and help out and also it would be good if more people know about the robot functionality since EVERYBODY had problems with the robot. »- More robots, supervision to help with the new software, give examples of opportunities with the robot.» - Clearer requirements from the beginning. Better access to the robot. (More robots, better locations for the robot, the suggestion about online bookings was excellent, access to the robot not only during ordinary office hours) Better access to Aldebarans developer documentation. Use the knowledge we have gained regarding what is possible to do and not to do on that platform to define better goals for next years project. Change the TAD and LAD courses to be better integrated with the project. As it was now they were aiming for the development of an gps.» - The planning of the course.» - Don"t use the robot and its ready-made software, instead focus on building something from scratch. See Netduino e.g.» - More robots, easier access to the robot to test the system» - Teamwork » - More robots, better organization» - At least one or two more robots. Then somekind of a online booking for the robot and maybe somewhere you can input the new code so that everyone can see it» - Better preparation before starting the project, a good guide with Nao and how it works and more hours with the robot!» - The course could do with some more robots. Sharing 1 robot between 85 students was, for lack of better expression, a complete nightmare. We did not really get enough robot sessions and because of the booking system, some groups only had 3 hours per week with the robot. 2. Provide an online booking system, this will make booking sessions much easier. 3. Have the robot in the same building as the students. I don"t understand why we were made to run up and down the university grounds to get to the robot and to find supervisors whenever we needed their help. Three hours per session is simply not enough for all this running up and down between buildings.» - I think that this is the type of project where people need to be pushed a little more towards achieving higher results. Harder requirements would benefit this course. Otherwise it all comes down to each individual"s goals.» - 1. TAD & LAD ->BEFORE<- robot work. 2. Proper introduction to Python, the robot development environments, the robot limitations. 3. Clear grading criteria from the start. 4. The person responsible for picking out the Nao-robot should have gotten at least a basic understanding of how you actually develop for the robot, instead of just watching promotional material and thinking it looked cool, that"s no way to choose a project and downright disrespectful. 5. No PR-tricks. Start developing a proper program for the robot instead, making it do something that pushes its limits in what its capable of. Forget the "use all sensors"-criterias and just make it do something that really impresses people. 6. Can the administration listen to criticism without behaving like children and putting the blame on everything else?» - Few things are essential. PLAN course at least few months before it starts and not just throw it to teacher together with rotten tomatoes. Second is robots! Course needs more robots! online booking AND ,even though it is in documentation, safety classes on how to use robot! Because, unfortunately,some students don`t find it necessary to read safety manuals.» - many things, mostly regarding practical issues that have hindered productivity. booking times, number of robots, setting clear goals from the onset of the course are all areas that need improvement.» - Proper structure no more changes mid term and trying to diminish the problems that would arise from the human factor would be greatly beneficial to the course and the students since it takes away one of the burdens that haunted us during the course» - I personally think that the robot should not be used for the project. The workflow with the robot is really slow compared to a workflow you"d develop for a project more like that of our first term. Also it does not have any pedagogical advantages. The communication between the university and the students has been really bad all throughout the course. It would also have helped to have more clearly defined grading criterias, even the newer criterias(2 features / group member, 2 algorithms) seem really vague to me. Maybe next year you can have a few suggestions for applications such as "develop a program which enables the robot to autonomously navigate a simple maze" or "develop a newsreader robot"» - Better communication between the management and the students. » - If this course is gonna use the NAO robot again, there needs to be more robots.» - I have said a lot about this already, and Björn has the information. I"d like to add one thing though, that I can"t say when I"m not anonymous. The programming (or general technical) experience we got from this is basically zero compared to what we could get from, let"s say, a GPS project. I can honestly say that the programming performed by each group can be done by 1-2 persons. There is no way you will get this result from having 6-8 persons actually doing things.» - More project goals to