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.

Course instructors are urged to complete the Faculty Response Form (PDF or Word). 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.


COE Fall 2001-2002 Course Evaluation Results


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

 Responded
13

 Not Responded
1

 Response Rate
93%
 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

4.7

0.5
The instructor was well prepared for the lectures

4.7

0.8
The course had a multi-disciplinary perspective

4.5

0.9
The instructor's communication skills were good

4.6

1.0
Computer technologies were used to enhance my learning

4.8

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

4.4

1.0
The course objectives and requirements were clearly communicated

4.4

1.0
The instructor provided timely feedback on student performance

4.4

1.0
What is your overall rating of the course? (5=outstanding, 3=average, 1=poor)

4.5

1.2
What is your overall rating of the instructor? (5=outstanding, 3=average, 1=poor)

4.7

1.0
What is your rating of the textbook used in this course? Your textbook comments can be typed below. (A = outstanding, C = average, E = poor)

3.4

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

4.3

0.8

 

Course Comments
1

I really like the course, but I would suggest a little bit more theory. even if the hands-on part is really important, I would like to have had more theory.

2

This class is great for getting hands on experience with electronics and low level computer programming. This is one of the few oppotunities in a classroom situation I've seen to get solid experience with real-world applications. I believe this class is a must for any engineer, it is applicable to almost any research or industrial situation that involves digital control. The only possible weakness of this course is the lack of actual digital control theory. There was really no discussion of things like the z-transform or optimizing the controller.

3

Unlike most of the courses I have taken, I am certain that I will use the lessons I learned in this class for years to come, both for work related matters and to solve other programming, mechanical, electrical and electronic challenges I may encounter outside of work.

4

Class time was used very efficiently. Lecture proved to be very valuabe. I would have liked more lecture time, but I understood that some students required more time in lab.

5

+ Hands-on learning - Lack of basic materials, such as resistors capacitors and cable materials

6

strengths: interesting subject matter, hands on class. weakness: no BOOK! limited class lectures on material after assignment already handed in. web resources not to effective for research of weekly problems.

7

Strengths: An excellent course that brought together (at least for me) control theory with real world applications. if there is only one course you need to take during your grad studies--this is it. Weaknesses: probably not graduate level. But since i didn't learn ANYTHING in the control courses during my undergrad Drexel studies--i am extremely thankful. Let's be realistic here--we need to replace Dr. Kwatney with Dr. Oh for undergrad control theory. Most Drexel undergrad students didn't learn anything from Dr. Kwatney...it's probably a good idea to do something about this.

8

Through this course, many materials like c-programing, electrical circuit, motor dynamics and so on were reviewed which we learned at undergraduate. Also by making circuits and actually controling motor by PC, one can understand how it works as an experience rather than just a theory.

 

Instructor Comments
1

I think Dr. Oh is very clear in his explanations. Furthermore he is often avaiable for students and he really tries to make the clas as interesting as possible. He gives a lot of examples in order to make things much more clear.

2

Dr. 0h has excellent communication skills and does a great job with this class. He is very knowledgeable about the subject and is very helpful in learning the material.

3

Extremely knowledgeable, both in theory and practical applications. One of the best, if not the best professor at this department!

4

Always prepared for a nicely outlined course, yet also able to answer questions on topics not necessarily addressed during that night's session. Dr Oh was able to make somewhat complicated topics relatively easy to understand, often with concrete examples.

5

+ Very knowledgeable, willing to topics related to course material - Office hours did not improve professor availability

6

enthusiasm was good and relating subject matter to real world situations. Communications of what is expected of class on week to week basis.

7

strengths Prepared - knowledgable - organized Weaknesses talks down to students too much inconsistant grading

8

a nice guy who knows a lot. Strengths: smart, realistic, fair, intelligent, experienced, leader, innovative Weaknesses: myopic, a tad over-opinionated

9

The instructor was very helpful. He responded to e-mails regarding technical questions immediately.

 

General Comments / Suggestions
1

This course is great as it is. However, I think it probably should include more digital control theory.

2

I would recommend a good C textbook for the 8255 chip. I am sure it would be helpfull to those students who are interested in persuing this beyond the requirements of the class.

3

The length of the midterm exam was a bit much for the time slot given.

4

Stock up on materials before start of class even if it means costing students a few cents more.

5

some type of refernce e.g. book, more grading placed on lab since lab is over 70 percent of the class. Actal lab assignments are only 10 points of a weekly homework assignment, these need more weight in overal grade.

6

More class time instruction. We had only about 3 total hours of lecture for the whole term.

7

hhhmmm, can't think of any.

8

I think sometimes too much time was spent on lab work during class. I prefer to make the lab part homework and use class time for lectures.