2D1490 IP Routing in Simple Computer Networks

Resultat av kursutvärdering 2005


    General questions


  1. Did you find this course easy or difficult?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very easy
    2. 8% (1 st) Easy
    3. 85% (11 st) Average
    4. 8% (1 st) Quite hard
    5. 0% (0 st) Very hard


  2. Did you understand what the goal of the course was when the course began?

    1. 85% (11 st) Yes
    2. 15% (2 st) Kind of/Not really sure
    3. 0% (0 st) No


  3. Did you find the course interesting and meaningful?

    1. 62% (8 st) Yes, very
    2. 38% (5 st) Yes
    3. 0% (0 st) Average
    4. 0% (0 st) Not really
    5. 0% (0 st) Not at all


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

    1. 23% (3 st) Yes, I will be telling everyone and their aunt about this course.
    2. 46% (6 st) Yes, but only people who are interested in networks
    3. 31% (4 st) Yes, if the subject comes up
    4. 0% (0 st) No, unless someone presses me
    5. 0% (0 st) No, I wont recommend this course to anyone


  5. Do you think you had the necessary prerequisites when the course started?

    1. 92% (12 st) Yes
    2. 8% (1 st) Kind of/Not really sure
    3. 0% (0 st) No


  6. What did you think of the course book Forouzan: TCP/IP Protocol Suite?

    1. 8% (1 st) Very good
    2. 15% (2 st) Good
    3. 31% (4 st) Ok
    4. 0% (0 st) Not that good
    5. 8% (1 st) Bad
    6. 38% (5 st) Never used it


    Comments on the book:

    Complex
    bad pedagogics
    Too much info, For short issues


  7. What did you think of having raw RFCs as course material?

    1. 8% (1 st) Excellent
    2. 31% (4 st) Good
    3. 31% (4 st) Ok
    4. 8% (1 st) Bad
    5. 23% (3 st) Never looked at them


    Comments:

    Det är lättare att drunkna i detaljer.
    ---
    hard text
    ---
    A lot of good info, a lot of useless info
    ---
    Lite för tung läsning ibland.


  8. Did you find the RFCs hard to understand?

    1. 8% (1 st) Yes, they were hard.
    2. 38% (5 st) Yes, but I managed
    3. 23% (3 st) They were ok.
    4. 23% (3 st) No, they were not a problem
    5. 0% (0 st) They were easy to understand
    6. 8% (1 st) Never looked at them


    Comments:

    Vid användning av läsinstruktionerna


    The Lectures


  9. How many lectures did you go to?

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 20%.
    2. 0% (0 st) 20-40%.
    3. 23% (3 st) 40-60%.
    4. 15% (2 st) 60-80%.
    5. 62% (8 st) More than 80%.


  10. What did you think of Roland Elverljung's lectures? (Intro IP, TCP)

    1. 0% (0 st) Very good
    2. 31% (4 st) Good
    3. 54% (7 st) Acceptable
    4. 8% (1 st) Not that good
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad
    6. 8% (1 st) I never went to his lectures


    Comments:

    They were good in Swedish, average in English
    ---
    Don't remember actually!
    ---
    Unfortunately we had "schema krockar" all the time. It was hard to balance between the courses.


  11. What did you think of Olof Hagsand's lectures? (Application, Routing, RIP, OSPF)

    1. 8% (1 st) Very good
    2. 77% (10 st) Good
    3. 8% (1 st) Acceptable
    4. 8% (1 st) Not that good
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad
    6. 0% (0 st) I never went to his lectures


    Comments:

    Found the slides difficult but after labs it got clearer
    ---
    Den mesta förståelsen kom under övningarna
    ---
    Chaotic unorganized looses the red line to often
    ---
    Intressanta framför allt routingen


  12. What did you think of Måns Nilsson's lectures? (DNS, Firewall)

    1. 8% (1 st) Very good
    2. 38% (5 st) Good
    3. 38% (5 st) Acceptable
    4. 8% (1 st) Not that good
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad
    6. 0% (0 st) I never went to his lectures


    Comments:

    Too much "extra" information outside subject
    ---
    Lecture was in swedish
    ---
    Framför allt "Firewall" var mycket intressant
    ---
    Too many irrelevant details...


  13. What did you think of Malin Carlzon's lectures? (IS-IS)

    1. 0% (0 st) Very good
    2. 15% (2 st) Good
    3. 31% (4 st) Acceptable
    4. 15% (2 st) Not that good
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad
    6. 38% (5 st) I never went to her lecture


    Comments:

    Det är svårt att lära sig ett protokoll lite grann och så blev det med ISIS.
    Jag tycker att man endera skall stryka ISIS eller gå igenom det mer nogrannt.

