Aktuella utvärderingar

Visa resultat

Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.

Artificial intelligience, Lp4 Vt09, TIN171/DIT410

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-05-18 - 2009-06-03
Antal svar: 23
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 7%
Kontaktperson: Åsa Lundgren»

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

23 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»3 13%
Around 20 hours/week»11 47%
Around 25 hours/week»6 26%
Around 30 hours/week»2 8%
At least 35 hours/week»1 4%

Genomsnitt: 2.43

2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

23 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»1 4%
50%»5 21%
75%»10 43%
100%»7 30%

Genomsnitt: 4

- I found the lessons moved too slowly over the slides and skimmed completely over any practical details. The supervision meetings became about the lecturers telling us they wouldn"t even read the code.» (50%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

23 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»2 8%
The goals are difficult to understand»7 30%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»8 34%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»6 26%

Genomsnitt: 2.78

- I think there should be a clearer view of the course when the course begins. Not like now, when things are decided after the course start.» (The goals are difficult to understand)

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

20 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»15 75%
No, the goals are set too high»5 25%

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- I think that the goals are too broad.» (No, the goals are set too high)

5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

22 svarande

No, not at all»2 9%
To some extent»8 36%
Yes, definitely»2 9%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»10 45%

Genomsnitt: 2.9

- I think the project"s objective should be more advanced. I did, based on the proposition by the teacher, didn"t make feel like I even needed to learn anything about AI to make it.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

23 svarande

Small extent»12 52%
Some extent»6 26%
Large extent»5 21%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.69

- Hmm. some lectures was repetition of other courses like: machine learning, programming languages and logic in computer science» (Small extent)
- Basically had to learn the course independently. The teaching actually impeded in some cases with false leads.» (Small extent)
- The courses were too superficial, they didn"t bring any important knowledge. That"s because for each field of AI, there was only one course to present it. I don"t have the feeling that I have learn much during the course.» (Small extent)
- There should be more lectures. Six is not enough for the huge topic that AI is. If you don"t want to have an examination of everything that you say on the lectures, you could have seminars where people tell us how they use some AI-technique in their work/research. I know there are plenty of people working with this that would be willing to have a seminar. Look outside your department.» (Some extent)

7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

23 svarande

Small extent»5 21%
Some extent»8 34%
Large extent»8 34%
Great extent»2 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.3

- Used the machine learning course" course litterature instead (i did ML project)» (Some extent)
- The text book was very helpful.» (Large extent)
- The book is good, but once again I find it a bit too generalistic.» (Large extent)

8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

23 svarande

Very badly»6 26%
Rather badly»4 17%
Rather well»11 47%
Very well»2 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.39

- The homepage is quite messy. The schedual doesn"t contain all the info you expect it to contain. You have to check the news items, which happen to be a page containing a lot of text. You guys you use the schedual when you got one. » (Very badly)
- The homepage is a joke, and the same goes for the course administration.» (Very badly)
- The webpage was massively under utilised, bookings had to be made on a sheet of paper stuck to the wall in a corridor - communication was often word of mouth for me.» (Very badly)
- Massive amounts of News with important dates and deadlines added just some days before the deadlines.» (Very badly)
- It took two weeks before groups were formed for many groups and the staff claimed to have lost the group lists. I mean, the course is only 7-8 weeks long. This has to be accomplished in less than a week. Use the fire system ffs, it"s perfect for this and people know it already. Scrap the google groups.» (Very badly) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- Hmm everything is written in the new link but it is to much and little hard to look for what is needed. better grouping in topics may be better» (Rather badly)
- The web page is good, and there were no handouts that I recall. But the administration should be better! Have the course planned from the start, and don"t make up things to do during the course.» (Rather badly)
- The news was messy» (Rather badly)

Study climate

9. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

23 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»2 8%
Rather good»10 43%
Very good»7 30%
I did not seek help»4 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.56

- I found the supervisor meetings unhelpful - overly vague so not very good for practical details.» (Rather poor)
- The supervision was good.» (Rather good)

10. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

23 svarande

Very poorly»2 8%
Rather poorly»5 21%
Rather well»6 26%
Very well»9 39%
I did not seek cooperation»1 4%

