From jon@cbis.ece.drexel.edu Mon Apr 25 23:41:07 2005 Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:36:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Jonathan Hoult To: paul.yu.oh@drexel.edu Subject: MEM-351 A (Oh, Paul):Course Eval Results Course Evaluation

Course instructors are urged to complete the Faculty Response Form FRF_HERE Printed or electronic copies should be submitted directly to the department head for Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) review. No other administrators have access to completed Faculty Response Forms.

Please not that Lecture/Recitation sections were surveyed differently this term. This applies only to some courses, most of which are in TDEC. The course objective report is displayed in with the lecture section designated by section A, B or C. If the course had a lecture/recitation format and this report does not have numeric results for course objectives, they can be found on the web at http://eval.coe.drexel.edu under the lecture section.


COE Winter 2004 - 2005 Course Evaluation Results


 MEM-351  A  Dynamic Systems Laboratory I  Oh, Paul

 Responded
43

 Not Responded
3

 Response Rate
94%
 Instructor's Dept
Not Available

Student Self-Assessment of Course Objectives

5=Expert, 4=Good, 3=Fair, 2=Poor, 1=No Experience

 Objectives 1 - 3  

 Avg

Std Dev
 Objectives 4 - 6  

 Avg

 Std Dev
LabVIEW programming using subVI, loops, and shift registers  Before

2.6

0.9
Microcomputer controlled DC motor control  Before

2.1

1.1
 After

4.2

0.9
 After

3.9

0.9
Microcomputer data acqusition  Before

2.1

1.1
Model identification, and time response analysis  Before

2.4

0.9
 After

3.8

1.1
 After

4.1

0.9
Digital data transmission and computer interface  Before

2.2

1.2
Dynamics and control of double torsional pendulum using microcomputer  Before

1.9

1.0
 After

3.8

1.2
 After

4.0

1.0

Course/Faculty Assessment

5=Very Great Extent, 4=Great Extent, 3=Moderate Extent, 2=Limited Extent, 1 = Not At All

 

 Avg

Std Dev
 

 Avg

 Std Dev
Teamwork or group projects and assignments were an integral part of this course

4.3

1.0
The instructor was well prepared for the lectures

4.9

0.5
The course had a multi-disciplinary perspective

4.1

1.0
The instructor's communication skills were good

4.7

0.9
Computer technologies were used to enhance my learning

4.7

1.1
The instructor's attitude toward the students was positive and helpful

4.9

0.6
The course objectives and requirements were clearly communicated

4.6

1.2
The instructor provided timely feedback on student performance

4.5

0.8
What is your overall rating of the course? (5=outstanding, 3=average, 1=poor)

4.6

0.9
What is your overall rating of the instructor? (5=outstanding, 3=average, 1=poor)

4.9

0.5
What is your rating of the textbook used in this course? Your textbook comments can be typed below. (A = outstanding, C = average, E = poor)

2.5

2.3
What grade do you expect to get from this class?

4.6

1.1

 

Course Comments
1

fair amount of work assigned. labs are really effective and they help you understand labview and matlab alot.

2

Perfect amount of work considering two credit course, material taught in very simple to understand, logical fashion, teh _chain of command_ was a great idea, Dr. Oh being at the top, then the TAs being assigned to each group of students

3

Strengths: Clearer representation of controls Virtual application brought to life Pace was not to fast and not to slow Outstanding TAs Weakness: None

4

The National instruments lecture was a very informative class. I think more of the lectures should have involved more in_depth looks at specific hardware, even if it was not pertinent to this particular lab. Students, I don_t feel, gain a solid understanding of specific hardware used in the field.

5

Strength: Hands on experience with Labview, Matlab, various hardware Weakness: Malfunctioning lab setups

6

There was no real textbook used in the course but the lecture notes and lab handouts were more then enough to convey the key concepts of the class.

7

A lot information, presented clearly. Much more beneficial that MEM 255 and 355.

