Evaluation Summary   [ Distributed Software Development 20 ]

Number of evaluations:   15

1
As whole the course was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * * * *
        [ 9 ]

    Average:   4.53
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] The course had many new elements that I have learned
  • [ 4 ] It gives us great insight in what lies ahead, what we can expect in the nearby future.
    Personally I saw some of my waknesses while working in team.
  • [ 5 ] it was good to learn to work in dsd. as trainig i really appriciate it.
  • [ 5 ] The most useful course I ever had.
  • [ 5 ] The course Distributed Software Development was
    excellent and i learned a lot from this course.
  • [ 5 ] Students got exposure of distributed software development.
  • [ 5 ] A challenging but rewarding experience. Excellent!
  • [ 5 ] A challenging but rewarding experience. Excellent!
  • [ 4 ] The course, in general, was good. It allowed me to experience firsthand the difficulties associated with working in a distributed environment. I was able to predict some of the problems, but others arose that I had not prepared to handle. This, however, is the reason for taking the course, so it cannot be said that this was an bad situation.
  • [ 5 ] It was very good opportunity to learn new techniques which can be used in Distributed Software development environment. I got many ways to communicate with other team members.i.e. Chat messengers, online conferences, live discussions etc.
2
The course has fulfilled my expectations (not at all=1, more than fulfilled=5)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * * *
        [ 9 ]
    5:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]

    Average:   4.07
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] Moste of the expectations were fulfilled
  • [ 4 ] I would like to have more lectures with guests. Hopefully for the next year they will be there
  • [ 4 ] The load of work was a little too much, however we managed somehow.
  • [ 4 ] DSD has fulfilled my expectations what i thought
    about this course
  • [ 4 ] i have learned a lot while working in this environment
  • [ 3 ] My expectations were to work in a distributed group designing some piece of software and to face the challenges associated with that situation. To this extent, my expectations were fulfilled. However, I had also hoped to receive more suggestions or to anylize other, existing, teams and their method for ways in which my own team might be more successful. As I said, this was more of a hope than an expectation, but I felt that it was not fulfilled as much as it could have been.
    For example, the guest lecturers presented some fair ideas, but very few of these pertained to the situation of distributed software development. Also, we failed to discuss in lecutre any variety or current or practical techniques or methods currently employed in distributed teams, other than those that are most basic and general such as 'instant messaging', 'email', and 'video/voice conferencing.'
  • [ 5 ] Gave a broad vision that how one should behave, work and discuss the things in distributed environment. During the course and project development, I learned many new tools, techniques, languages and technologies. e.g. UML, VC++, software engineering phases, CVS etc.
3
The concept of the course with lectures and the projects was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    3:
    * * *
        [ 3 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * *
        [ 7 ]
    5:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]

    Average:   4.13
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] I lake very much the team work
  • [ 4 ] Structere of the course was good. for me was good that i was able to go home and work from there. That the lectures was not at the end
  • [ 5 ] The concept as a whole was great. A great experience, fun, lot of new stuff to learn, real life situations, simply great.
  • [ 4 ] The concept of the course with lectures and the projects was excellent idea which gives us concept how to develop project in distributed enviourment with the different student of different countries
  • [ 5 ] theorey-project approach
  • [ 5 ] I believe the concept is great, and I wish there were more courses organized in this way.
  • [ 5 ] I believe the concept is great, and I wish there were more courses organized in this way.
  • [ 3 ] The lectures were somewhat short and only occured nearer the beginning of the course. Their concept was acceptable because they gave us the introduction necessary to get started working in teams, but I felt that there could have been more worthwhile information presented as the course progressed.
    If this question is intended to ask 'how well were the course lectures structured or designed' then I would reply: the time alloted for the course was rarely used to its fullest extent. That is, many times, we were allowed to 'video conference' with our team for the majority or even the entirety of the lecture block (4 hours). However, rarely did my own team spend its full, alloted hour using the video conferencing equipment, and I believe that it was basically the same with the other teams. That is, the amount of time designated for 'conferencing' amongst distributed members could likely be reduced to either the first or second portions of the class (as it was, in the case when a guest lecturer was presenting) to be divided between all teams.
    Also, I think that video conferencing, as a tool, can be important for certain situations such as business meetings, or meetings where much of WHAT is said and HOW it is said is important. In software development, however, it can be somewhat difficult to discuss abstract ideas or convey code and/or diagrams via video and speech. This may work well during initial development when discussing the general design, but as the project progresses, less discussion of general topics or ideas occurs between members and more direct, specific interaction is necessary, usually involving visual aids that do not translate well to the mediums of video and speech.

