Design  | SFC  |  NOS  |  Code |  Diary  | WWW |  Essay |  Cisco | [Old]

 

 
General

Teachers 
Module Org 
Exam 
Mod. Reg. 
Mod. Quest.

Material

Notes
Presentations
Tutorials
Worksheets
Challenges
Tests

Coursework
Quizzes

Pub challenge
OSI test
Bits/frames
Hangman
Subetting
IQ Test

Others

WWW page changes
Email support
RSA program
Active Directories

News

What's in the news?
[Networking]
[WWW servers]
[Servers]

2000/2001 archive

Coursework marks
Coursework feedback
Coursework specifications
Exam marks
Exam paper
Exam details
Exam answers
Exam FAQs
Questionaire results

NOS Questionaire Results 2000/2001

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.
20. Introduction
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.
21. Intro to OS's
4.1
0
0
6
9
4
Not a bad result for an introduction to OS's.
22. Processes and Scheduling
3.9
0
1
6
9
4
Bit of a spread here, but still a good rating.
23. Distributed Processing
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.
24. Distributed File Systems
4.2
0
0
3
10
7
... and again. This is a key area in the understanding of network operating systems.
25. Routing Protocols
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]