8

very clear in explanations

9

none

10

good course learn a lot of technical skills in computer programs._

11

Strength: Work_load was satisfactory. Labs were put together well and instructed well. Weak: Last HW assignment I didn_t feel well prepared for.

12

More attention could be spent on the details of the actual equations. Technically, the labs are very good, more theory would be nice.

13

A key strength was that there were multiple TA_s assigned into smaller groups so that help could easily be attained. The course was very interesting in the fact that a computer generated system was designed and implemented to control a physical system. It made it nice to actually see the results in a physical form. A weakness could be that system theory is difficult to understand, but the course did a good job of giving me a greater knowledge of the subject than i had prior to taking it.

14

Not enough grade feedback

15

Well put together course. I learned a lot and enjoyed it.

16

its a interesting course

17

I did not like the surprise final in the last lecture. I dont think I got one question right do to the fact that I had not reviewed and it was fresh on my mind.

18

This was the best lab in the MEM sequence and it has nothing to do with the material. This lab has an amazing structure, one which i think all the mem labs should transistion to. This structure of _clinic_ really made sure you understood the material and the concepts and you were never left just staning around waiting for a TA to start the lab like in mem 311. And the amount of work fit that of a two credit class. In this 10 week class, which gave the work of a two credit class, all of the concepts i learned in MEM 255 and 355 were reinforced and i gained an understanding of labview and matlab.

19

Having notes online is a strength.

20

this year i had two of my best labs. i enjoyed this lab very much. the workload was fair and the fact that labs buildup on each other resulting in long project was more effective in making me proficient in labview and matlab_simulink as well as understanding concepts about controls. as opposed to a new brief intro lab every wk in different subjects that i forget about after writing the report. helped me undertstand controls class theory as well. TAs were also very helpful, m.joyce

21

Strength: 1. I stayed focused_ most other labs seems to be a collection of short unconnected stories, while in MEM 351 the goal of the course was repeated many times, it made working for the class a lot easier becuase you knew where you wanted to be at the end 2. The format of _big Brother_ was great. It helped gain a nether avenue of learning. There is something about a _fellow_ student helping you walk through problems than just having the lab book be your guide or a professor 3. The Equipment was new_ Not broken, slapped together or mended to kind of but not really get the results you wanted _like other labs_ 4. Not having to write a lab report each week was great, it made learning a lot easier, you weren_t just trying to learn information for you lab report but you were actually just learning _though if you didn_t do short write ups along the way the Final Report would be hard__ 5. There was a great balance of theory and actual hands on 6. It felt like 2 credits 7. Guest lectures were great, other labs should do the same_ Weakness: 1. It was easy at times with labs everyother week not to do much work. _see my suggestion to improve_ 2. Have the students actually do some of the wiring. It is just I_O wiring so it is not that hard and it is great experience for the industry

22

excellant TA_s

23

strengths: provides practical experience with various control techniques, advantages and disadvanteges of the various controllers, and an introduction to the intricacies of control engineering. also showed some of the politics that go on in academia. weaknesses: too much work for two credits.

24

It is a very good course since it relates fundamental material learned in other courses to the real world situations.

25

strengths: meets the objectives of the course

26

Strengths: Very hands on Very applicable to engineering Clearly illustrated the different types of control.

 

Instructor Comments
1

great communication skills.

2

Very motivated and enjoys teaching the subject

3

Strengths: Personable Interfaced at every chance Knowledgable Weaknesses: Arm Wrestling Bench Press Bowling

4

The instructor was extremely thorough in the explanations of every detail. He answered every question and did not ever leave anyone confused about the direction of the course. The material covered and the understanding level was greatly enhanced by this great professor. I would definitely take another course he is teaching, and he has actually started me in a new direction in my quest to become an engineer. The one suggestion I have would be to give us our progress reports back with possible suggestions.

5

Strength: Detailed Lectures, simplified explanations Weakness: Sped up pace in lab during intstructional periods

6

Very Knowledgeable. Very helpful to students. Sometimes moved to fast during lab excercises.

