Meta Eval Smart Class Room

Student Reviews

Reena Rajan:

Activity diagram for whole classroom system:
Getting important alerts may be distracting if the number of alerts are too high.

Use Case Diagram
Sensor’s to enhance audio levels – how is it exactly working. How can sensors dynamicall coordinate with other sensors to dynamically change volume.
How is creating a virtual professor and simulation board working? This was not clear in the video.
With regard to the specifics of the system, the document is clearer when compared to the video.
Video gives us in a compact format, the overall idea of the system and I was able to identify only a few of the specifics.
With the data generated available only when the student is in smart classroom or can he/she login to the system even without a biometric login.

Sri Harsha Kusuma

  1. The movie covers all the things discussed in the paper. So watching the movie is equivalent to reading the documentation supporting the system.
  2. I think the movie shows all the features and functionalities of the “smart classroom” system and the movie makes any viewer understand totally about the system.
  3. When some features or functions of a system are shown visually, then there would be a less chance for the viewer to misinterpret it. Also the video can better hold our attention.
  4. Mistakes: The video doesn’t list all the objectives of the system, it doesn’t discuss about the related work as it is described in the paper. The video is kept only to describe about the system.

Debargh Acharya

  1. The GPS technology doesn’t work inside the building and here the environment considered is inside classroom. So GPS will not work here. Instead emphasis must be done to schemes regarding internal localization.
  2. As shown here the techniques used being the same as mentioned in the paper like biometric access, smartboards, digital think machine, etc.
  3. The work shows more elaborate working of student professor in the classroom and it becomes clearer with the help of use case diagram of activities done by student and professor.
  4. The architecture diagram shown here is more generalized as compared to what I have given, it shows us more information between the user and the outside world.

Gayathri Devi Bojja

  1. The video has been completely successful in providing all the information regarding the features and is also able to explain the technologies being used except few.
  2. The feature which I was not able to understand properly is smart boards. The video just explains the use of the smart boards.
  3. The reason why I did not have clarity in understanding regarding the smart boards was because the video was not able to explain the technologies being used to implement it.
  4. The mistakes I found in my paper is in terms of architectural diagram. The diagram I drew was more specific just showing the flow of events instead of generalizing the system

Chiranjeevi Ashok Puvulla

  1. The concept of software evaluation through videos is very much interesting. I understood the functionality of the system without actually the requirements and the context.
  2. I really misunderstood the context part of the evaluation. I thought it was related to the task that is done by the system whether it can be interrupted and later can the task be continued from the state it was interrupted. I concentrated more on this part rather than thinking about the development of software as a whole.
  3. It might be due to the lack of time that I misunderstood some part of the system. It was actually my fault for this misunderstanding. I must have concentrated more on the technical aspects rather than the detailing of the software.
  4. The documentation is perfect as far as I am concerned. But the concept of GPS is really difficult to implement, should have more description about the working of the GPS.

Harideep Reddy Jonnalagadda

  1. My analysis of the video was a little wrong. I could not frame out the exact architectural diagram, but was successful in recognizing some of its components.
  2. The complex issues are raised for future work. Like the mining techniques, indexing are all the issues that came into play on a detailed look at the system. Overall the project is 85% accurate.
  3. The video mainly could not explain the feature of speech recognition. Voice detection and its analysis is only mentioned in the theory part but it failed to picturise in the video. Even in the future work it was not mentioned.
  4. The theory is complete in all aspects while the video shows only the main aspects.

Lattupalli Nikhil Reddy

  1. Architecture Diagram: I did not mention any interface, presented all the interfaces in the system, the database is similar but I didn’t include the www, the security which I have replaced by a server; you can see in my diagram that the interfaces are included with the system interfacing with the hardware. I didn’t include the services as I dint know them. So I can say 50% of my architecture diagram was correct.
  2. The hardware requirements are pretty much the same. About 60% match.
  3. The features I have presented are not adequate as I ran over the basic features. About 20%
  4. Bugs in the report:

Architectural Diagram: It was absolutely in terms of showing all the basic functionalities, but are the services required to be shown? Server needs to be shown as a whole unit.

Bhargav Sandeep Ramayanam

  1. I understood the video very well and it was very clear too.
  2. I had not enough idea about architectural diagram. So, I didn’t answer that question correctly. This is the only problem that I faced. Including this, the second question is not that much clear.
  3. I had understood the video very well but had not drawn the diagrams correctly. I left the minor information too.
  4. There are no mistakes in the video.