    As for the projects, I feel that they were acceptible for this course. Though somewhat varied in scope and difficulty, they were more or less practical as short term projects. I think that the requirements defined for all three were few enough such that each team could have completed its project given the constraints of time and man-power, though some teams were overly ambitious, so this resulted in incomplete or slightly less quality products.
  • [ 4 ] As the project/course team members belong to different countries, it was a good chance to know about others cultures. I think it is the basic requirement for every team member to learn little about others cultures so that they can discuss and behave in more friendly way.
4
The course administration (web page, support, information, etc.) was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * *
        [ 8 ]
    5:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]

    Average:   3.93
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 3 ] Excellent but we are used to that anyway.
  • [ 4 ] Could have helped with a real project place (exist in th reallife outside the university) to keep track of the project status and progress
  • [ 2 ] web pages and the rest was well prepaired but for the next time u can better explain usage of cvs. For most students it is new. And add mysql db to the fer server.
  • [ 4 ] Sometimes CVS was slow or not working at all.
  • [ 5 ] administration of this course was excellent
  • [ 4 ] it is great source of communication between the group members.
  • [ 2 ] Personally, I found the web page(s) for this site difficult and cumbersome to use, so I mostly avoided them.

    In my opinion, the rasip page contains excessive and impeding cruft in its presentation, such as the Javascript expanding menus and the collapsable , configurable content boxes as well as the two page views required to actually login.
    I found that the pages behaved inconsitently depending on whether I was logged in or not, and not only that, I had a difficult time finding the information necessary. That is, I thought that the sections could have been organized in a simpler manner.
    I rarely visited the Malardalen web page for the course, and when I did, it was usually only to find the address for the Rasip webserver.
    As for orson, this machine was useful because it gave the teams a place to put the code (CVS) and a shell account with which to work and test code. However, this did not work out as well as may have been expected.
    In the case of my own project, the JDBC driver, we would prefer the sun JRE to the opensource version that was installed. This was really a minor issue, however, because most of the testing was not done on orson itself.
    A bigger problem for both my team and others, involved server access and network connectivity to orson. As I understand it, orson is fairly well blocked as far as network connections are concerned, though it would have been useful for some teams to be able to run servers on orson and connect to those from anywhere on the Internet.
    I think that in the future, it may be useful to continue to provide orson as a CVS repository, for which it worked very well. In addition, I might also suggest some simple linux based machines that were freshly installed at the start of each semester. These machines would not have to be powerful at all, simply a dedicated place where people on each team could work. One would be sufficient for all three teams, though if they were available, each team could get their own along with root access, so that they could configure and install whichever software, applications, servers, or clients were necessary not only for development, but possibly for communication purposes as well.
    Information was given as necessary on the Rasip page. Some members of my team were fairly unfamiliar with CVS in any environment, so some instructions on setting up basic development tools (like CVS) might be useful. To my knowledge, no such instructions were given and it was assumed that the students were familiar with not only CVS in general but using the Unix tools and/or the Eclipse plugin. It was my observation that this was not the case for the majority of the students, many of which had never used CVS before.
    Contact with project 'clients' that is, Igor and Rikard, went well, as far as I was told, and they responded to questions with useful answers in a reasonable amount of time.
  • [ 4 ] The teachers are very polite, friendly, humorous and co-operative. They have professional expertise in the course and lecture style is clearly understandable. The series of guest lectures is very good and I gained many useful points from experiences of guest speakers.
5
I have learned (nothing =1, a lot=5)
    3:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    4:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * *
        [ 7 ]

