In order to enhance the NOS module, an on-line questionaire
was undertaken. The results of this have been published here.
It was compiled on 2 March 2001, and updated on 6 March 2001.
Responses = 20
|
Av.
|
Poor
|
Fair
|
Good
|
VGood
|
Exel
|
Comments
|
1. Overall assessment of the
module?
|
3.8
|
0
|
0
|
8
|
9
|
3
|
This is the first year that the module has run so, for
all the students who responded, to rate it as good and
better is very satisfying.
|
2. How would you rate the quality
of the teaching pack?
|
4.3
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
9
|
9
|
Nice to see that nearly all the students rated the teaching
package as either very good or excellent. Next year it
will be even better (hopefully!).
|
3. How would you rate the organisation
of the module?
|
3.7
|
0
|
1
|
9
|
7
|
4
|
The module started with five students, and every week
it increased with more students. Thus it was very difficult
to make any sort of plans, as we were continutally moving
lecture halls, and labs. The final total has ended up
at over 60. So this result is to be expected. Next year
everything will be well planned, in advance.
|
4. How would you rate the quality
of the lectures?
|
4.2
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
6
|
10
|
This is very satisfying, but the excellent environment
in the lecture hall helped a lot. I really think that
a projection unit, and Internet connection should be a
stardard item for computing lectures.
|
5. How would you rate the knowledge
of the lecturer?
|
4.8
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
17
|
Nice to see. I've spend a long time reseaching this
area, so hopefully it is reflected in my experience of
the subject.
|
6. How would you rate the help
you received from the lecturer?
|
4.3
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
11
|
9
|
Another nice one. With most of the majority of students
saying that the help they received was excellent. It was
obvoiusly difficult at time with so many students substribing
to the module, but the e-mail/WWW page really helped a
lot to keep everyone informed. So thanks again to the
WWW/Internet.
|
7. How relavent was the module
for your education in computing?
|
4.1
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
5
|
12
|
A bit of a spread, mainly due to the module being taken
by Computing (Hons), Networking/DSys (BSc) and Multimedia
students (Hons). Most Computing/DSys students reckon that
it is an important subject, but some multimedia students
reckon it is less so. I can understand this to a certain
extent, but as some who uses multimedia I know how important
an understanding of the delivery of the material is, and
its run environment.
|
8. How would you rate the interest
of the practical sessions?
|
3.3
|
1
|
3
|
6
|
8
|
2
|
As I have previously mentioned, it was difficult to
make any real plans for the practical sessions, as the
number of students taking the sessions increased by the
week.
|
9. How would you rate the information
that you received on the module (such as Module
Outline, and so on)?
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
11
|
5
|
This will be developed over the coming months, so that
all the information is ready for the next session.
|
10. How would you rate the
usage of e-mail and WWW
support?
|
4.5
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
7
|
12
|
As with CNDS it seems that this has been a great success.
|
11. How would you rate how
current the technology covered was?
|
3.8
|
0
|
1
|
7
|
7
|
5
|
Reasonable result. In academia we try to cover the principles
of the subject area. As much as possible I tried to make
the subject up-to-date. Also we can never really have
the best of technology, but hopefully the principles learnt
can be easily applied to new technologies. A major focus
in the next session is Windows 2000, and how it integrates
with other major operating systems.
|
12. How would you rate the
information that you received about the details of the
examination (such as exam
outline, and so on)?
|
4.1
|
0
|
1
|
4
|
8
|
8
|
Good result here, but there's a little bit of a spread.
I personally think that this really helped as it was the
first year that the subject had run, and compensated for
the lack of past papers. I was maybe a little bit late
in getting full range of subject areas on the WWW page.
I'll make sure that this does not happen next year.
|
13. How would you rate the
fairness of the exam
paper?
|
3.7
|
0
|
0
|
10
|
7
|
4
|
Again a reasonable result as it was the first year of
the module, as all of the respondents reckoned that the
paper was fair content.
|
14. How helpful was the FAQs
WWW page for the examination?
|
3.8
|
0
|
1
|
7
|
7
|
5
|
Good result.
|
15. How would you rate the
revision sessions that where held at the end of the module?
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
4
|
8
|
6
|
Next session there will be many more 'planned' revision
sessions. We did it for CNDS, and next year there will
be scheduled revision sessions.
|
16. How would you rate the
relavence of the assignment?
|
3.8
|
0
|
1
|
6
|
10
|
4
|
Not a bad result, considering that it was a difficult
assignment. I was intentionally wide ranging, with only
a global statement of aims.
|
17. How helpful was the FAQs
WWW page for the assignment?
|
3.5
|
0
|
1
|
11
|
6
|
3
|
The FAQs page for the assignment doesn't really seem
to be helped so much (as apposed to the FAQs for the exam,
which definately works).
|
18. How would you rate the
quality of the support in the practical session?
|
3.2
|
0
|
4
|
10
|
6
|
1
|
A bit of a spread here, but it's mainly due to having
so many students in a lab, and only me to help them.
|
19. How would you rate the
information that you received about your coursework
mark?
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
5
|
8
|
7
|
This is good to see. I really tried to give extensive
comments on the courseworks, and publish them. These comments
should hopefully help students to refine their report
writing style.
|
|
|
3.7
|
0
|
1
|
7
|
10
|
2
|
The introduction to a module is one of the most important
times, and should lay down the aims and objectives of
the module, while trying to stimulate interest in the
subject (without making it too simplistic). I think the
result here is good with over 70% rating it as either
very good or excellent.
|
|
|
4.1
|
0
|
0
|
6
|
9
|
4
|
Not a bad result for an introduction to OS's.
|
|
|
3.9
|
0
|
1
|
6
|
9
|
4
|
Bit of a spread here, but still a good rating.
|
|
|
4.1
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
13
|
4
|
The number of excellents are increasing here. This is
a sure sign there the module is becoming more focused
on the objectives of the module.
|
|
|
4.2
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
10
|
7
|
... and again. This is a key area in the understanding
of network operating systems.
|
|
|
4.3
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
9
|
9
|
This again is a key area, and the excellent's are nearly
equal to the the very good's. If I had had time it would
have been a good idea to have a practical on this area,
as no routing protocol equals no interconnected networks.
Also there would be no Internet without it.
|
26. NT, UNIX and Novell
|
4.4
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
7
|
10
|
This is the focus of the module, so it's good to see
it being rated to highly.
|
Design
| SFC | NOS
| Code | Diary
| WWW | Essay |
Cisco | [Old]
