Evaluation Summary   [ DSD 2007 ]

Number of evaluations:   11

1
As whole the course was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    1:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * * *
        [ 8 ]

    Average:   4.36
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 3 ] The concept is excellent, but the group work was a nightmare.
  • [ 5 ] The idea of this kind of course is great! Experience gained from the course is unmeasurable.
  • [ 5 ] very interesting because it contains many non programming issues like cultural differences
  • [ 5 ] Interesting perspective in project development
2
The course has fulfilled my expectations (not at all=1, more than fulfilled=5)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]
    5:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]

    Average:   4.27
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] before the course i didn't know much about it so the expectations we not concrete. but it was funny and very interesting at the end, many lectures' topics were a good surprise for me
  • [ 5 ] I am more than satisfied.
3
The concept of the course with lectures and the projects was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]
    5:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]

    Average:   4.36
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] little overloaded.
  • [ 5 ] Maybe add some more lectures...
  • [ 4 ] good heterogenous experience
  • [ 4 ] I think the lectures were unnecesarry, the one of prof. Crnkovi
4
The course administration (web page, support, information, etc.) was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    4:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    5:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]

    Average:   4.18
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] The usability of the web page could be improved (especially the navigation bar).
  • [ 4 ] The course administration might have been better in providing or at least offering teams with more colaboration tools which they had to find them selves.
  • [ 3 ] Fedora 4 and not a lot of involvement from the supervisor
  • [ 5 ] We were provided with sufficient information, and good answers to all questions. All support was more than enough.
  • [ 5 ] good integration of all project related parts such as news, documentation etc.
  • [ 5 ] All the info needed.
5
I have learned (nothing =1, a lot=5)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * * *
        [ 8 ]

    Average:   4.45
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] tech and social...
  • [ 5 ] I've learned a lot about team work, team coordination and communication.
  • [ 4 ] Learned a lot about team work
  • [ 3 ] From programming point of view I learned some technological things specific to the project, but only that much what was particularly needed, so it wasn't much comprehensive. on the other hand, the organizational part of the project - management, communication, documentation was quite a big gain.
  • [ 5 ] How to get a distributed project complete, from start to finish, and o write documentation and reports along the way...
6
The lectures were (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]
    5:
    * * *
        [ 3 ]

    Average:   3.82
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] very interesting lectures
  • [ 4 ] All the lectures were good, but maybe there could be some more shorter lectures during project work...
  • [ 3 ] some were very interesting (that not programming related), some lesser. maybe it would be good to present some concrete professional real life example of building a product with all it's parts.
7
The technical support for the lectures was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    3:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    4:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    5:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]
    don't know / vet inte:
    *
        [ 1 ]

    Average:   4.40
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 6 ] ?
  • [ 5 ] All the teleconferencing went smooth...
  • [ 5 ] 5 because of very unique audio-video communication between sites.
  • [ 3 ] ??
8
The guest lecture I (Stig Larsson/ABB) was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * * *
        [ 3 ]
    5:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]
    don't know / vet inte:
    *
        [ 1 ]

    Average:   4.50
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] very useful, lots of interesting ideas
  • [ 3 ] he was speaking very quiet an i hardly understood him, but otherwise great lecture
  • [ 5 ] An insight from a person from industry is very desirable, cause it gives different perspectives.
  • [ 5 ] It was good to see something about DSD in the real life...
  • [ 4 ] it was a good contribution.
9
The project work in general was (bad=1, Excellent=5)
    1:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    * * *
        [ 3 ]
    4:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    5:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]

    Average:   3.91
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] Looking in reflection and considering overall students experience with team work, overall project work could have been better both in its quantity and quality, however the experience from this course will have a positive effect for the future.
  • [ 3 ] Could be better, the group was not so organized, but I think it was good for our first time...
  • [ 5 ] i enjoyed the project and members were fine so it was fine.
10
The project meetings were (bad=1, excellent=5
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]
    5:
    * * *
        [ 3 ]

