________________________________________________________________________________ COE Fall 2002-2003 Course Evaluation Results ________________________________________________________________________________ MEM-639 501 Real Time Microcomp Ctrl I Oh, Paul Responded 10 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 4.7 0.7 The instructor was well prepared for the lectures 4.9 0.3 The course had a multi-disciplinary perspective 4.3 1.0 The instructor's communication skills were good 4.8 0.4 Computer technologies were used to enhance my learning 4.6 0.5 The instructor's attitude toward the students was positive and helpful 4.5 0.7 The course objectives and requirements were clearly communicated 4.9 0.3 The instructor provided timely feedback on student performance 4.6 0.5 What is your overall rating of the course? (5=outstanding, 3=average, 1=poor) 4.9 0.3 What is your overall rating of the instructor? (5=outstanding, 3=average, 1=poor) 4.7 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) 0.5 1.1 What grade do you expect to get from this class? 4.5 0.5 Course Comments 1 Strengths: Finally a course that integrated theory and real-world applications! The group project puts the whole course into perspective by combining all the work from the completed labs. 2 helps to learn a lot, great practical experience, good practice. weakness: too much of expectation, work is a bit over and hectic, take either the presentation of exams and midterm not both. 3 The work load even though it made us get a very good grasp on the subject matter and is necessary to understand the subject fully is a little too much. There is absolutely no need for a written final, a final project demo and report, 7 homeworks and a written midterm. either have a final project or a written final. have to devote time to other classes too. !! 4 The key strength is the application level and the hands on experience that it has provided us with. It wasn't just another core course that we were required to take. The course has no perceived weakness and it should be known by all graduate students. 5 Use knowledge from several areas (C programming, PC hardware, electronics, power electronics, control) and put them together. Has a practical part which makes the class very challenging. 6 The key strength of this course is that it involves a lot of hands-on activities which help tremendously in understanding the material. I also didn't see any significant weaknesses in the course itself. 7 End goal somewhat fuzzy throughout the course, in regards to the labs. An outline of what each lab means to the final project given at the beginning of the course would be helpful. Instructor Comments 1 Strengths: Instructor communicates the subject matter very efficiently and has a unique way of explaining convoluted material to students who do not understand by using the grandmother explanation. It helped me visualize and retain a lot of complex material. 2 good communication skills understands the student 3 good communication skills. well prepared. multi-disciplanary outlook on the subject. expects us to know a lot is a weakness. doesnt realize how poor our undergrad controls curriculum is. Is not aware of the fact that Drexel undergrad controls is not up to par with the engineering college controls courses around the US. change undergrad controls instructors and we will get a lot more out of this course. being a BS MS student i have probably taken more classes than a lot of students in the engineering department. i have a good understanding of where we lack and where we excel. our undergrad controls NEEDS TO BE STRONGER TO BENEFIT FROM THIS COURSE. 4 Dr Paul is extremely well experienced and has communicated well within the 10 weeks that he has taught us. The course objectives were well explained and was well planned throughout the entire 10 weeks. 5 Very good communication skills Very well prepared Try to combine knowledge from several different areas 6 The instructor was very knowledgeable about the course content and taught it in a very easy to understand way. I didn't see any big weaknesses with the instructor for this course. 7 Well prepared, good communication. Pedagogy different from most professors in a positive way. General Comments / Suggestions 1 None. 2 make it easier with just a final exam and a project and homeworks. 3 above 4 Teaching this class should be very hard. Besides, the time budget may differ from one year to another. Still I think that it would be better if there were more control stuff. 5 none 6 See above.