7

Well Spoken and organized

8

great communication, well prepared

9

Great teacher. Knows a lot about the material and does a great job teaching it to the students. I liked how he also let his T.A._s interact with us in the labs. Keeps the work load in the correct range for a 2_credit class

10

It was a good class. The information was taught well and in a logical order. Thanks for presenting controls in an interesting way. It was taught so well, that during the term I considered goigng into controls.

11

Dr. Oh was attentive to our learning. He was able to explain the concepts with great ease the subject was much better understood. His philosophy on teaching is much better then other teacher i have encountered.

12

very knowledgeable in course area, communicates objectives clearly, provided sufficient coursework based on credits of the class,

13

Excellent speaker

14

Genuinely interested in students learning the material. Thorough.

15

he helps the students when need so

16

He really wanted the students to learn and enjoyed what he was doing.

17

Takes a genuine intrest in the well fair of all of his students and is alway well prepared. I think he is about the best I_ve had at Drexel.

18

Dr. Oh_s strength is his genuine interest in the student_s grasping the concepts behind the material at hand.

19

Dr. Oh was very informative about the class and what and why we were learning Controls. He put all lecture notes and lab handouts online, which was very helpful. He is a great teacher.

20

effective communicator he made an effort to know every student by name resulting in a comfortable learning environment finally understand controls__ wish i took this class with controls.

21

Strengths: 1. Has a passion for contorls 2. Enjoys teaching undergraduate students_ that is expressed in how relatable he is to the sutdents. Not in an unprofessional manner, but in that as a student I didn_t feel stupid for asking questions. 3. Has both industry and research experinece_ it kind of validates what was said. Weakness: 1. can_t think of any

22

very prepared, knowlegable, and interesting

23

strengths: very knowledgable about subject. weaknesses: would not accept that he made mistakes in the lecture or lab material. was not in touch with the students taking the course. was more concerned about the way he looked to the students than how the students fared in the class.

24

Very good profesor, I have no complains.

25

strengths: simplifies complicated problems and makes them easier to understand. weaknesses: n_a

26

Dr. Oh clearly stated the objectives of each lecture or lab and was very involved with the students and making sure we all understood the material. I definately gaineed a lot of understanding of control systems due to the hands on aspect of the course. I wish we took this at the same time as controls, I think it would have been helpful to do the hands on side of controls at the same time. This was definately one of the best courses I have ever taken at Drexel.

 

General Comments / Suggestions
1

this course doesnt need any improvement. you just need to make students take this course either before or coincide with MEM 355 because it teaches you everything that you need to get a better understanding of MEM 355

2

the course assumes a lot of the information is already known, some type of refresher for someone who has been away from control systems for a while would be helpful.

3

Robot control would be cool

4

The only other suggestion for the course would be to buy improved equipment for the labs. I know there is a budget issue, but it is nice when the equipment works in a lab.

5

Double check lab setups prior to class usage. Bad hardware_devices makes it difficult to keep up with the rest of the class.

6

Should be offered along with MEM 355 or between 255 and 355.

7

thought it was run the way it should be

8

none

9

Not sure.

10

Make sure to use the TA_s to keep everyone on the same page during the lab.

11

I honestly don_t have any...Good job Paul Oh___

12

maybe spend a bit more time with pole placement.

13

none

14

I learned a lot in the class. I felt it was a good mix of what was learned in MEM 355 an 255.

15

Make sure to stress the importance of the TA_s playing devils advocate to ensure understanding of the concepts.

16

maybe somehow be able to take this lab with the theory class. wouldve helped me sooooo much.

17

1. Have labs every week. With not haveing to write a lab report each week, I think labs could be every week without feeling like the class went beyound 2 credits. I think you could also get a lot more into the class

18

structure it so that the workload is comparable to the number of credits.

19

None.

20

I don_t know, it_s pretty good the way it is.