    Average:   4.00
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] Considering the distributed nature of the project, the cultural differences, and previous team work experience, project meetings were overall very good but could have been better. Improvements were possible in the organization of the meetings and the overall effect of meetings on project work. Increased and continuous supervision might be helpfull in this matter in the future.
  • [ 4 ] Our project meetings were very good. I think we didn't have any meetings that didn't result in a productive end.
  • [ 4 ] They were sometimes in lousy time, but that was no big problem to me. Also, some of the team members were contributing very little...
  • [ 5 ] not so good from the beginning because of their length but better at the end because of it informality, non project related topics and fun.
11
The project advising and support was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    3:
    * * *
        [ 3 ]
    4:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]
    5:
    * *
        [ 2 ]

    Average:   3.55
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 3 ] Project support might have been better in the sense of more intensive supervision and more rigorous administrative obligations. This is primarily concerned with organization and the effects of meetings, supervision of individual team members progress and increased support in project management.
  • [ 3 ] Project support was so-so. From technical side, we had to ask for a lot of outside support, and didn't get it everywhere we asked. From the course side, support was okay. Advising might have been better, so that we get better understanding of final result.
  • [ 4 ] I was just a worker, so it didn't affect me much...
  • [ 3 ] i wasn't on the site of customer and i don't know of any particular advising or support
12
The cooperation between students from FER and MdH was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * *
        [ 7 ]

    Average:   4.36
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] Somehow i find students at MdH less communicative than students from FER (can be seen from the minutes of the meetings). Of course, there are exceptions.
  • [ 3 ] With some group members the cooperation was great, but some of them did not communicate too much...
  • [ 5 ] on our project (GeoLog) it was excellent
13
My workload was (nothing=1, very heavy=5)
    3:
    * * *
        [ 3 ]
    4:
    * * *
        [ 3 ]
    5:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]

    Average:   4.18
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] My workload was definitely too heavy (very unequal distribution of workload within the team).
  • [ 4 ] Workload distribution was satisfactory however more precise and rigorous supervision of individual team members progress would perhaps resulted in more work done.
  • [ 5 ] I put very heavy here, cause although my task wasn't high on priority, amount of work was as much as similar task that had priority no.1. And on that, top priority, task worked 3 people. Despite, i managed to finish most of the work.
  • [ 3 ] Just right...
  • [ 4 ] it varied from time to time but it was quite a load most of the time.
14
The equipment for the distance work was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    4:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * *
        [ 7 ]

    Average:   4.36
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 3 ] The Netmeeting troubles at the beginning of every lecture are rather annoying.
  • [ 5 ] lecture rooms were great and other communication tools sufficient.
  • [ 5 ] The teleconference room provided was a big help.
15
The most I like in this course was
    3:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    5:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]
    don't know / vet inte:
    * * *
        [ 3 ]

    Average:   4.50
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] It provide a real life work experience
  • [ 5 ] Inventivity of the course in all senses when compared to other courses at FER, Zagreb.
  • [ 5 ] the general experience I got from the course and the chance to meet people from different countries (cultures)
  • [ 5 ] distributed work, real-life experience
  • [ 3 ] experience from distributed project.
  • [ 5 ] The concept of simulating customer/salesman approach.
  • [ 6 ] It isn't just another exam.
  • [ 5 ] lectures were fine, presentations brought some "real" product development feeling, English communication was great experience.

    i had a good and interesting project and great team members so i enjoyed also the development part. I think interesting project + fine team members
  • [ 3 ] (I can't mark this?)
    The idea of doing your job and everything else fits into place. The idea of getting a project complete form start to finish.
16
The following can be improved in the course:
  • Both on Croatian and Swedish side, half the participants lacked basic programming skills. Perhaps you could stress the importance of programming competence more in the course syllabus etc. and also at the beginning of the course.
  • The course is excellent. The only thing that could be improved is the videoconference connection, it is good but it could be better.
  • Introduction of profesional project management tools, either existing ones or developed in the course itself. More lectures from people from real companies with real experiences such as Stig Larsson from ABB. Having a representative of a real company as a customer. Increased supervision of team progress.
  • technical support (Fedora 4) and involvement from the supervisor
  • project advising and support should be better
  • more examples from real world projects. distributed, local, successful, not successful.....
  • A bit more analysis after the hand-in of the final product. So that students get some final comments on the overall project.
  • - more software development lectures, such as explaining different methodologies etc.
    - projects should be really interesting (even at the expense of lesser real world usability)
  • Useful guidance tips in the beginning, till things start off... (We had a problem in deciding the tool we need, cause of the requirements... It would have been nice not to lose that much time on a "trivial" task).



Copyright © Damir Isovic