Survey IDCOMP9242S203
TitleCOMP9242 Course Evaluation
Description Course Evaluation Survey for COMP9242 Advanced Operating Systems. Version for Session 2, 2003.
Survey type: Anonymous
Fill Ratio80% (12/15)
Filled12
Suspended0
Not Filled3
(required) indicates required field
Your comments will help us to assess and improve our courses, not only for future generations, but for your further study in CS&E. We really look at the results and appreciate your feedback!


Note: Please do not enter "no comment" or somthing similar into comment boxes. If you don't have anything to say, just leave the box empty.
1. Quick Evaluation
1. Give a high rating if you have a good opinion of something (e.g. interesting, useful, well-structured, etc.). Give a low rating if you have a bad opinion of something (e.g. too slow, confusing, disorganised, etc.)  (required)
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button
  Excellent Satisfactory Poor
Gernot Heiser 6 (50%) 5 (41.7%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Kevin Elphinstone 6 (50%) 5 (41.7%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Peter Chubb 3 (25%) 6 (50%) 3 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Student lectures 3 (25%) 5 (41.7%) 3 (25%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
Course web pages 4 (33.3%) 4 (33.3%) 3 (25%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
Exam 2 (16.7%) 5 (41.7%) 5 (41.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Reference material 1 (8.3%) 7 (58.3%) 4 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Computing resources 4 (33.3%) 6 (50%) 1 (8.3%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
COMP9242 overall 5 (41.7%) 5 (41.7%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
2. General
2. Which factors most influenced your decision to enrol in this course?  (required)
Question type : Multiple answer -- Check Box
Interest in operating systems as an area of study 12 (100%)
Chance to build a system 7 (58.3%)
Chance to get fingers really dirty 5 (41.7%)
Would like to do some systems research 5 (41.7%)
Looking for a challenge 6 (50%)
Looking for an easy course 0 (0%)
Friends told me it was good 1 (8.3%)
3. Other factors not mentioned above?
Click here to view all Comments (3 comments)
4. Would you recommend this course to another student such as yourself?  (required)
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button
Yes 10 (83.3%)
No 2 (16.7%)
5. The course is heavy on design and implementation issues. It also tries to reamain close to present research issues. What do you think about this?  (required)
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button
  Too
much		 Just
right		 Too
little
Theory/general principles 0 (0%) 3 (25%) 5 (41.7%) 4 (33.3%) 0 (0%)
OS design and implementation 0 (0%) 4 (33.3%) 5 (41.7%) 2 (16.7%) 1 (8.3%)
Current research issues 0 (0%) 2 (16.7%) 7 (58.3%) 3 (25%) 0 (0%)
6. What were the best things about this course?
Click here to view all Comments (11 comments)
7. What were the worst things about this course?
Click here to view all Comments (9 comments)
8. How does the workload in this course compare to workloads in other ...  (required)
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button
  Much
Lighter		 Similar Much
Heavier
COMP courses at this level 0 (0%) 1 (8.3%) 1 (8.3%) 4 (33.3%) 6 (50%)
COMP courses in general 0 (0%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%) 2 (16.7%) 9 (75%)
Courses in general 0 (0%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%) 2 (16.7%) 9 (75%)
9. How does the overall quality/value of this course compare to other ...  (required)
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button
  Among
the best		 Average Among
the worst
COMP courses at this level 7 (58.3%) 3 (25%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
COMP courses in general 8 (66.7%) 3 (25%) 0 (0%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
courses in general 7 (58.3%) 4 (33.3%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
10. What background knowledge do you think you were missing that would have helped you in this course? Is credit in COMP3231/9201 and a co-requisite of Computer Architecture a suitable preparation?
Click here to view all Comments (9 comments)
3. Content/Syllabus
11. Please rate the relevance/appropriateness of the lecture topics.  (required)
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button
  Very
relevant		 Average Inappropriate
L4 general and L4 API 5 (41.7%) 7 (58.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Microkernels in general 7 (58.3%) 3 (25%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Microkernel performance 6 (50%) 4 (33.3%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Microkernel/L4 implementation 5 (41.7%) 5 (41.7%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Caching & TLBs 7 (58.3%) 4 (33.3%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Protection & capabilities 6 (50%) 4 (33.3%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
SMP issues 4 (33.3%) 4 (33.3%) 4 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Kernel memory management 7 (58.3%) 3 (25%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Virtual memory 8 (66.7%) 4 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
SASOS & Mungi 2 (16.7%) 5 (41.7%) 5 (41.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Present research activities of UNSW OS group 4 (33.3%) 4 (33.3%) 4 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
NICTA overview 1 (8.3%) 1 (8.3%) 9 (75%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
12. Please tell us how interesting you found the lecture topics.  (required)
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button
  Very
interesting		 Ok Boooooring!
