Visa resultat

Autonomous agents, FFR125 (practical part), FFR125

1. How do you rate the teaching and supervision during the fourth quarter?

Very poor»		0		0%
Poor»		1		10%
Average»		2		20%
Good»		6		60%
Very good»		1		10%

Genomsnitt: 3.7 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Most of the things said were quite self-explanatory.» (Poor)
- I think, it was not matter of teaching since teaching part was done in 3rd quarter, but everything was scheduled well.» (Good)
- Very autonomous course, without real supervision ... but if needed, help was available.» (Good)
- Not much supervising was required during this quarter, but Krister was available whenever needed.» (Good)

2. To what extent have the robotics assignments been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		1		10%
Some extent»		4		40%
Large extent»		5		50%
Very large extent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.4 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I didn"t really learn anything, other than that GPRSim probably uses a good model in practice, regarding the states and state transitions. I wasn"t a fan of GPRSim before (all the annoyances with it got in the way of reflecting over the bigger picture), but now I understand why its designed the way it is.» (Small extent)
- It was interesting having subjects of first half of the course in action that how various parts can form a so called autonomous robot! » (Some extent)
- I don"t think we really learned new things, but train a way of thinking and visualizing the environement» (Some extent)
- It was very fun, but did not really give that much new knowledge. The best thing was probably to make me understand just how much trouble real hardware can give you.» (Some extent)

3. How do you rate the level of difficulty of the robotics assignments?

Very easy»		0		0%
Rather easy»		7		70%
Rather difficult»		3		30%
Very difficult»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.3 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- In one hand almost all the mechanical components were ready so there were no workload and difficulty in that field and this was OK. On the other hand, there were no qualitative evaluation, so it could be, relatively, as easy as you prefer. » (Rather easy)
- It all depends on how much effort you put in. The second assignment could have been solved very simply.» (Rather easy)
- The first assignment was pretty boring. I see the point of having an easy first assignment so that one can get a feel of all the sensors and do obstacle avoidance etc, but it wasn"t stimulating. The second assignment was far better, since it had a clear goal and you could add some "intelligence".» (Rather easy)
- First one was easy, the second needed much more reflexion, especially since the memory available didn"t allow very complex/complete programming» (Rather difficult)
- The second assignment was very good, while the first one was a bit too simple. Of course, the level of difficulty is pretty much determined by the motivation and enthusiasm of the students, since very simple constructions would still make you pass the course.» (Rather difficult)

4. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		4		40%
Adequate»		4		40%
High»		2		20%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.8 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I had quite a few other courses during this quarter, but really enjoyed taking some time off those and working with the robot instead.» (Adequate)
- The workload was in direct relation with the way you chose to do the assignments and to construct the robots. It could be "Too low" if you took the job easy and vice versa. Meanwhile there were not enough motivation for all people to work hard. However, I think 3 is the best as to maximum number of people in a group. » (High)

5. What is your overall impression of this course?

10 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Poor»		0		0%
Average»		4		40%
Good»		6		60%
Very good»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.6 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The total workload of the course was TOO HIGH. Assignments of the 4th quarter were not evaluated effectively, they neither had any effect on grades (save winners) nor had evaluated qualitatively. » (Average)
- The practical part was awsome while the first part was rather boring.» (Average)
- Here I give overall comments since there is no "Other comments" question, First: it should not be competitions. I think it"s a terrible way of examination (is it even allowed?). There should be absolute measures. The competition actually DECREASED learning, since groups were reluctant to share good tips and ideas, or discuss solutions to hard problems. Second: It would be very interesting to have a short presentation from each group about how they solved the assignment, in particular how the behaviour was programmed (this is not always easily realized by watching the robot). Third: having a beacon and a cylinder to try the behaviour against was very important, and the lack of access to the beacon (in particular) was very annoying and made the development halt.» (Average)
- Fun course and very good introduction to robotics» (Good)
- It"s a good course, in that it gives some much needed practical learning. The lectures were very much too slow though. I think the number could be halved with the current theory. The final exam was on a good level though. The best thing would be to keep the same number of lectures, but include more theory. The second robot construction problem was very good, and made the student groups come up with interesting and quite different solutions.» (Good)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.96