  1. The video could explain almost all the details of the report. I put in 90% of the features the report gives. I missed scheduler/organizer and auto focus capability of camera. Auto focus capability was not discussed in the video.
  2. The part that the scheduler/organizer uses efficient indexing was not discussed.
  3. In my architectural diagram, I forgot to involve the communication and security issues. The diagram given by me would be better.
  4. Regarding, the video making, when I compare what I understood to the use cases, I understood the flow very clearly. It was very effective in terms of giving us details about the flow, action and events.
  5. Regarding mistakes, the activity diagram for whole classroom system has a mistake. The activity professor evaluates the test has been forgotten to give a link.
  6. Regarding the whole video, they could have implemented a feature regarding how online students who takes courses from outside the college are benefitted from this smart classroom.


  1. Mistakes: it is given that the sensors detect RFID tags of students and professors coming to class and provides access to them. What are the RFID tags is not specified in the video in the report.
  2. Effectiveness of the video: Most part presented in the report could be understood by watching the video and the video is effective in showing the result of the project.

Rokkam Vijay Kumar

  1. The features that are described in the movie are almost covered, but I missed some minor details like rotation of e-pad and auto focus capability. I think the above features are not covered in the movie.
  2. Regarding the architectural diagram, I do not have any idea regarding it. So I tried to figure out my own way of creating it by dividing it into DMZ zones of professor and student and try to connect them according to the actions they performed.
  3. After reading the roles, I may assess that I captured only 80% of movie and 2% of information is not at all read from the movie.

Anusha Vallarupalli

  1. By comparing my evaluation from the video with the documentation, I noticed that almost 80% of my opinion matched and the opinions slightly different only in the case of architecture diagram.
  2. After observing the Architecture diagram, in the documentation, and comparing it with mine, I feel that I did not have much insight in outlining the technical details in the diagram. Rather I concentrated much on the action taking place and the interaction between the roles and their participation whereas the diagram in the documentation gave a clear perspective of the technical details, roles and components participating in the system.
  3. In the documentation in terms of technical details, the objective like extendibility and compatibility are mentioned. I did not understand where those features are applied or elaborated.

Ramya Devabhaktuni

  1. The system helps the student to view class schedules, review the class etc. But the system, doesn’t provide any capability to answer the doubts raised by students. Thus the system should be further developed so that the students can post their doubts to the professor can answer to his doubts.
  2. The activity diagram is not correct in all aspects.
  3. I have not drawn the architecture diagram in this paper. I have no proper idea of how to draw the diagram.

Rajinikanth Beesabathini

  1. I am satisfied with my requirement analysis after seeing the report. But mine needs a little more explanation. Coming to features, even though I figured out some features, didn’t draw the full use case diagram. Because, I thought that just mentioning the actors and events is enough as in the question it just had: describe in terms of object, event, actors, but not diagrams.
  2. In architecture diagram, I would have to draw and enlarge my diagram. My view layers matched with the report
    1. Authentication layer with security
    2. Communication layer with communication
    3. Network layer which I was supposed to expand to deep like context aware services, profile services, notification services for which I gave only textual comments.
  3. Finally, I understand the whole concept for which I wrote the detailed text but missed the diagrams as I was not aware that I should draw them.

Manasa Chennamaneni

  1. This project is very successful in almost every point of view, but it is difficult to identify the keywords it requires knowledge mining techniques which is difficult to implement.
  2. In the E-Pad technology it depends on our writing it requires some pre-required testing and familiarity with the actual users.
  3. The data generated by the keywords should be relevant otherwise it may lead to other track. It may deviate the lecture and converting of languages is a very difficult step to implement.

Muppala Durga Maheswari

  1. The E-pad technology is currently under research and they are using this technology.
  2. The activity diagram is not clear for whole classroom system.
  3. The technology Smart CCTV and autofocus capability in requirements I did not mention.
  4. I don’t have proper idea to draw architecture diagram.

Sri Harsha Jasti

  1. Its about 65%
  2. I almost covered requirements part. But I am unable to capture the features.
  3. I did not get the architecture diagram. Because I am unable to draw the architecture diagram by watching the video.
  4. Mistakes: I overlooked some of the features.

Karunapriya Rameshwaram

  1. The video does not explain clearly about few features like how the cameras ca#pture the expression on the faces of students and that they can be interpreted to find their levels of understanding in the lecture.
  2. Regarding identification of keywords from the lecture, even this part isn’t presented clearly.
  3. How does the DTM scan the face of the student before comparing it with already stored image?

Shailaja Veeramanchineni

  1. I could understand the main concept of the movie. But I am unable to figure out how the touch sensitive desk works. The features like scheduler/organizer and emailing the .pdf file of the lecture were not shown in the movie. The documentation is excellently provided, but the movie captured is not as clear as mentioned in the documentation.
  2. My rating 50%

Sharat Chandra Dammadapu

  1. I understood 90% of the video. But when the professor teaches a lecture, how the lecture is podcasted? If there is any problem with pronunciation, how can it be gotten rid of?
  2. Each lecture has to be pronounced loud and clear. How can it be managed?
  3. Mistakes: Video Architecture diagram at the end of the video would have been better.

