Evaluation Summary   [ Distributed Software Development, cdt402, 2008/2009 ]

Number of evaluations:   26

1
As whole the course was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    3:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 14 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * *
        [ 7 ]

    Average:   4.08
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] Course was very good, but I think it missed some more lectures on distributed development and organization
  • [ 5 ] Personally, I very much liked it.....with lots of work although...But interesting
  • [ 4 ] It was a good preparation and practice for real world, now we know at least a little how it works with distributed projects and what problems that can arise...
  • [ 4 ] The course was good and i learned lot of new things
  • [ 4 ] as whole,great idea. Only bad experience was disorder in group. But still useful experience.
  • [ 4 ] As a whole the course was good. The course primary objective is fulfilled with distributed team development model. The course does not emphasis on the technical aspect of the project (design methodology, technology)
  • [ 5 ] the best i've ever had
  • [ 3 ] OK - could be better, could be worst.
  • [ 5 ] It was very fun.
  • [ 3 ] The concept was good but the implementation was quite bad. The project part could be better.
  • [ 5 ] experience gained in working with distributed team is valuable.
  • [ 3 ] Not all project have been distributed. It is not correctly!
  • [ 4 ] Overall, pretty good. Way to much paperwork tho.
2
The course has fulfilled my expectations (not at all=1, more than fulfilled=5)
    2:
    * * *
        [ 3 ]
    3:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 10 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * * *
        [ 8 ]

    Average:   3.88
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] Yes..Mainly the kind of architecture designing and implementation...
  • [ 5 ] I didn't really know what this course was about until first lecture, but then I knew what to expect.
  • [ 5 ] all what I expected, and much more
  • [ 4 ] Yes, the expectation to work as a team, develop new skills and learn new technologies was fulfilled.
  • [ 5 ] i didn't expect it to be the best i've ever had :)
  • [ 2 ] Less than I expected.
  • [ 4 ] Well as I first thought this was another course so yes >P
  • [ 4 ] we can do in much better way if we will be involved in another distributed project. with the same group it will be more exiting.
  • [ 4 ] Aprox. how i imagined it would be, except for all the paperwork part.
3
The concept of the course with lectures and the projects was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    3:
    * * * * * * * * *
        [ 9 ]
    4:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * * * *
        [ 9 ]

    Average:   3.85
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] Excellent concept but some more lectures instead of presentation in my opinion would do better.
  • [ 5 ] yes...It should be like that...the way to provide long term visibility...
  • [ 5 ] The lectures reflected the project work very well, problems with distributed projects etc, we did experience a few in our project :)
  • [ 4 ] Some minor things, like improving presentation itself, most people didn't listen. I believe that isn't the fault of listeners but of the presenters.
  • [ 3 ] There are few aspects that the academics can not match to industry like requirement gathering, testing etc. The course made a genuine effort to bridge the gap.
  • [ 3 ] i guess there has to be some lectures...
  • [ 3 ] OK. I think there was too much work (or too little time) and too little lectures.
  • [ 3 ] The number of lectures was pretty low, but I think the course could do without Mario Zagar's lecture on low-level programming.
    I especially liked the guest teachers with real-life experiences though.
  • [ 5 ] It was very good.
  • [ 5 ] I think that students learn the most from this kind of course, than traditional lectures-and-exam-only course, and there should definitely be more of them.
  • [ 3 ] Lectures were good but only some projects were truly distributed. The students didn't really have any control over what projects they were assigned to. The mix of students from different cultures was also poor.
  • [ 4 ] concept of the course is excellent.but it is too hectic in the limited period. is it all that one course !
  • [ 2 ] Which concepts? The only argument that i remember is "Cultural Difference".
  • [ 3 ] Maybe there should have been a bit more lectures and less presentations.
4
The course administration (web page, support, information, etc.) was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * * *
        [ 9 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 10 ]