achieve. Preferably weekly requirements as well. Perhaps use another approach than scrum for this kind of project. Also, change the robot place to a closer place.» - More robots, more efficient booking schedule » - Much better planning and clearer goals for the project, so people know exactly what to do during the project. also corresponding to the other courses. its better to put the course induvidually instead of having it running at the same time as the other courses, because the focus becomes very split due to exam, difficult assignments etc. » - Planning and resources. Robot availability was really bad. Robot booking system was really bad. System for safe code transferring between groups was really bad.» - i can"t complain about the course, it was good in the whole.» - Management and addition of more programming classes which is really vital» - The requirements should be spelled out more clearly and you must have more than one robot for this project to work. Also the robot must be kept in the first-year square. It was idiotic to move the robot to locked safe in a locked room in a fairly secure area (deep in the faculty area on the 4th floor). Either you trust us students or you don"t. If you don"t trust us don"t get us a robot. And don"t treat us like babies with all these layers of security. And if some genius is going to require some added "safety" thing for the robot, like a yoga mat, read the effing manual before implementing it. Because that person now looks like an idiot.» - Even that we work and gave our best effort I consider that the course should be re-structure. For example, at the beginning of the it there were around three weeks (8 hours each) where we could get a python introduction and tutorial. I would say the same about Choreographe. In that way we could avoid too many tries and errors. » - Align the support courses with the project , let LAD & TAD techers togheter with the project teacher do their own project once , so they know what to be able expect.» - I think there should have been small hand-in"s so more work on requirements. But then again, nobody knew what we could do with the robot.» - Obviously, it"s been messy with information and structure but the situation will never be the same with the robot. Focus should be put on access to robots and of course proper development licenses should be granted all students » 3. What was good about the course?- scrum, supervisors, teacher»- Interesting, new, fun to work with the robot.» - It was exciting to work with unknown and new hardware. We really had to adapt to it by ourselves to get this course to work. The teamwork and documentation part was really usefull. I think that even though I was dissapointed over the hardware and the universitys way of limiting enthusiastic students from working with it I really have learned a lot of usefull things. » - We got to know how to handle a nao robot which is something new and it was a privilage not everyone can do it. The best thing which i think was that we learned hhow to use scrum which in my opinion a really good protocol.» - Ehm, I don"t have any positive to say about it because of the issues with the robot and its relevant things. Though I liked what I learned about group methodologies and how it"s to work in the SE area.» - Developing system for the robot was nice idea and interesting, allows to be creative.» - New is always good. » - Working with a robot» - You got to learn a little about robotics and how it feels to work with one, at the same time how to work with a group and how to dive task to each other» - It was a fun experience to be able to try the NAO» - 1.Working with a robot was a very nice experience in spite of all the "bad" things. 2. Learning python 2.7 3. Scrum» - We were provided with both a good simulator and a high amount of documentation in order to fulfill our requirements. I think that everything was there for us so it shouldn"t have been a problem to meet the requirements. » - I"ll just leave this blank.» - The teacher. His effort was a motor for this project, otherwise it would die together with first robot. Plus scrum was a good experience. And yes, the robot was not as exciting as everyone was expecting, but still, it`s a good experience to write it in CV.» - group work was very successful, the project was carried out well and we"ve learned about many new areas sw engineering.» - The innovative aspect of it was great. Never did i think that such opportunity would present itself where term 2 students would have the chance to work with robotics no matter how simple.» - The group I was in worked really well together.» - The documentation skills acquired from TAD was implemented in the project which makes the whole process more fun. Also, team work and postal session make the course interesting» - Working as a team.» - A lot of struggles from which you got valuable experience. » - Beside the fact that we got to work with a freaking robot, in overall i think the went better than i have expected. At first everyone was really confused including teachers, but at the end everything turned out to be great. The teacher (Björn) was one of the top reasons that made this course good in my opinion.» - great teacher » - Bjorn did really well with the means he had. Towards the end when you had learned to deal with the problems and had learned the developing enviroment it was fun.» - working with software process Agile, it was one of the best course.» - Something very new that we learnt» - The teacher and supervisors did a great job, especially considering the tough cards they were dealt.» - The whole experience of working with NAO and have a touch of Scrum.» - The teams who worked as a team delivered more then the others.» - Getting to work with embedded systems and learning to plan towards the sessions with the systems.» - Working in teams is brilliant, and this course was no exception. Also, as the requirements was established, it was really fun to work with. » 4. What is your overall impression of this course?- good but made everybody cranky and tired due to all problems and secrets(the moving of the robot without informing etc.)»- I did not learn much that can we used elsewhere but with the robot. But I learned about Scrum, documenting.» - Overall I learned a lot. But considering it as a course I think it was a bit to experimental to be good. There is a need for at least one single available person in the faculty to be good at the platform. Otherwise we are left to reinvent the wheel, which many of the groups did.» - It was good.» - Below okay, I thought that the university planned better then the information we have got and what we have experienced...» - not bad.» - Not clearly defined from the beginning. » - Rough start, but turned out to be pretty okay in the end» - it has been fun to work with the robot but it would be better if the course was more planned out instead of making it interfere with other courses or atleast not as much» - It was ok.» - The course is very good and I think that the university should continue with it. » - While it did not start that great, mainly because of myself not being motivated enough, I have to say that this course did help me learn a lot about new things so overall I am pleased with the course and a little disappointed with myself. » - That it was a poorly thought-out pr-trick to get students to the program as first priority, current students learning came in second. And also in the same manner as JSPWiki in term 1, the person responsible for that choice had simply found something on the internet and thought "it looked good" without actually trying it. It"s a shame.» - Course lacked organization and management, but not from the side of teacher, i would say from whoever planned to launch this project and how to launch it.» - Great intention, huge potential, overall immature approach.» - Other then the few major shortcoming the course in itself was quite pleasant and interesting. The only drawback being lack of robot time and the constant loss of the code.» - The course was poorly planned. I think that is the source of alot of the problems.» - Good but it can be better» - Don"t know.» - Great idea, bad execution and probably a bad idea in the end. (It could still be a great idea, no one knows for sure. The question is if SE&M can afford to find out... I think not).» - I am glad everything went well at the end, and maybe better than i expected, or should i say better than we all expected.I am also glad that we didn"t work on a boring project like making the world"s 99999th GPS system, which is not really fun. » - good in the beginning, disappointed in the middle and the end. because of the change in the mid-term, an annoying new-teacher involved and such things.» - I think this could have been a great course for first term, where you can learn about objective programming due to the box-way of the modules. But one robot on 12+ teams is just way too little, monday-friday booking is also way too little, where night shifts and weekends got removed. The planning and goal of this course is too much of a blur, but its understandable when this is the first time, I just think its too rushed and immature to be used as a course right now.» - Needs a lot of work. Unecessarily hard to meet the learning outcomes due to changing requirements mid course.» - Good» - Good» - It was ok, although it seemed like the motivation for it was so Lars could get around some rule for the university"s open house. Hopefully it worked, at least!» - I think that the course survived because of Björn. But the person who design the course did not have a clear idea about. So, I would really like to exhort the University to improve it. Re-design it, get more robots, we are coursing an international program where there are so many different cultures in it, well, knowing such a thing I propose to write a general and simple rules manual. » - In a way it was far to advanced for us but since it had its own IDE things got pretty easy. I did not challange my programming skills in this course , i did that on my spare time.» - Chaotic at best, feels like the course was created using a die.» - A mess at first, but turned out well!» 5. What is your overall impression of the teacher?