    Average:   4.33
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] Especially working with peopole from different countries was great
  • [ 3 ] I wouldn't say I've fully mastered working within team, group :-( but I've gained better knoledge of it.
  • [ 4 ] i learned how to work in group, and how neccessary is to keep with other in touch.
  • [ 5 ] I have learned a lot, about programming, about team work, about stressful deadlines, about friends from other parts of the world.
  • [ 5 ] I have learned a lot from this course as how
    to develop project in Destributed enviourment and comunicate with different team members of different mind.
    and how to properly document the code, how to start the project, and how to avoid most common mistakes .
  • [ 4 ] Not many courses teach students about software development in "real-life". This is a notable example. I learned a lot about that. The technical side of the story (the "end product", and gained knowledge about the tools we used) is of secondary issue here, i believe.
  • [ 4 ] Not many courses teach students about software development in "real-life". This is a notable example. I learned a lot about that. The technical side of the story (the "end product", and gained knowledge about the tools we used) is of secondary issue here, i believe.
  • [ 4 ] I have learned what I had expected, and I have gained experience working in distributed groups.
  • [ 5 ] After attending the course and during the project development, I was very confident to use my distributed software development experience in another course (Component Technologies) in this term. I am happy to claim that we (team members in Component Technologies) designed and developed the project successfully while we all were sitting on three different locations.
6
The lectures were (bad=1, excellent=5)
    3:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * *
        [ 7 ]
    5:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]

    Average:   4.00
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] Could be more on understanding and working with/in different cultures and in different locations
  • [ 3 ] The concept of the lectures was good
  • [ 4 ] Lectures were overall good, but sometimes to long, or too boring.
  • [ 5 ] both lectures from Sweden University and Coratia University were excellent and way of teaching of all professors were remarkable.
  • [ 3 ] Little what was said on lectures were useful in projects.
  • [ 5 ] the lectures at the start of the course were very excellent
  • [ 3 ] The course lectures were acceptible and they served their purposes, though I think that the guest lectures could have been more directly applicable to distributed environment issues.
7
The guest lecture I (Stig Larsson/ABB) was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    3:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]
    4:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]
    5:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]

    Average:   3.93
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] Very good advices
  • [ 5 ] Could be more on understanding and working with/in different cultures and in different locations
  • [ 5 ] As i said i very liked the guest`s talks. I appriciate that it was not only about dsd but also some usefull info about management.
  • [ 3 ] Very boring. Not the subject itself, but the lecturer.
  • [ 4 ] The guest lecture of Stig Larsson were good
  • [ 3 ] no comment
  • [ 5 ] Having guest lectures that bring the students the experience from real-world applications of the DSD is a great idea.
  • [ 5 ] Having guest lectures that bring the students the experience from real-world applications of the DSD is a great idea.
  • [ 3 ] If anything, this lecture could have been a little more related to distributed software development, but in general it was useful and fairly thought provoking.
8
The guest lecture I (Claes Berlin/SAAB Ericsson SPACE) was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    3:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]
    4:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * *
        [ 7 ]

    Average:   3.93
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] Bothe lectures were interesting
  • [ 4 ] Could be more on understanding and working with/in different cultures and in different locations
  • [ 5 ] As i said i very liked the guest`s talks. I appriciate that it was not only about dsd but also some usefull info about management.
  • [ 2 ] Very interesting subject turned into somthing boring, and I found it hard to listen carefully.
  • [ 5 ] The guest lecture of Claes Berlin was excellent
  • [ 5 ] (see above)
  • [ 5 ] (see above)
  • [ 2 ] I felt that this lecture would have been more appropriate for a business methods course, rather than one dealing with distributed software development. In his discourse, he mainly described the somewhat novel or new-age business practices in place at SAAB Ericsson SPACE (ie the open environment, no time cards, rotating offices, and so forth). His company deals more with hardware than software, and it did not seem that he, himself was particularly involved in the development of the software. He did discuss the error collecting system, and that seemed to be a fine and well-engineered piece of work, but he seemed to be trying to sell us on quality manufacturing practices and business models rather than discussing issues relating to diversity and distribution amongst team members.
    That is not to say he did not discuss these things, for he did, in fact, give examples of the distribution within SAAB Ericsson SPACE. He mentioned some problems that arose between the Swedish team and some members in Finland, as well as another incident involving members in the United States. These stories were the most worthwhile because, even though, they served little more than to exemplify the fact that problems DO arise in distributed teams, they were related to the course. Even so, they were dealing with hardware issues rather than software.
9
The project work in general was (bad=1, Excellent=5)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 10 ]
    5:
    * *
        [ 2 ]