    Average:   4.08
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] Everything was on time and in right place.
  • [ 5 ] Very good
  • [ 4 ] It worked very well the way it was, except that some words on the DSD page was not in English :S. Otherwise easy to see news, deadlines etc.
  • [ 5 ] The infrastructure provided was just excellent with servers, video conference, web space etc..
  • [ 4 ] good enough
  • [ 3 ] OK. Web page was great to work with, but SVN have made us problems from time to time.
  • [ 4 ] It was hard to find things in the dsd homepage
  • [ 5 ] Web page was always updated on time with latest information, not the last minute, and that certainly means a lot. Also, all the staff members were extremely helpful regarding everything that had something to do with this course.
  • [ 3 ] Kind of difficult to navigate the DSD website
  • [ 4 ] some changes are needed to coordinate the students in better way.because all are new to each other it is taking lot of time to start the actual work.
  • [ 4 ] Good!
  • [ 4 ] There's always room for improvements but for this course purpose it was adequate.
5
I have learned (nothing =1, a lot=5)
    2:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]
    3:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]
    4:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 12 ]

    Average:   4.00
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] I have learned a great deal about managing distributed project.
  • [ 5 ] frankly, with lots of experimentations and adversity....made it really challenging
  • [ 4 ] Mostly about milestones, team work, reports...
  • [ 5 ] I think I have learned alot from this course, not only new tools, writing documents, but I feel I know basically how distributed projects works, what problems etc.
  • [ 3 ] The major learning of the course was to develop in distributed team. I had previous experience in doing so. Hence the leaning aspect was on the lower side.
  • [ 5 ] ...about working on a distributed project
  • [ 2 ] Not very much. I didn't learn new technologies and some parts were explained very basic and it could (and should) be explained better (IMHO).
  • [ 5 ] I have not learned any new techniques or consumed new information, but the experiences gained during the course are alot and extremely useful
  • [ 5 ] Learned alot about teamwork/project
  • [ 5 ] team work with different people from different countries .and we learned new technologies.
  • [ 4 ] But alone!
  • [ 2 ] Learned a lot, but just about a tiny specific area i might not even meet up with ever again.
6
The lectures were (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    * * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 11 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 10 ]
    5:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]

    Average:   3.65
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 3 ] Lectures was fair. Some of them were out place, but most of them were on topic and interesting.
  • [ 4 ] definitely gud..
  • [ 2 ] They were boring, with that i mean they were to long and did not keep us focused and wanting to interact.
  • [ 4 ] The stuff brought up on the lectures were direct related to the projects, regarding problems...
  • [ 4 ] The course did not demand any lectures as such. The faculty did the right thing by providing ample time for teams on concentrate on project.
  • [ 3 ] they seemed a bit repetitive, or i just wasn't paying much attention. either way - 2... no, wait, you did warn us about potential problems so it's a 3
  • [ 4 ] Good. Some were great, some were not so great. :)
  • [ 3 ] They were OK but not all focused on distributed development.
  • [ 4 ] some lectures were boring even though they were informative.
  • [ 3 ] The teachers are very good. But the topic of the lectures are not interesting!
  • [ 4 ] They were fine.
7
The guest lecture Prof. Sajeev was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    3:
    * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 10 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 11 ]
    5:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]
    don't know / vet inte:
    *
        [ 1 ]

    Average:   3.76
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] yes..good
  • [ 3 ] The content was good, but it was a little difficult to hear him.
  • [ 4 ] Cultural differences are something to be experienced and not thought in a classroom. Giving a startup lecture on cultural differences was sufficient. The number of classes on this can be one rather 2.
  • [ 4 ] It was fun to know about the different things.
  • [ 5 ] lot of information.and the lecture was quite interesting and dynamic.
8
The guest lecture I (Stig Larsson/ABB) was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    3:
    * * * * * * * * *
        [ 9 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 11 ]
    5:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]
    don't know / vet inte:
    * *
        [ 2 ]

