|
Course Evaluation
CSCI 297 .81 : Embedded Systems
Instructor:
D. Eisenreich
Survey for Term Spring 2007
(April 23
- May 6, 2007 )
Participation: Primary Course Shortened Set
Results: 12
out of 13 eligible students
evaluated this course.
About the course
[680]
1. Overall rating of the course
| (1) Poor
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (4)
|
1 |
|
8% |
8% |
| (5) Excellent
|
11 |
|
92% |
92% |
[16]
2. Amount you learned in the course
| (1) Almost nothing
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
[3]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (4)
[4]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (5) A great deal
[5]
|
12 |
|
100% |
100% |
| Mean: ** |
5.00
|
[117]
3. Overall, how would you rate your level of intellectual challenge in the course?
| (1) Not at all challenged
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
[3]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (4)
[4]
|
1 |
|
8% |
8% |
| (5) Very challenged
[5]
|
11 |
|
92% |
92% |
| Mean: ** |
4.92
|
[123]
4. Amount of effort / work required was:
| (1) Very little
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
[3]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (4)
[4]
|
2 |
|
17% |
17% |
| (5) A great deal
[5]
|
10 |
|
83% |
83% |
| Not applicable / No opinion
[x]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| Mean: ** |
4.83
|
[118]
5. Overall, how would you rate your level of engagement in the subject matter?
| (1) Not at all engaged
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
[3]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (4)
[4]
|
2 |
|
17% |
17% |
| (5) Very engaged
[5]
|
10 |
|
83% |
83% |
| Mean: ** |
4.83
|
[129]
6. Increased conceptual understanding and/or critical thinking.
| (1) Not at all
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
[3]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (4)
[4]
|
2 |
|
17% |
17% |
| (5) A great deal
[5]
|
10 |
|
83% |
83% |
| Not applicable / No opinion
[x]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| Mean: ** |
4.83
|
[122]
7. Course content was organized in a manner that facilitated learning.
| (1) Not at all
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
[3]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (4)
[4]
|
5 |
|
42% |
42% |
| (5) Completely
[5]
|
7 |
|
58% |
58% |
| Not applicable / No opinion
[x]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| Mean: ** |
4.58
|
About the instructor
[679]
8. Overall rating of the instructor
| (1) Poor
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (4)
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (5) Excellent
|
12 |
|
100% |
100% |
[132]
9. Was knowledgeable about the subject and course material.
| (1) Not at all knowledgeable
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
[3]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (4)
[4]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (5) Very knowledgeable
[5]
|
12 |
|
100% |
100% |
| Not applicable / No opinion
[x]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| Mean: ** |
5.00
|
[134]
10. Accessibility outside of class.
| (1) Not at all accessible
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
[3]
|
2 |
|
17% |
17% |
| (4)
[4]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (5) Very accessible
[5]
|
9 |
|
75% |
75% |
| Not applicable / No opinion
[x]
|
1 |
|
8% |
8% |
| Mean: ** |
4.64
|
[133]
11. Enthusiasm for topic/subject.
| (1) Not at all enthusiastic
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
[3]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (4)
[4]
|
1 |
|
8% |
8% |
| (5) Very enthusiastic
[5]
|
11 |
|
92% |
92% |
| Not applicable / No opinion
[x]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| Mean: ** |
4.92
|
[135]
12. Designed and used fair grading procedures.
| (1) Not at all fair
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (3)
[3]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (4)
[4]
|
2 |
|
17% |
17% |
| (5) Very fair
[5]
|
8 |
|
67% |
67% |
| Not applicable / No opinion
[x]
|
2 |
|
17% |
17% |
| Mean: ** |
4.80
|
[136]
13. Provided adequate feedback on exams/papers/performance.
| (1) Not adequate
[1]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| (2)
[2]
|
1 |
|
8% |
8% |
| (3)
[3]
|
2 |
|
17% |
17% |
| (4)
[4]
|
5 |
|
42% |
42% |
| (5) Very adequate
[5]
|
4 |
|
33% |
33% |
| Not applicable / No opinion
[x]
|
0 |
|
0% |
0% |
| Mean: ** |
4.00
|
[681]
14. Use this space for any comments you may have about the course, the instructor, readings, etc.
- One of the most interesting classes I've ever taken. I've never had more "fun" (intellectually, anyway) working on assignments and projects for a class. The volume of work required was more than substantial -- borderline overload-- but I suppose it was necessary given the wide range of embedded systems topics that were covered.
The documentation required for the final project and presentation in my opinion could be culled back by a requirement or two. Perhaps the project brochure and the 8 page paper that accompanies the presentation can be eliminated.
Overall it was an excellent class and, having completed it, I have a broad body of work to look back on and be proud of.
[Regarding #25 below: Deemphasizing theory was entirely acceptable for this course. Exploring theoretical topics would have prohibited the investigation of as many practical topics as were pursued, and would have detracted from the appeal and value of the course in my opinion.]
- The course covered a great deal in a short time, making it very time-consuming and very challenging. I did learn a great deal and would take it again, though the next time I'd make sure I had a clear calendar.
- Excellent class for anyone interested in hardware development. Professor Dan is very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the subject.
Textbooks were not very useful. I didn't opened them after the first week.
- Excellent course. Very challenging, but very rewarding when success was achieved. Assignments were hard, but realistic and could be completed. There were times when it seemed like I was wrapping up one lab, working on another, thinking about the last one, and I could not put enough time into the project. The result was I had only a certain amount of time left, and I had lab 4, the paper, the presentation, and the final project. It was a difficult balancing act, and I wish I didn't have one of the those to do, so I could have focused more on the other three. This might not have been an issue if I was only taking this course this semester, but I had others.
Department-Specific Questions
|