    ---
    Interesting material, not so good lecture


  14. What did you think of the aditional guest lectures? (IPv6, Sunet/KTHLAN, ad-hoc)

    1. 31% (4 st) Very good
    2. 31% (4 st) Good
    3. 15% (2 st) Acceptable
    4. 8% (1 st) Not that good
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad
    6. 8% (1 st) I never went to the guest lectures


    Comments:

    Especially IPv6 and ad-hoc were GREAT
    ---
    IPv6 was very good, didnt attend ad hoc, KTHLAN was acceptable


  15. Did you prepare for the lectures (e.g. read through the book before the lecture, etc)?

    1. 0% (0 st) Yes, always
    2. 0% (0 st) Often
    3. 15% (2 st) Sometimes
    4. 46% (6 st) Seldom
    5. 38% (5 st) Never


  16. Any general comments on the lectures?

    A tendency to slip into Sweidsh made some lectures not worth going to. It would be worth notifying guest lecturers that the course is taught in English. Mostly English is better than none, though.


    The Recitations (Övningar)


  17. How valuable were the recitations as a whole?

    1. 46% (6 st) Very valuable, I learned most there
    2. 31% (4 st) Nice to have
    3. 15% (2 st) Nice, but not essential
    4. 8% (1 st) I learned a bit, but mostly redundant
    5. 0% (0 st) Redundant


    Comments:

    Some were good, some were just repetition
    ---
    Really good... Maybe if their had been answers to all recitations on the web it would have been great!


  18. What did you think of the methodology (group discussions) used in the Recitations?

    1. 23% (3 st) Very good
    2. 62% (8 st) Good
    3. 8% (1 st) Acceptable
    4. 0% (0 st) Not that good
    5. 8% (1 st) Bad


    Comments:


    The Labs


  19. Did you get the help you needed at the labs? (were the assistants competent, there when you needed them, friendly, etc)

    1. 38% (5 st) Yes, definitely
    2. 38% (5 st) Yes
    3. 23% (3 st) They were acceptable
    4. 0% (0 st) Not really
    5. 0% (0 st) Never


    Comments:

    The lab info was sometimes to short and lacked some info
    ---
    Ibland fick man vänta ganska länge


  20. Did you find the labs interesting?

    1. 54% (7 st) Yes, very
    2. 46% (6 st) Yes
    3. 0% (0 st) Average
    4. 0% (0 st) Not really
    5. 0% (0 st) Not at all


    Comments:

    Det var början och slutet som var intressanta. I mitten kändes det som om man gjorde samma sak flera gånger.
    Labbpeken var ibland konstiga och vaga.


  21. Did you find any of the labs more rewarding than the others? (You can check several labs if you want)

    1. 8% (1 st) Introduction
    2. 31% (4 st) Static routing
    3. 46% (6 st) RIP
    4. 31% (4 st) OSPF intro
    5. 46% (6 st) OSPF Connecting four routers
    6. 62% (8 st) OSPF and hubs
    7. 77% (10 st) OSPF backbone
    8. 85% (11 st) OSPF and areas
    9. 46% (6 st) IS-IS


  22. Did you find the exam well designed?

    1. 8% (1 st) Yes, very
    2. 46% (6 st) Yes
    3. 31% (4 st) Average
    4. 8% (1 st) Not really
    5. 0% (0 st) Not at all


    Comments:

    Hard and difficult, but more relevant than earlier years
    ---
    Covered all we went through during recitations. Maybe to much on routers (question?) and not enough about the differences between link-state/vector distance,...
    ---
    Mycket svåra detaljer som jag inte trodde skulel komma.


  23. Did you find the course information (web page, reporting of results, etc) good?

    1. 23% (3 st) Yes, very
    2. 62% (8 st) Yes
    3. 15% (2 st) Average
    4. 0% (0 st) Not really
    5. 0% (0 st) Not at all


    Comments:

    Skulle velat haft lösningsförslag på de gamla tentorna.


  24. How many other courses have you studied simultaneously with this course? (period 3)

    1. 0% (0 st) None
    2. 23% (3 st) One
    3. 31% (4 st) Two
    4. 15% (2 st) Three
    5. 0% (0 st) Four or more


  25. How large proportion of your total time studying did you spend on this course?

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 15%.
    2. 8% (1 st) 15-30%.
    3. 38% (5 st) 30-50%.
    4. 15% (2 st) 50-70%.
    5. 8% (1 st) More than 70%.


  26. This course is worth five points (two points for the exam, two points for the labs, and one point for the workshops). What do you think of this, compared to other courses?

    1. 8% (1 st) Should be four points.
    2. 62% (8 st) Five points is perfect!
    3. 0% (0 st) Should be six points.


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

    1. 15% (2 st) The lectures.
    2. 15% (2 st) The recitations.
    3. 15% (2 st) The labs.
    4. 15% (2 st) The exam.
    5. 8% (1 st) The course literature.
    6. 0% (0 st) Nothing - it is perfect.


  28. Any general comments on the course?

    Shouldn't focus two points on exam, should be even more lab oriented.
    ---
    Overall a good course.
    ---
    Very good course!!!
    ---
    Best ever


olofh@nada.kth.se

Denna sammanställning har genererats med ACE.