    Average:   3.79
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] good
  • [ 3 ] No comment, cant remember :)
  • [ 4 ] The guest lecture was excellent. The class can be on other topic rather cultural differences.
  • [ 4 ] Same, it was fun to have a real life example presented to us
  • [ 4 ] knowing practical experiences from a company is necessary.I still remember some problems he mentioned and we did achive to over come in our project duration.
  • [ 4 ] Interesting!
9
The project work in general was (bad=1, Excellent=5)
    1:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 11 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * * * *
        [ 9 ]

    Average:   4.00
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] Very much tough....although...due to shortage in time line..
  • [ 5 ] The project work gave the most, we learned allot in our group, altough it was very time consuming, and many times hard to understand team members because of different origin, but very good practice.
  • [ 4 ] usefull, but our project as project failed, it didn't work, not even at end
  • [ 4 ] Evaluating the entire team builds the team spirit. But at the same time has some disadvantages wherein few student can take advantage of being in the team without working.

    I have no better suggestion though. but evaluating a person based on his team has both positive and negative effect of it.
  • [ 5 ] the best part
  • [ 3 ] OK. Some modules were made great and some weren't so good due to lack of programming and engineering skills.
  • [ 4 ] The combination of DSD and SCORE is really a nice one
  • [ 5 ] It was fun as stated before
  • [ 2 ] Too many working hours
  • [ 4 ] working much better at the end of the project compared to the beginning as we are familiar wiht each other well.
  • [ 3 ] Not all members have been present during the project!
  • [ 3 ] Stressful, wasted a lot of time with too much paperwork to think about every single week
10
The project meetings were (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]
    3:
    * * * * * * *
        [ 7 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * *
        [ 8 ]
    5:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]
    don't know / vet inte:
    *
        [ 1 ]

    Average:   3.64
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] interesting...with cultural differences...
  • [ 5 ] Loved this part.
  • [ 3 ] There was both good and bad meetings, well planned and not so well planned, like some team members couldn't attend because of different reasons, sometimes late or didn't know there was a meeting etc.
  • [ 6 ] what do you mean by project meetings?
    meeting between members? or members and asistents? or what? I'm not sure
  • [ 4 ] Project meetings are important aspect of project and in our team i rate the meeting importance as very high to decide major design issues.
  • [ 5 ] on the high level
  • [ 2 ] Hard to do, because other side didn't know English very well (maybe you could arrange English course before DSD course? :) just kidding).
  • [ 3 ] As expected.
  • [ 2 ] Didn't get enough information on all meetings to get a clear picture on how the project was going to be implemented.
  • [ 4 ] much more important. and we did this in good way but not better way.
  • [ 3 ] Sometimes fun sometimes short and to the point but usually long and tiresome due to many misunderstandings and general bad knowledge of english language
11
he project advising and support was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]
    3:
    * * * * * * * *
        [ 8 ]
    4:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * * * *
        [ 9 ]

    Average:   3.73
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] We received a great deal of help from prof. Ivica and Ivana
  • [ 5 ] yes...very good
  • [ 3 ] It was good.
  • [ 2 ] Seeing the time constraint, a redesign suggested by the faculty may not be possible. It was good that the faculty did not ask any of the teams to redesign their core project :-) .
  • [ 5 ] very helpful
  • [ 3 ] OK. We had some issues, some were solved and some weren't.
  • [ 3 ] We didn't need much support, so I don't know about the quality of the support
  • [ 5 ] Got good support from the supervisors
  • [ 3 ] The advising was good however there were too few meetings and some good advices were ignored by the project leader.
  • [ 4 ] the other side of the team faced some supervision problem.we had to spend lot of time on technical issues with out much support.
  • [ 2 ] It should have been better considering most dont know what theyre getting involved with
12
The cooperation between students from FER and MdH was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    1:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    3:
    * * * * *
        [ 5 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * *
        [ 7 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 10 ]
    don't know / vet inte:
    * *
        [ 2 ]