    Average:   3.87
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] There was a lot of work in a short period. We did not managed to do everything we wanted.
  • [ 3 ] Demanding :-) We are not that used to it
  • [ 2 ] The system of project leader getting the overall mark from the rest of the project group is not the way of getting a mark in a modern world and university where i go as an individual and not as a teammember or leader...
  • [ 3 ] The project by itself was good.
  • [ 4 ] Very good, interseting, but sometimes just too much work. I barely slept these days :)
  • [ 4 ] The project work in general was good and we tried
    to accomplish project in time .i wanted to give
    too much time to this course sincerely but due to other 2 courses i could not give too much time to it.
  • [ 5 ] it is real time project from which we have learned a lot.
  • [ 4 ] Themes were generally OK, the problem was just that the choices were too limited. A suggestion: propose more projects and choose the ones that have the most students interested.
  • [ 4 ] Themes were generally OK, the problem was just that the choices were too limited. A suggestion: propose more projects and choose the ones that have the most students interested.
  • [ 4 ] The project work was good and it served well enough to facilitate the goals of the course. I felt that the work might have been better divided, though. Some of the members in my team worked much more than I, and some members worked much less. This is partially due to the designation on behalf of our team leader, but the project description basically mandated a split: the Sweden team members were given the JDBC driver as their main workload while the Zagreb team took care of the main server.
  • [ 4 ] There was a lot of learning with less output as many project team members were sitting and working on different locations.
10
The project meetings were (bad=1, excellent=5)
    3:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * * *
        [ 9 ]
    5:
    *
        [ 1 ]

    Average:   3.73
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] Sometimes it took too long time to get responece.
  • [ 3 ] OK Helpfull :)
  • [ 5 ] More video meetings in the nice video conferense room for the groups outside the lectures...
  • [ 3 ] Project meetings were very frequent at the beginning, good was to use the school fun room for the meetings.
  • [ 4 ] The meetings were cool, sometimes not so effective, but most of the time a great help.
  • [ 4 ] The project meetings were good.
  • [ 3 ] Using netmeeting and application sharing in TCR would make meeting much better. Usually Swedish part of group didn't have computer there.
  • [ 4 ] it is my first time in my career that we were at distributed environment.
  • [ 3 ] The video conferencing meetings, as I mentioned in a previous reply, were useful, but perhaps for less than they were intended. Rarely did we use the entire time alloted to us; rather, we preferred to do much of our discussion in an IRC channel or using our mailing list.
11
The project advising and support was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    1:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * *
        [ 8 ]
    5:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]

    Average:   4.07
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 1 ] none support... comments like "this is how it is in projects in the real world..." doesn't help at all.. it pritty lame, lazy and cowarldy of a teacher to say that and have that approach...

    and also not read the summary week reports is also very bad... it is very nonchalant of the teacher.. not leaving any response at all on the summary week reports shows of lack of respect of students work in the course... students puts many hours on this and not get any respons is not so fun...
  • [ 3 ] That as i said before was a bit complicated. With MySQL and PHP.
  • [ 4 ] Just good.
  • [ 5 ] advising and support was excellent.
  • [ 4 ] Maybe giving more starting information would be better. (Pointing to the group some possible solutions)
  • [ 5 ] The project advising and support was excellent and available all the time through oput the project.
  • [ 5 ] The support on behalf of the customers was very good. Questions were answered in good time and the necessary information was given such that we could complete the project to the customers demands.
12
The work in the group was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * *
        [ 8 ]
    5:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]

