Visa resultat

Artificial intelligence, Lp4 VT11, TIN171/DIT410

Your own effort

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

At most 15 hours/week»		8		26%
Around 20 hours/week»		11		36%
Around 25 hours/week»		7		23%
Around 30 hours/week»		2		6%
At least 35 hours/week»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.3 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

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

0%»		3		10%
25%»		2		6%
50%»		6		20%
75%»		8		26%
100%»		11		36%

Genomsnitt: 3.73 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.01

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		13		43%
The goals are difficult to understand»		3		10%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		10		33%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		4		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.16

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

No, the goals are set too low»		1		4%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		21		84%
No, the goals are set too high»		3		12%

Genomsnitt: 2.08

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

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

No, not at all»		5		16%
To some extent»		12		40%
Yes, definitely»		6		20%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		5		16%

- The course appears to be mainly about the project, but it should be more clear that the most part of it is spent surveying the field and writing reports.» (Yes, definitely)
- I felt the supervisors and the examiner did not focus on the AI part of the project, but more on other for this course irrelevant aspects.» (No, not at all)
- Goals were too high considering it is my second year at Chalmers, and I should not have been qualified for the course.» (Yes, definitely)
- The general knowledge mentioned in the goals are not at all part of the examination.» (To some extent)
- The requirements for assignments were revealed after the deadline. AFTER the proposals had been submitted there was suddenly a new page on the website that told you what the real requirements were. The same page contained links to requirements for the other assignments. Links that did no go anywhere. Apparently knowing the requirements beforehand was considered cheating. Every time work was graded, we got a surprise.» (No, not at all, I don"t know/have not been examined yet)
- If one works on a project and at the demo one receives the comment that one should have done something completly different as this wasn"t that visual to present then one can ask if those responisble couldn"t have thought to say so earlier during the course? I personally think a demo should demonstrate how the project works and how it was achieved, not present something different just beacuse of the whims of someone who hasn"t even bothereed what it is about in the first place.» (No, not at all)
- In week 6, we learned from our supervisor that to get higher grades in this course, an evaluation and comparison between different solutions to our problem was needed. Please say so from the beginning. Generally, it was hard to know what we were expected to achieve during the course.» ()

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		14		46%
To some extent»		13		43%
Large extent»		2		6%
Great extent»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 1.66

- e end. This course had the worst lectures I have ever attended so far at Chalmers! Awful! » (Small extent)
- Lectures in the beginning of a course (weeks 1-2) usually dont "stick" since its a new subject and you"re not really prepared to learn alot in the beginning.» (Small extent)
- No extent, the lectures were bad, off topic and messy. » (Small extent)
- Given the limited number of lectures this is natural.» (Small extent)
- No help whatsoever. Nonsense extra-long lectures where the first hours put you to sleep with banal generalities. Lecturers that forgot about breaks. They even tried to summarize the contents of other courses, that I"ve already taken, in too short a time to get anything across. The requirements for taking the course must be too lax.» (Small extent)
- The lectures were not structured at all. Having Ph.D students giving the lectures might seem like a good a idea on paper, but the fact is that it is really bad in reality. They almost always get too technical. They assume too much when it comes to knowledge about technical terms and concepts. Sometimes they miss too explain some basic expression at the beginning, which in turn leads to that you sit the entire lecture a slight bit confused, and maybe just maybe, you"ll get a explanation at the end. This course had the worst lectures I have ever attended so far at Chalmers! Awful! » (Small extent) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- Very good detailed feedback about the reports/surveys. Very little teaching about AI.» (To some extent)
- Some of the lectures were helpful, for example the one about NLP. Others were harder to get through (Search).» (To some extent)
- After a very small set of lectures, you select three projects and then learn by reading scientific papers.» (To some extent)

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

Small extent»		7		24%
Some extent»		5		17%
Large extent»		15		51%
Great extent»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.41

- Barely touched the book.» (Small extent)
- No help whatsoever. The book can"t even properly define what planning is. Just look at the chapter on planning: it says the search algorithms from an earlier chapter are planning. So what is planning? Concepts are easier to learn when they have definitions!» (Small extent)
- A bit helpful for deciding which project to choose. After that, reading scientific papers was the way to go.» (Small extent)
- We used the book a lot when writing all the reports, it was a good reference.» (Large extent)
- The book was good, and the internet has a lot of information. The internet was our main source of information, not the book. So if the question is to what extent the material provided by the course has helped, the answer is small to none extent.» (Large extent)
- It was good and interesting although it wasn"t very motivating to study when over 40 hours a weeks hard work was rewarded with a bare passing grade..» (Large extent)
- Great book.» (Great extent)

