Course Evaluation 2D1392/2G1305


    General questions


  1. Which version of the course did you take?

    1. 53% (9 st) 2D1392
    2. 47% (8 st) 2G1305/2E1605


  2. Did you find this course easy or difficult?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very easy
    2. 35% (6 st) Easy
    3. 47% (8 st) Average
    4. 18% (3 st) Quite hard
    5. 0% (0 st) Very hard


  3. Was the course interesting enough to recommend to others?

    1. 94% (16 st) Yes
    2. 6% (1 st) No


  4. What did you think of the course book TCP/IP Protocol Suite by B. Forouzan?

    1. 18% (3 st) Very good
    2. 12% (2 st) Good
    3. 29% (5 st) Ok
    4. 0% (0 st) Not that good
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad
    6. 41% (7 st) Never used it


    Comments on the book:

    Book in CS courses are usually redundant.
    ---
    Helt ok, men inget speciellt. Fyller sitt syfte.
    ---
    It explains the topics very well and interesting, and suits a course like this. It's not too deep and complicated and gives you therefore a clear picture of Internetworking. That suited my goal with the course perfectly!
    ---
    Det ar en massa sma detaljer i den boken...tjock bok.
    Svart att lasa hela den dar boken under bara 6 veckor och sen kunna allt utan till. Behovdes mer tid for att allt kunde verkligen sattas i huvudet..


    The Lectures


  5. How many lectures did you attend?

    1. 12% (2 st) Less than 20%.
    2. 6% (1 st) 20-40%.
    3. 12% (2 st) 40-60%.
    4. 24% (4 st) 60-80%.
    5. 47% (8 st) More than 80%.


  6. What did you think of the lectures?

    1. 35% (6 st) Very good
    2. 29% (5 st) Good
    3. 29% (5 st) Acceptable
    4. 0% (0 st) Not that good
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad
    6. 6% (1 st) I never went to the lectures


    Comments:

    I only went on half a lecture to sign up for the labs. You'd think this could be done eletronically...
    ---
    Både Olof och Markus höll mycket bra, engagerande föreläsningar.
    ---
    Mycket bra föreläsningar och angagerade lärare. Stort plus!
    ---
    Very good overheads and the teatchers are very pedagogic, structured and clear in their way of explaining. They made things easier too understand.


    The Recitations (Övningar)


  7. What did you think about the recitations as a whole?

    1. 18% (3 st) Very good
    2. 35% (6 st) Good
    3. 29% (5 st) Acceptable
    4. 0% (0 st) Not that good
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad
    6. 18% (3 st) I never went to the recitations


    Comments:

    Too easy questions.
    ---
    Upplägget på övningarna är i grunden jättebra, se nedan. Dock var det ofta väl mycket dötid, man kunde nog utnyttja tiden bättre.
    ---
    Good thing about having a set of preparation questions that has to be done before the recitation. In that way you have to read and prepare yourself before, which makes you learn even more during the recitations.


  8. What did you think of the methodology used in the Recitations?

    1. 18% (3 st) Very good
    2. 29% (5 st) Good
    3. 35% (6 st) Acceptable
    4. 0% (0 st) Not that good
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad
    6. 12% (2 st) I never went to the recitations


    Comments:

    Det problemlösande momentet i övningarna är jättebra! Man lär sig fantastiskt mycket mer än av att bara lyssna på ytterligare en upprepning av materialet. Dock, grupperna blev ofta för stora (när man är fler än 4-5 är det svårt att grupparbeta, man kan oftast inte ens sitta så alla ser varandra). Uppgifterna var oftast väl enkla, också.


    The Labs


  9. What did you think about the labs as a whole?

    1. 18% (3 st) Very good
    2. 35% (6 st) Good
    3. 41% (7 st) Acceptable
    4. 0% (0 st) Not that good
    5. 6% (1 st) Bad


    Comments:

    TCP-laben var på tok för lång
    ---
    TCP lab was too long!
    ---
    Unfortunately, the Sendmail lab could have been better. Most due to the fact that the lab assistants didn't seem to know sendmail.
    ---
    Lite mer anvisningar, lite mer hjälp... inte bara "Det där är FEL"
    ---
    De första två labbarna var inga höjdare. Den första var trivialt lätt, den andra hade så många uppgifter (dessutom med förberedelsefrågor man aldrig fått chans att göra) att man inte hann den på full tid, aldrig hann reflektera, och fick göra den (kändes det) helt meningslösa 20 sidors labbrapporten som hemläxa.

    De tre labbarna med Måns Nilsson och Roland Elverljung var dock grymt bra. Man fick tänka mycket själv, och det lärde man sig på.

    ---
    The DNS lab was not that good. The description of the lab was bad. The questions were not clearly formulated.
    ---
    the last sendmail lab was a disaster
    ---
    Bästa labbar jag tagit på KTH. Bortsätt från första labbrapporten som var lite tradig så var resternande labbar helt suveräna. Kändes mycket aktulla. Måns är något av en kuf, men en mycket bra sådan. Helt klart över all kritik.
    ---
    The DNS lab should have had a preparation part, because it was quite difficult. The second lab was too long. The first half of it was really good because then you actually could stop and reflect over the result. The last part was just "doing and saving" so that you would manage to finnish everything. To thereafter sit at home and try to figure it out becuase you had to answer the questions, didn't teach you that much.


  10. Did you find any of the labs better than the others? (You can check several labs if you want)

    1. 6% (1 st) Introduction
    2. 24% (4 st) TCP
    3. 53% (9 st) DNS I
    4. 41% (7 st) DNS II
    5. 24% (4 st) SMTP/Sendmail


    Summary


  11. What did you think about the course web?

    1. 35% (6 st) Very good
    2. 47% (8 st) Good
    3. 18% (3 st) Acceptable
    4. 0% (0 st) Not that good
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad


    Comments:

    Embarrasing not being able to synchronize the webpages of all the courses. Otherwise they provide all the information you might need. Appreciated whenever you have to skip a lecture.
    ---
    It would be good to be able to sign up for labs through the web.
    ---
    För utom missen med det försenade labbpeket till labb 2 har det väl funkat bra.
    ---
    there's nothing I missed...it was nice having the overheads on the web some days before the actual lecture! thanks
    ---
    Det var battre om man fick lasa den har kursen under langre period t ex en termin for att hinna lasa hela boken ordentligt...


  12. In your opinion, which course component is most important to improve?

    1. 12% (2 st) The lectures.
    2. 12% (2 st) The recitations.
    3. 59% (10 st) The labs.
    4. 12% (2 st) The course literature.
    5. 0% (0 st) Nothing - it is perfect.


  13. Any general comments on the course?

    Lab 1 was very easy and quick, lab 2 quite difficult and a bit short on time. Perhaps you could add a thorough introduction to ethereal to lab 1 in order to prepare us for lab 2...
    ---
    It seems quite strange that "Exact grading thresholds will be set during grading", which doesn't obviously go hand in hand with the non-relative grading that KTH applies.
    ---
    Roligt att IPOP är tillbaka.
    ---
    Förbättra TCP labbraportsgrejen. Ta bort "tipsen" om andra kurser, det kändes meningslöst.
    ---
    vissa labbar var för svåra..men behövde en viss kunskap innan man kom dit...men folk som inte har användt unix innan förstår int hur man ska göra...
    ---
    it's a good course..very "allmänbildande".


olofh@nada.kth.se

Denna sammanställning har genererats med ACE.