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 Winter 2001-2002 Course Evaluation Results


 MEM-640  501  Real Time Microcomp Ctrl II  Oh, Paul

 Responded
13

 Not Responded
2

 Response Rate
87%
 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

3.9

1.2
The instructor was well prepared for the lectures

4.3

0.8
The course had a multi-disciplinary perspective

4.1

1.0
The instructor's communication skills were good

4.3

0.7
Computer technologies were used to enhance my learning

4.7

0.7
The instructor's attitude toward the students was positive and helpful

3.6

1.3
The course objectives and requirements were clearly communicated

4.4

0.8
The instructor provided timely feedback on student performance

3.9

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

4.2

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

4.0

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)

3.2

0.8
What grade do you expect to get from this class?

4.6

0.7

 

Course Comments
1

Strength: the fact that we used some codes like C and Matlab... it uis useful also for our research

2

This course provided us with the necessary review of control theory and introduced new topics in C programming, hardware, computer architecture, system performance analysis, and an introduction to digital controls.

3

Key strength: hands-on learning. Key weakness: too much emphasis on material that was introduced in previous controls classes.

4

strengths: real world applications. weaknesses: electronics were either missing, broken, or tampered with. I spent a lot of time on the labs just try to get started--that is, finding the proper hardware and getting it in working condition. waste of time.

5

Strength: a good mix of theory and practical experience Weakness: need more equipment that actually work (PC's, DC motors, Oscilloscope ....)!

6

More theory was good. Class time was used better.

7

Not enough equipment for experiments ,lanb sessions

8

This course provides a good balance between theoretical and experimental methods - which I believe is essential in learning the material. Every other class in control I've taken has only concerned the theoretical aspect, which did not prepare me at all for actually implementing a control system. This class exposed the fact that I really didn't understand the fundamentals of control at all despite receiving an A in an undergraduate controls class. I feel I have a much better understanding of the fundamentals now, though I'm completely comfortable with the material. This class has illustrated the point that the only way to really learn the material is to put it into practice. The biggest weakness of this class by far is the resources on the experimental side. By the end of the term I believe there was two functional DC motors and only 3 computers. This put a huge constraint on the availability of the resources, w! hich is unacceptable for the amount of time this class requires. This class was very good, but very time consuming. Since we're all very busy - having to compete for time with the motor/computer/scope etc. is a major problem.

 

Instructor Comments
1

The instrctor is really concerned about the course, thus he is always trying to make things more interesting, approchable and he always asks for feedback. I have just a suggestion for him: it is better to not teach something that he doesn't really like or that he thinks is boring... instead of teaching it without any passion (as he usually does) and like a punishment (just because the students required it).

2

Dr Oh took comments form last semester and adapted out course structure accordingly. We saw more theory and spent less time in lab. We also were able to discuss some topics selected by students, such as digital control and kahlman filters. My only objection was the time he provided students outside of class. This course was more complex than the previous and since lab work was all completed outside of class time, I often needed help, but couldn't make it to office hours.

3

strengths: Good lectures. weaknesses: He doesn't like spending his time with students outside of office hours and has a poignant attitude toward you if you speak with him outside those prescribed hours. His methods of working with people one-on-one is horrible---I literally abhored having to ask him questions....I found myself asking other student or other grad students for help.

4

Knows the subject very well; has a very well rounded background in controls theory, math, programming, computer hardware and practical experience, which makes him a perfect choice to teach this course! Need to spend more time with students, especially on the final project!

5

Well prepared, easy to understand. Not available outside of class hours.

6

Paul is very knowledgeable and effectively communicates the subject matter of the course.

 

General Comments / Suggestions
1

I was surprised about this course, because it was completely different from the one taken the last term. It required a large ammount of work in the Undergraduate lab. And also the homework required a lot of work in order to understand the material. I must say that I like it (because it was challenging). My suggestion is to keep teaching the theory (as it has been done this term), but instead of focusing on the application of a method (like Root Locus), it would be nice to know the theory behind it. Examples are good, but I would cut off completely all teh calculations, just give the beginning and the end of a derivation... we will figure out all the intermediate steps.

2

The course was packed with various assignments, projects, and lab experiments. I would enjoy a third course in this sequence which could possibly take a topic or two from this course and continue more in detail with digital controls.

3

Allow for more avenue for self-discovery on class project. Less time on controls review material, more time on advanced digital controls, even though review of fundamentals is always helpful.

4

Send Dr. Oh to courses that teach one how to work with and treat others. He is in dire need of an undergraduate Organization Behavior course.

5

Have some up to date equipment that actually works. For the whole class there were approximatelly 2 computers to use, one wave form generator, and one scope.

6

Responding to student's emails and calls with questions.

7

Better resources for the experiments.