BK Prashant Pelluri

  1. On reading the document, I got more idea than before. Though the video explained requirements clearly, it was not able to explain some technical aspects on reading and watching the video I am able to understand requirements, but I have much more queries regarding technologies used and the way they will be integrated.
  2. About Architectural diagram, I have less knowledge about architectural diagram. On seeing the document, I got some idea of how to draw architectural diagram.

Sunil Kakaraparthi

  1. When I compare the video with the documentation part, more than 80% of the technology is being understood. But I missed the point of the language converter which I have mentioned in the improvements part of the evaluation.
  2. The video does not present the point of focusing the student if the student raises a doubt. The video also does not present the scheduler/organizer concept. It will be worth if this point is created in the video.
  3. I included the evaluation to evaluate the doubts through the DTM as an included ption. I mean the additional node which will provide better interaction between student and the professor.

Sunil Kumar Garrepally

  1. I understood from the video previously about 70% of the system. The internal processes of the system are explained in this report like capturing the expressions of the student through cameras which was in my suggestions as students doubts must be recognized by the professor using his expressions.
  2. Already present in the system, the presence of students is found using biometric technology is much more secure. But, in report, for future work, it was mentioned to use GPS. But there is no need of GPS if biometric login feature is there.
  3. I mentioned in my suggestion, to use kernel programming to allow new hardware platform to change their modules. If this is included it would be good.
  4. Previously I dint observe scheduler from the video which is clearly explained in report.

Yogendra Siva Ram Boppana

  1. Improvements that can be made in the software
  2. The conversion of lecture into customized language while the class is going is a bit hectic thing. There is a buffering time while converting the language, in this case, the audio in the headphones and the professor’s action do not synchronize. This raises confusion for the students. Some more stress should be given to this point.
  3. The use of GPS to know the presence of the student is not necessary. If the user comes to class the DTM can count him and gives his/her attendance.

Nihilesh Katakam

  1. On comparing the features presented in the document with my features, I feel that, I have covered upto 95% of the features. There were about a few features such as Smart CCTV and Autofocus which was not shown in the video.
  2. The video does not show a few features like Smart CCTV, Autofocus, How expression recognition cameras capture the student facial features and understand their levels of understanding?
  3. As explained in the document, this system has features that help save time, effort and hardwork by simplifying things and helping students to learn in a much better way.

Swarna Srujan Kumar

  1. I am clear about the facilities provided by this project and the hardware components that will be used in this project. But when it came to software requirements, I am not that much clear. In this video, the features provided by smart classroom are clear. I understood that there are technologies. In all fields we are suing these technologies for learning process in a good way. I am not that much correct in the architecture diagram. I have an idea of all the components but, I am confused how to draw it.
  2. In my view, language converter is somewhat not convincing. If a student is used to learn all subjects in one language, it is difficult to come over outside learning process.
  3. There are some technical mistakes in my paper due to lack of experience. But I am clear that what the project is about.

Sandeep Kumar Yarala Padmarao

  1. My understanding of the system was fair enough but I did not express my understanding well. I should have explained clearly by using “more diagrammatic way”. I gave an overall opinion about the software. I lack the knowledge of architectural diagram. I did not have an idea about writing software evaluation. This is my first time so lack of knowledgeabout software evaluation report writing was the main problem.

Srikanth Voruganti

  1. The architectural diagram is closely matched. I did not go into it more deeply.
  2. Will the lectures be going on in the same room where the student is entering?. The video did not respond to it that well.
  3. The smart classroom technique is quite good. The interaction levels are not very excellent. If the lecture is not going on in the same room, then the interaction levels must be maintaining through some video techniques like live video conferencing.
  4. The videos are the best to understand the use cases.
  5. The videos are through research prototypes of the problems faced in daily life. It means in real time problem can be easily understood using this technique.
  6. Architecturally, the system can be better generated i.e. if we could integrate the two or more DTM’s it will be more useful.
  7. I think I covered more than 40 % of total and infact the paper only explained more about the technologies and scenarios rather than letting us know the internal scope of project.

Satya Saradhi Bokka

  1. He had mixed high configured PC and DTM at a single unit and written all the function available in that unit. But I could understand the point why they much concentrated on security. Because for every system it is a common thing and which was a minimum requirement.
  2. Though it seems like more useful, in my point of view, it doesn’t make much difference than our blackboard and classroom system. Because all the students will go to the specific classroom, but here he can go to the computer lab for this purpose.
  3. What does it make much difference between typing on a keyboard and writing on a e-notebook with pen. But they had been highlighting it as an excellent feature.
  4. What extra security does it provide compared to our daily system there we protect with passwords and here they are using fingerprints & IRIS scanner. So it’s just waste of money and resources.
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License