- I think the teacher did his best and all he got for it was crap. It wasn"t his fault that the robot broke it was due to people didn"t listen to the instructions on how to use the robot. He was easy to get in touch with if there was a problem and he was actually more easily to get information from than all the other teachers combined. Since he actually checked his mail and always replied.»- Bottom line is that Im satisfied with him teaching the course. Way, way, much better than the course teacher for the first semester. Björn was easy to talk to and to get hold of and he always gave good and straightforward answers. Or admitted to nopt knowing when that was the case. First I was a bit dissapointed that he could not help us with the workings of the robot. But I think we had a lot of possibilities to learn other things from him.» - Honestly one of the best teacher we have had in our Se&M programme. . Björn was easy to get hold on , nice, if you had any problem he would do his best to help you. Unfortunetly the board of the Se&M put him in a crappy situation and Björn gave hiss 110% to make goos out of the worst.» - Very good, understandable and tought us things related to the SE area and did the best under the circumstances that he has talked with us about.» - Very good teacher.» - The teacher tried to do As much as he can. School should define courses more clear and orderly. » - Good teacher» - the teacher has done a good job for someone that held the course for the first time and did not have alot of time to prepare for it» - The Teacher is good and was Easy to contact! Tried to help as Much as he could so just positive. » - The teacher was very, very good. Really easy to get a hold of via email with rapid response to all our questions. However, we never really met him except for the three occasions (introduction, python tutorial, and presentation) during the entire semester. This course needs a teacher that can be here, on campus at least twice every week.» - The teacher was a great asset to the project as he was constantly in touch with us and provided quick feedback to all our issues. » - Björn was a very interesting and good teacher who communicated very well despite not being at the school and he also dealt with our issues in a very fast and efficient way. For example when the safe was moved, or the lock was put on the door to the robot, he was quick to solve this and reply to us. I could not blame him less for the failure of the project.» - from scale of 1 to 10 i would give 10 for the effort. From my own experience i can say, that teacher was very prompt in his emails, outgoing and reflective.» - Björn proved to be invaluable in that he has always kept communication streams open, been very easy to reach and also very instructive in regard to his presented material. He has shown a very positive attitude toward the project and genuinely seemed to want to work with all students. His direct approach to the difficulties that came up (quite a few during this one) has been very much appreciated.» - I think he did a great job given the circumstances. Even when faced with difficulties and misinformation he handled himself really well and always informed us about what was happening at a quite amazing speed. If a chance would present itself i would like to have the same teacher for the students next year. » - Björn seemed to be very knowledgeable unfortunately due to the poor planning of this course the opportunity to learn from him was mostly lost.» - I think the teacher is good in reaching out to the students through mail. He sometimes send more than a mail a day to the mail box with feed backs from unclear subject. In overall assessment, l am satisfied with his performance. » - I think he was a good teacher.» - Teacher was great. Had no knowledge what so ever of Nao, as no other teacher would have either. He helped where he knew and always tried to relate things to a bigger perspective (company environment). There has been a lot of talk about him not being on campus, but compared to all other teachers I"ve had in SE&M, Björn has been the most available one. » - The teacher was one of the main reasons this course was good. All major flaws that happened throughout the project weren"t because of him. He was easy to work with. He is not the kind that would bore the crap out of you and most importantly he was very smooth in communication. I would love to have him as my next project"s teacher :) » - Bjorn is a good teacher. he replied the e-mail very first time, responsible, easy to get contact with, etc» - Teacher has been really good, very easy to reach on mail, great feedbacks on sprint retrospective. » - Very good.» - Well he was good too.» - Hard working and at least cares enough to reply to emails under a day! » - He seems like a good teacher who maintained calm and poise in the face of uncertainty and micromanagement. » - Well, honestly, the course did not become mediocre thanks to Björn Olsson. We got every single time feedback and guide lines to our questions. » - Bjårn did more or less what i as a student could expect. Also the LAD and TAD teacher did , no one of the teachers had time to align the support courses with the project.» - He was awesome! He was a really good at motivating the students.» - Engaged in the project and in students, very informative and keeps constant contact. Available at all times.»
|
|