Genomsnitt: 3.08

- Unfortunately not too well» (Rather poorly)
- I would have prefered to choose my own partner for the project.» (Rather poorly)
- 1 member of the group is doing nothing, the other two at least are coordinating to some extent. Lecturers are not interested in these problems though so an unfair amount of work can result from a bad group member who can use our work to pass the course.» (Rather well)

11. How was the course workload?

22 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 4%
Adequate»10 45%
High»9 40%
Too high»2 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

- When finally getting the groups together after two weeks, we got one week to prepare an interim (half-time) report with still far too little knowledge about anything. Followed up by a review of other groups reports where we"re assumed to know more about their area than that group itself. That"s just not reasonable. Same with the second interrim reports. The reports were more than often insufficient and giving little room for discussion.» (Too high) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

23 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»6 26%
High»12 52%
Too high»5 21%

Genomsnitt: 3.95

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

23 svarande

Poor»2 8%
Fair»7 30%
Adequate»5 21%
Good»9 39%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.91

- Sorry but this is the worst course I"ve ever taken. And I really rarely complain about courses.» (Poor)
- I feel like I haven"t learn anything. This because the course were too superficial and the project not enough complicated.» (Poor)
- I would like to have more lectures/seminars. There is too much focus on just one project. Maybe the oral exam will change this, but so far we have only focused on P/NLP/ML (our own project). If there should have been more lectures, this would have been better. When you don"t have any lectures and are just working on one thing, the rest of the parts in the course can easily disappear from your "view". A suggestion is that instead of one huge project, one could do two or three smaller projects. This would give a wider view of the AI field.» (Fair)
- Given the wide scope and limited period it is difficult to say if it covers everyone"s goals. But from my own view point, I wanted an introduction to AI in general. And wanted to specialize in a particular sub field. The project was a good way to specialize. But I wish the lectures were oriented to give an intutive idea of advanced concepts and applications. Rather than a highly theoritical introduction to basic concepts. Rather a tough way to learn something in a short period.» (Adequate)
- The course is what you make of it. » (Good)

14. Comment on the course structure, and how suitable it is for advanced undergraduates or postgraduates. What do you think the course structure is good at? Bad at? Please make suggestions for improvement

- it is good for students to learn quickly i think»
- Improvements, see above.»
- The structure of the reports should have been better specified. It was difficult to do a good job when you got new instructions for the report just a few days before the deadline. Good lectures.»
- good at lurning the project part but you dont lern mutch about othere partes, mabe it would be beter to do some small project in etche felled or some larger exersis sheets in etshe filled to get some exsperians in etshe area.»
- I have nothing good to say. The poor structure and organization was likely what ruined this course.»
- The project evaluation form is good.»

15. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- this style and freedom is good»
- The lectures on searching and machine learning. Also the project should be preserved.»
- Azam :)»
- Projects»
- The project»
- The book»
- project evaluation»

16. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- the webpage. better structure would be great. grouping stuff into topics»
- the webpage! should be easier to find info, the news bulletin isn"t enough, update the rest of the page as well.»
- The homepage and the admin needs a serious overhaul. »
- More lectures or seminars. Look for people working on similar topics in other departments. Talk to the people reponsible for the CAS program, for example.»
- Perhaps it would be better to have only one group to review, instead of two.»
- the system for booking time slots for supervision sessions. also some of the lecturers - the TA one to be precise- need to be changed for they did not had the ability to give lectures well. »
- Get every part of the course ready before the course start, so no additional tasks will be added in the middle of the course.»
- lectures»
- Three hour classes seem to be useless. »
- There coupe be a labb in the other areas. »
- Pretty much everything but the book.»
- I think that it would be better to have a course in each subfield: NLP, ML (there is already one), planning, automated reasonning. Doing it this way each courses could be more advanced.»

17. Additional comments

- As I mentioned above, it is important to choose the lecturers more carefully for it is not enough for a lecturer to know what he is talking about, it is also necessary to have the ability to transmit his knowledge to the listeners, and motivate them to follow the lecture rather than fall asleep. »

Kursutvärderingssystem från