COE Fall 2000-2001 Course Evaluation Results

 MEM-639  501  Real Time Microcomp Ctrl I  Oh, Paul

 Responded
15

 Not Responded
0

 Response Rate
100%
 Instructor's Dept
Not Available

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

4.8

0.8
The instructor was well prepared for the lectures

4.8

0.6
The course had a multi-disciplinary perspective

4.7

0.5
The instructor's communication skills were good

4.8

0.4
Computer technologies were used to enhance my learning

4.8

0.5
The instructor's attitude toward the students was positive and helpful

5.0

0.3
The course objectives and requirements were clearly communicated

5.0

0.3
The instructor provided timely feedback on student performance

4.6

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

4.6

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

5.0

0.0
What is your rating of the textbook used in this course? Your textbook comments can be typed below. (A = outstanding, C = average, E = poor)

2.8

1.1
What grade do you expect to get from this class?

4.9

0.4

 

Course Comments
1

The book was BAD!!! There were almost no examples. The instructor even commented that he did not like the book. The course was a lot of work, but I felt the hard work paid off in the end. The course could have been better if the MEM department excepted the programming courses as electives. There was a lot of time devoted to working with C programs that should have been included in the curriculm of the undergraduate courses.

2

Hands-on aspect of the course was excellent. Pace could have been a little faster to cover more material during the term.

3

I like this mix theory and hands-on course.

4

-Good interface development to real world -Creates new interests to further ones knowledge in relation to computer hardware and software. -C-rpogramming pulled me dwon as I was totally new to it.

5

Good: introductory material. organization. straightforward and clear expectations. Improve: good overview, but material was very basic for a graduate level course.

6

Strength: Lots of hands on experience

7

Strengths hands on assignments well prepared labs web based material was great (it helped me as a part time student because I'm not on campus a lot) Weakness some supplies were limited (maybe rotate lab assignments for each group from class to class) material was not graduate level (up the level of work, please) although it is nice to coast through a class, we need to work harder textbook was not used much

8

Hands on experience is a very big plus. At times, equipment was scarce which probably slowed the course down.

9

This is the best course that I've taken at drexel so far. This course gave us the ability to link classroom knowledge to real world experience. I have learned key skills, that I believe will help me throughout my career.

10

The strength is the excellent introduction to electonics for mechanical engineers. The hands on aspect was great for those who've never done more than the equations. The weakness is the frustration that goes with trying to troubleshoot all of the projects. It became more and more of a guessing game as the projects got more complicated. I'm sure this is what it's like in the real world, but it's not fun for those who work full time or have five other classes. And I know that this is a grad class that should in theory warrant more personal attention, but with Drexel desperately pushing the ms/bs program trying to get more grad students, a good percentage of us can't put in the time we may want to. My suggestion would be to have an extra pre-made circuit or project for the student to use if an effort was made in good faith that was unsuccessful.

 

Instructor Comments
1

The instructor came in with high hopes. I beleive that he was disappointed with the fundemental knowledge the students had. The exams were hard and long. I feel this could be because this is his first term teaching. I just seemed at times that he expected us to know things that haven't been tought in previos classes.

2

Generally well-prepared and knowledgeable.

3

-Excellent communication and time management skills. -Course was well planned.

4

Good: helpful. well organized. Improve: proceed at faster rate. don't belabor the basic material.

5

Strengths related to students well enthused to teach the subject matter well prepared web was helpful for materials knowledgable about the subject matter Weaknesses I don't think you need to write full sentences on the board Don't give in to whiney students (make the course harder)

6

Eager to help and is very personable.

7

The instructor was very knowledgable in how to relates concepts in the classroom to the real world.

8

Paul was great when it came to giving individual attention to students. This goes for homework problems and troubleshooting circuits. He is very enthusiastic as a first time professor. He came into the course with clear objectives and a methodology to reach them. I only hope the Drexel Shaft doesn't crush his spirits. His weaknesses include not being totally prepared for assignments when it comes to having all the equipment ready and available. Having one wire crimper for eight lab groups and equipment that runs out during project week (not Paul's fault) was also a disappointment. I sincerely hope Drexel as Philadelphia's Technological University will properly fund this class in the future. It after all supplies a technology most mech eng. are not familiar with. Paul's pre-course evaluation needs to go. It made us all feel pretty dumb and have second thoughts about taking the class. It was probably a l! ittle advanced for Drexel students. I would also like to see lecture handouts. Many times we were copying paragraphs and complicated diagrams off the board. It got tiring and inaccurate and the renention level suffered due to it.

 

General Comments
1

Looking forward to the next course!

2

would be good to have better textbook and more spare parts.

3

Most of the time spent in lab could have been done by students on their own time. Instead of ending class with a lecture we should start the class with it and then have the students work in the lab. That way, students that get done early can leave.

4

When the undergraduate computer lab recieved new computers, Dr. Oh mentioned that certain people were not included in the decision making process. The people that were not included would have mentioned that the new computers were not equiped with the correct expansion ports to be useful for Dr. Oh's course. This may or may not have had an impact on which computers were purchased for the undergraduate lab. I believe more communication and advertising be done before an important decision like that be made.

5

Overall, this is a great course that was pretty much completely redone by Paul. As a first time course it was bound to have some bugs in it, most of which I expect to be rectified by next year. I recommend this course to those who have the 6-10 hours a week outside of class to really appreciate the material.