    Average:   4.13
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] The distance work is much more complicated than direct.
  • [ 5 ] Excellent work distribution
  • [ 4 ] This was totally new for me, and i learned a lot about it. Work with different cultures, learn new things and meet new people.
  • [ 5 ] I liked my team colleagues a lot. And we got along fine most of the time. Too bad we didn't have the chance to meet in person..
  • [ 4 ] the work in group was good .
  • [ 2 ] Unfortunately, the work amongst the group was not as good as it could have been. Certain members functioned well and others not quite so effectively. The environment in the classroom was, as I understood it, supposed to emulate a real-world working environment, but due to a number of issues that were not necessarily under the control of the proffessors, this goal was not quite met.
    One main issue was the prior knowledge requirement. On the prerequisites for the course, it states that previous knowledge of a high level programming language is assumed. However, 'knowledge' here is a very vague word, and it can, as proved true in this course, refer to several different levels of competency. Perhaps it would be better to require knowledge in some specific language or to have as a pre-requisite a specific course. This might bar some students from entering the class, but it may remove some of the friction created by those who more or less unexperienced in a particular laguage.
    Also, if there is to be no formal introduction to the tools involved in the class, such as CVS, perhaps another requirement would be to have knowledge or at least familiarity with these tools.
13
The cooperation between students from FER and MdH was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * * *
        [ 8 ]

    Average:   4.47
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] My group cooperated good with fer side. maybe at the end would be better to have all the students for our presentation, even the other groups. We were there for their presentations too.
  • [ 5 ] Great. We really talked a lot, and then some more... :o)
  • [ 5 ] The cooperation between student from FER and
    MdH was excellent , the students from FER and
    MdH were very cooperative i enjoyed to work with
    them.
  • [ 4 ] The cooperation was smooth and mostly unnotable. We used IRC several times for meetings amongst the entire group. This was used heavily in the beginning when we were discussing project requirements and planning, and toward the end of the project cycle, we used it seldom. An email mailing list was setup for our use and it was probably the main method of communication for the duration of the course. Instant messaging was heavily used between myself and other members of the Sweden team (MSN network) but because of a difference in preferred networks (AIM, MSN in Sweden vs ICQ in Zagreb) IM communication between myself and the Zagreb members was essentially non-existent.
    If anything could be said, it is that there was less cross site communication in my project than there could, or perhaps should, have been. Despite this, the project did not suffer due to lack of communication. I think this could be attributed to the way the project had been divided: Sweden had its own parts to deal with, namely the ODBC and JDBC drivers, while Zagreb worked only on the main server. In this way, there was not as much to communicate between working-unit groups as there might have been for the CVS Reporting or Messenger projects.
14
My workload was (nothing=1, very heavy)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * *
        [ 7 ]

    Average:   4.27
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 3 ] Medimum
  • [ 5 ] and especially emotional plus the pressure of getting a the rest of te groups mark... vey unfare and frustrating as projectleader
  • [ 4 ] It was a lot work at the beginnig it was more paper work and at the end there was a little time for programming.
  • [ 5 ] Etreme. Mostly I worked a lot and slept very little :(
  • [ 4 ] My workload was heavy.
  • [ 2 ] I felt that my individual workload was fairly light compared to that of the Zagreb team. It seemed, though I have no quantitative proof, that those responsible for the server code put in several more hours than I did, especially our team leader.
    I did, however, work as quickly as I was able, and I do believe that I made significant changes and additions to the code, though I do not feel that I was under too much workload.
15
The equipment for the distance work was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    * * *
        [ 3 ]
    4:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]
    5:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]