L4 general and L4 API 3 (25%) 2 (16.7%) 5 (41.7%) 1 (8.3%) 1 (8.3%)
Microkernels in general 4 (33.3%) 5 (41.7%) 2 (16.7%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
Microkernel performance 6 (50%) 2 (16.7%) 4 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Microkernel/L4 implementation 4 (33.3%) 5 (41.7%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%) 1 (8.3%)
Caching & TLBs 6 (50%) 2 (16.7%) 4 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Protection & capabilities 4 (33.3%) 3 (25%) 4 (33.3%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
SMP issues 1 (8.3%) 6 (50%) 4 (33.3%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
Kernel memory management 3 (25%) 3 (25%) 6 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Virtual memory 4 (33.3%) 3 (25%) 4 (33.3%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
SASOS & Mungi 5 (41.7%) 4 (33.3%) 2 (16.7%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
Present research activities of UNSW OS group 5 (41.7%) 2 (16.7%) 4 (33.3%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
NICTA overview 1 (8.3%) 4 (33.3%) 6 (50%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
13. Which material do you think will be most useful to you in the future?  (required)
Click here to view all Comments (12 comments)
14. Which material, not currently in this course, would you liked to have seen covered?
Click here to view all Comments (6 comments)
15. Which of the current topics would you like to see scaled back or excluded?
Click here to view all Comments (4 comments)
4. Lectures
16. What factors caused you to attend lectures?  (required)
Question type : Multiple answer -- Check Box
I had enough spare time 3 (25%)
The lectures were too good to miss 7 (58.3%)
Given the pace and lack of a textbook, I could not afford to miss the lectures 9 (75%)
It was as good a place as any to take a nap 0 (0%)
I wanted to be seen to be there 2 (16.7%)
None, I skipped most 0 (0%)
17. What were the reasons for skipping lectures?  (required)
Question type : Multiple answer -- Check Box
Overall workload in this and other courses 7 (58.3%)
Lecture notes and references cover the material adequately 1 (8.3%)
Lectures are boring 0 (0%)
There was not enough material to justify attending lectures 0 (0%)
First half of the course was more interesting than second half 0 (0%)
None, I attended (almost) all 9 (75%)
18. Any suggestions for improving lectures?
Click here to view all Comments (6 comments)
5. Project
19. What was the level of difficulty various parts of the project?  (required)
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button
  Too easy Just right Too hard
Milestone 0 2 (16.7%) 3 (25%) 7 (58.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 1 1 (8.3%) 3 (25%) 8 (66.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 2 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%) 10 (83.3%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 3 1 (8.3%) 1 (8.3%) 10 (83.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 4 1 (8.3%) 1 (8.3%) 9 (75%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 5 0 (0%) 1 (8.3%) 8 (66.7%) 3 (25%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 6 0 (0%) 1 (8.3%) 4 (33.3%) 7 (58.3%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 7 0 (0%) 1 (8.3%) 9 (75%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 8 0 (0%) 2 (16.7%) 7 (58.3%) 3 (25%) 0 (0%)
System documentation 0 (0%) 2 (16.7%) 9 (75%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
Project overall 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (66.7%) 4 (33.3%) 0 (0%)
20. How well was the project specified?  (required)
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button
  Very clear Ok Confusing
Milestone 0 5 (41.7%) 1 (8.3%) 5 (41.7%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 1 4 (33.3%) 2 (16.7%) 6 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 2 3 (25%) 1 (8.3%) 6 (50%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 3 2 (16.7%) 4 (33.3%) 5 (41.7%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 4 1 (8.3%) 3 (25%) 7 (58.3%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 5 1 (8.3%) 3 (25%) 6 (50%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 6 1 (8.3%) 2 (16.7%) 7 (58.3%) 1 (8.3%) 1 (8.3%)
Milestone 7 1 (8.3%) 2 (16.7%) 7 (58.3%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%)
Milestone 8 1 (8.3%) 2 (16.7%) 6 (50%) 2 (16.7%) 1 (8.3%)
System documentation 1 (8.3%) 3 (25%) 4 (33.3%) 3 (25%) 1 (8.3%)
Project overall 1 (8.3%) 4 (33.3%) 6 (50%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
21. What was the quality of...  (required)
Question type : Single answer -- Radio Button
  Excellent Ok Poor
Documentation/reference material 1 (8.3%) 2 (16.7%) 8 (66.7%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
Supplied code 0 (0%) 4 (33.3%) 6 (50%) 1 (8.3%) 1 (8.3%)
Help/support 4 (33.3%) 4 (33.3%) 2 (16.7%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%)
Hardware platform 2 (16.7%) 2 (16.7%) 6 (50%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0%)
Simulator 0 (0%) 3 (25%) 8 (66.7%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)
22. Any suggestions for improving the project?
Click here to view all Comments (10 comments)
6. Anything Else
23. Any other comments/suggestions that might help us to improve the course in the future?
Click here to view all Comments (5 comments)