    Average:   3.96
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] Excellent atmosphere and cooperation.
  • [ 4 ] interesting..
  • [ 3 ] Some times better and some times worse, possibly because of communication problems.
  • [ 1 ] basic problem
    :(
  • [ 6 ] I was into the project where half the team was in FER and the rest at MDH.
  • [ 5 ] absolutely no problems here
  • [ 5 ] Excellent, because of fact that we had a lot of problem but we managed to solved them.
  • [ 5 ] In the beginning the cooperation was not really much, but this was compensated a lot during the middle and end of the project
  • [ 5 ] There were no problem from our side
  • [ 4 ] we were doing good towards the end of the project.
  • [ 1 ] Disaster!
  • [ 3 ] Lousy in the beginning, getting better towards the project end.
13
My workload was (nothing=1, very heavy=5)
    2:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    3:
    * * * * * * * *
        [ 8 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 10 ]
    5:
    * * * * * *
        [ 6 ]

    Average:   3.77
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 4 ] My workload was moderate to heavy, since I was the project leader so there was a lot of things to take care of.
  • [ 5 ] very much...
  • [ 2 ] My team leader could have used me more.
  • [ 4 ] Some team members worked a bit more, I was one of them.
  • [ 4 ] I had to take up most of the documentation and implementation part of the project based on the situation prevailed in the project. I do not complain for this.
  • [ 3 ] i did my part, nothing more, nothing less
  • [ 5 ] A lot of communication hours was spent by me, but didn't work much on implementation.
  • [ 5 ] many sleep less nights.and lot of clerical work and project follow ups.even though enjoyed working with the team.
  • [ 5 ] I have worked a lot!!
  • [ 3 ] Lots of hours spent on everything, from meetings, presentations, getting those awful papers ready to project design and coding
14
The equipment for the distance work was (bad=1, excellent=5)
    2:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    3:
    * * *
        [ 3 ]
    4:
    * * * * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 13 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * * * *
        [ 9 ]

    Average:   4.15
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 5 ] too good
  • [ 4 ] I think that when there are Team presentations scheduled no other presentations should be given as the teams may need more time to set up technology because the provided one may not be enough. And that should not be taken into presentation time.
  • [ 3 ] Okey
  • [ 4 ] Except for occasional server down problem, the equipment was available for most of the time.
  • [ 5 ] not sure what this means - video conferencing equipment, internet, messengers, svn...?
  • [ 4 ] We had Visual Studio which is very good IDE.
  • [ 4 ] Especially the videoconferencing works pretty well
  • [ 5 ] I liked the room to hold tele-conference
  • [ 5 ] we never faced any problems except minor problems in voice clarity.
  • [ 4 ] Good!
  • [ 2 ] Sound was pretty bad overall, video could also have been better.
  • [ 3 ] If the video conferans room was available more often I think we would have used it some more.. maybe a possibility to borrow webcams to all skype meetings would have been nice.
15
The most I like in this course was
    3:
    * * * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 12 ]
    4:
    * * * *
        [ 4 ]
    5:
    * * * * * * * *
        [ 8 ]
    don't know / vet inte:
    * *
        [ 2 ]

    Average:   3.83
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 3 ] I like that we worked on a project in a way that's close to the real world
  • [ 5 ] Meeting new people and working with them.
  • [ 4 ] superb...
  • [ 5 ] Team work, meeting with whole team on Skype and discussing how we will make things done.
  • [ 5 ] Project work
  • [ 5 ] worked in teams and learned with the each other
  • [ 6 ] experience for future, and some of the people I met
  • [ 4 ] The course primary objective of distributed development
  • [ 5 ] the excitement of working on the project
  • [ 3 ] working with people who live in other place in the world
  • [ 5 ] i like know new peaple and learnt new things
  • [ 3 ] Idea of working on distance.
  • [ 3 ] The fact I got to meet foreign people and work with them :)
  • [ 5 ] working with other people, especially working with people in another place
  • [ 3 ] distributed work groups
  • [ 3 ] The "real project" expirience you get with it, that sticks with you, unlike some things you learn from an exam, and then forget them few days later.
  • [ 4 ] team work, equipment ,tight schedule and some interesting lectures. always i feel good to listen to worthy talks.
  • [ 5 ] The technology used for the lecture and presentation!
  • [ 3 ] Meeting new people and cooperating with them, be it for bad or good.
16
The following can be improved in the course:
    1:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    2:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    3:
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
        [ 19 ]
    4:
    * *
        [ 2 ]
    5:
    *
        [ 1 ]
    don't know / vet inte:
    *
        [ 1 ]