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

Very badly»		3		10%
Rather badly»		8		26%
Rather well»		18		60%
Very well»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.56

- Large problems with communicating the requirements in the beginning of the course, but better at the end.» (Very badly)
- Short time between detailed information and deadlines that required that information.» (Very badly)
- The templates could appear sooner.» (Rather badly)
- Templates for deliverables were made available to close to the deadlines. It was not always clear what was expected in the hand-ins. There were some rather nonchalant posts made by course staff on the mailing list, but hey, we are at Chalmers, right?» (Rather badly)
- Fire worked ok, as expected. The website was byzantine.» (Rather badly)
- The templates came up very late.» (Rather badly)
- The templates should have been online at the start of the course (should not have been a problem since most were quite identical),which would have given additional guidance to what was expected for each hand-in.» (Rather badly)
- If one wants to force the essays in a certain direction one should be clear on what parts are important and which are not. Otherwise one expects all parts to be equally important.. Which they clearly were not...» (Rather badly)
- Templates could have been uploaded earlier. 2-3 days before deadline (as final report was) is NOT ok.» (Rather well)
- It"s updated quickly and all needed info is there, but the navigation is a bit messy at times.» (Rather well)
- Mostly well, but "To do this week" sometimes didn"t come out before Wednesday.» (Rather well)
- Missing requirements on Pre-proposals and Code documentation» (Rather well)
- Templates for deliverables were sometimes wrong or put up on the course page too late.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		2		6%
Rather poor»		6		20%
Rather good»		11		36%
Very good»		9		30%
I did not seek help»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- This is the first time I have felt that I had to fight the supervisor to get an answer. One of the supervisors told us that he had been instructed NOT to tell us what they were looking at in the pre-proposals!» (Very poor)
- Can not be described in polite company.» (Very poor)
- Our supervisor said to us during a supervision session that he knew of some ways to solve our problems, but said that he wouldn"t tell them to us.» (Rather poor)
- We didn"t really get any help at all, even at the supervisions.» (Rather poor)
- When questions were asked due to unclearities then those responisble often gave either rude answers by commenting on the "stupidity" of the questions or said something that then didn"t turn out to be true as they changed their minds afterwards. » (Rather poor)
- The first weeks our supervisor (Leonid) was reluctant to give us much help at all, though he did improve his involvement greatly toward the end of the course.» (Rather good)
- Sometimes there was a long waiting time for answers on e-mails» (Rather good)
- Many opportunities for meetings with the supervisor. Google group for general questions. But, as written on the course page: "You are expected to be the experts on your topic, while the supervisor"s expertise is in the business of exploring the scientific world." If you pick a topic which is too hard or too abstract to implement, you"re pretty much screwed.» (Rather good)
- Our supervisor was excellent.» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		1		3%
Rather poorly»		2		6%
Rather well»		11		36%
Very well»		16		53%
I did not seek coopeation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- The deadline for group formation included a promise that an assistant would assign people to groups if they did not find groups themselves. This promise was broken.» (Very poorly)
- This is not thanks to the course, but to me and my fellow students.» (Rather well)
- Project course with four people. It would be sad if this didn"t work.» (Very well)

Summarizing questions

11. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		8		26%
Fair»		5		16%
Adequate»		10		33%
Good»		3		10%
Excellent»		4		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- I think the idea with many handins is a good one, but for God"s sake does all the handins need to be unnecessary reports that are like clones of one another when it comes to the content? Why cannot the course be about implementing AI concepts etc? The course is too much about spitting out words on paper and not nearly as much about actually learning something about AI. » (Poor)
- So far the worst course I have taken at Chalmers, and I am not an exchange student so I have taken quite a few.» (Poor)
- If I had known then what I know now, I would never have taken this course, even though it"s mandatory in my program. I would have chosen a different program.» (Poor)
- Too many reports, no time for coding, fuzzy requirements on assignments.» (Poor)
- The formats said one thing but then what you received points for was not on the overall quality of the hand-ins but on how certain aspects of the submissions had been presented... » (Poor)
- Personally I think too much time is spent writing reports. It"s not so much about the project itself, or the cutting edge of AI research.» (Fair)
- Very difficult to understand what was expected that you should produce. Seems to focus too much on paper work, and not that much of the actual implementation.» (Fair)
- Too much reports» (Adequate)
- It"s an unusual course for computer scientists. Excellent for learning report writing and reading.» (Good)

12. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

13. What should definitely be changed to next year?

14. Additional comments

Additional comments

* obligatoriska frågor