    Average:   4.07
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 3 ] It could be better
    (Next year project :-)
  • [ 2 ] the homepage was good... missed a real project tool...
  • [ 5 ] At school MdH the equipment was excelent, we got the web cams for use so this help to stay in eye contact. Even it is the web contact, but u see that others are there.
  • [ 4 ] Good, except CVS, and the fact there was no MSN installed on computers in labs
  • [ 5 ] the equipment for the distance work was excellent.
  • [ 4 ] Adequate; although we didn't use the videoconferencing as much as possible - we somehow felt uneasy communicating this way. Maybe the time to adapt to this kind of communication to feel "natural" is longer than the duration of the course :)
  • [ 4 ] Adequate; although we didn't use the videoconferencing as much as possible - we somehow felt uneasy communicating this way. Maybe the time to adapt to this kind of communication to feel "natural" is longer than the duration of the course :)
  • [ 5 ] If, by equipment, this question refers to the video conferencing tools used in the classroom, then I feel that it was absolutely excellent. The video was perfect quality and extremely low-latency. The dual-projector setup allowed for a superior experience because it allowed each side to see both the speaker/class as well as the presentation slides.
16
The most I like in this course was
  • Team work. Getting now other cultures
  • teamwork
  • Meeting people, cultures and guest`s talks.
  • Experience with working on a distance, and of course learning about other peoples culture.
  • the most I like in this course was the teachers Ivica Crnkovic ,Rikard Land , Mario Zagar
    and Igor Cavrak and thier teaching style.
  • Best part was working on a project that someone will want to use.
  • Work with other people of different culture,religion and tradition.
  • the structure of the course, first the lectures and then a full fledge project to imlement in the pure distributed environment, amd also the idea of guest lectures from the industry.
  • Working in cooperation with others, especially with the swedish part of the team.
  • Working in cooperation with others, especially with the swedish part of the team.
  • I enjoyed working on a piece of a larger project with the others in the course and having that piece be put together into something whole. I have not before had much experience in this type of work. Mainly, projects that I have completed have been entirely my own effort and responsibility. Meeting the needs of others and working with diversity provided a new challenge, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to try to meet it.
  • Cultural learning. As the project/course team members belong to different countries, it was a good chance to know about others cultures. I think it is the basic requirement for every team member to learn little about others cultures so that they can discuss and behave in more friendly way.
    The teachers are very polite, friendly, humorous and co-operative.
    The series of guest lectures is very good and I gained many useful points from experiences of guest speakers.
17
What can be improved in the course?
  • It is a problem if some project members do not take responsibility.
  • read the comments
  • Maybe more of the talks.
  • We could meet at least once during the course.
  • this course will gives us with a lot of information that could be helpfull in future.
    this course require more guest lectures.
  • Aditional support during group meeting in TCR. Looking if group made some wrong conclusions about their project.
  • In my opinion this course, so structured, is the best way for learn and enjoy.
  • i think the design of the course is very good enough for the students.
  • See (9). Also, I felt that the amount of paperwork required (the weekly reports), although neccessary in real work, was too heavy on the students - as our off the course responsibilities
  • See 9, Also, I felt that the amount of paperwork required - the weekly reports - although neccessary in real work, was too heavy on the students - as our off the course responsibilities and workloads shifted, we found it impossible to predict to predict the exact plans for the next weeks, or to account for the amount of work we have done.
  • I believe I have included sufficient examples for improvement in the answers to previous questions. Outlined below are the main suggestions again:

    - Emphasize requirements for programming/development knowledge for those considering enrollment (assuming this is desired)
    - Provide open, full access to development server(s) for team members in future projects
    - Provide a selection of more project options than those which will actually be used. The variations can be in language used, type of program, experience required, etc. This, I think, will eliminate the chance that persons in the class will be forced into a project for which they are under- (or for that matter over-) qualified or for which they are uninterested. For example, this particular semester provided three project options for the students, and forced all students into one of these options. It happened to work out well enough this time, but what if the students assigned to the CVSQL JDBC code did not know Java at all? Or, what if there was nobody available in the CVS Reporting project familiar with server side web development? If more than the three options were made available, then students could choose the one that best matched their own interests or abilities, and this would perhaps mean fewer students would be forced into an uncomfortable position for both themselves and the group.
    - The guest lectures could be a bit more specific to software development and/or distributed working environments.
    - If the web interface is not modified, provide alternative access to the required files, perhaps using simple, standard protocols such as FTP. That is, I would have liked if I could access the files related to my project's development (ie Documentation and Desgin Plans) without using the web interface which, as I noted previously, I found somewhat frustrating to use.

  • I would like to request that teachers should call the students one by one and ask if they have any problem during the project development and they should know which student is working on what and what he/she has done individually in the project.
18
I am from:
    Croatia:
    * * * * * * *
        [ 7 ]
    Sweden:
    * * * * * * * *
        [ 8 ]



Copyright © Damir Isovic