    Average:   3.00
    * * * * * * *
    0               3           5
  • [ 3 ] It would be good if there were more videoconferences for students
  • [ 3 ] Time line with respect to project implementation....Might be suggested to implement a part of the whole requirements by proritisation (priority #1, #2 and so on)...
  • [ 3 ] The lectures mostly, a little more life wouldn't hurt :)
  • [ 3 ] If non croatian students are going to use the (FER) DSD page I suggest it will be completely in English.
  • [ 4 ] need more time for project implementation
  • [ 6 ] ( why does this topic needs to be graded ( 1-5)?
    all in all good, few minor things like better presentations, and more focusing on actual finishing of project, and less on creating illusion that it works by confusing people with overly technical presentations
  • [ 4 ] I do not have a suggestion. But the question is, If the team does not have even a single designer or a single person who know the technology. Then the team will struggle to setup up the environment and get a good design. I suspect the entire duration will be spent to design and set up the environment.
    In our case, we did not have one who know PHP. We took 2 weeks just to setup and run a program that fetch data from database and display it.

    One important suggestion is to avoid all projects that develop websites. I guess industry does not need website development.
  • [ 3 ] the project presentations, before we actually choose what we're going to sign up for, should be more detailed
  • [ 3 ] I don't know
  • [ 3 ] in my opinion the course was really nice and there is no to improve.
  • [ 3 ] More lectures and more time.
  • [ 3 ] Project advising.
  • [ 3 ] I would add a lecture explaining all the bureaucracy necessary for managing the projects effectively.
  • [ 5 ] I found it very bad that the students in other groups couldnt hold presentation in a right/proper way, the 2 first presentation seminars where catastrophic in my opinion, there should be better preparation by the students on how to hold presentations and keeping time limits. This is something they should know of before starting the course.
  • [ 3 ] file sharing tools (svn repository)
  • [ 3 ] Everything i think should be improved in course is already in the first DSD questionnare.
  • [ 3 ] Let the students truly choose which project they want to work on.
    Drop SCORE or just have a few SCORE projects. They just added unnecessary stress and workload.
    Strict enforcement of presentation time. If the group can't present the necessary details within 15 minutes then they shouldn't be able to pass the course. Being able to keep the presentation time is just as important as the other moments in the course.
    Too many project presentations. One or two presentations in total would be sufficient.
  • [ 2 ] any innovative and encouraging ideas to make fun among the students between the course work .may be like very first session of the course. always it was serious atmosphere through out the course.
  • [ 1 ] The system to evaluate the work and coordination. The difficulty of the project must be the same...
  • [ 2 ] Maybe more lectures, a bit less presentations. All the paperwork every week was awful. Almost insisting on Java technologies... why? Why wouldnt teams be able to pick technologies which they like the best and are maybe more familiar with etc. Choosing teams and project/site leaders was awful... was more like a random pick then anything else.
  • [ 3 ] 1. Almost every group presentation before the final presentation was too long. The project groups should have kept it shorter (only necessary things) or been interrupted by the teachers, it is boring listen/to talk in front of a sleeping class when you don't get enough breaks. :-) And this is an advanced course.. simple rules should be followed.

    2. The course overlapped two weeks with other courses on MDH, the last assignment should have been assigned earlier.

    3. The lectures could have covered more subjects.

    4. The project groups could be divided in score/not score interested members, because the score took a lot of time which could have been spent on other things.

    5. More time on dividing the project groups, not just a lunch break, so more people gets at least one of the two project they have wished for, when possible.



Copyright © Damir Isovic