ENKÄTER

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

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.

MPALG 1112-4 Artificial intelligence, TIN171|DIT410

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-05-24 - 2012-06-10
Antal svar: 15
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 24%
Kontaktperson: Mattias Bingerud»

Opening question

1. Which university do you belong to?

Some of our courses are taken jointly by students of the University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology. In order for us to be able to look at the answers of each student group separately, we would like you to indicate which university you are registered at.

15 svarande

University of Gothenburg» 4 26%

Chalmers University of Technology» 11 73%

Genomsnitt: 1.73

Your own effort

2. 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.

15 svarande

At most 15 hours/week» 0 0%

Around 20 hours/week» 8 53%

Around 25 hours/week» 3 20%

Around 30 hours/week» 3 20%

At least 35 hours/week» 1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- To much workload!!!» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

15 svarande

0%» 0 0%

25%» 0 0%

50%» 1 6%

75%» 8 53%

100%» 6 40%

Genomsnitt: 4.33

- I had to miss parts of some lectures due to scheduling conflicts.» (75%)
- Lectures were a lot too long.» (100%)
- I"d like to have more teaching & less project work.» (100%)

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.

To review the learning outcomes for this course, click here. (Opens in new window)

4. How understandable are the course goals?

14 svarande

The goals are difficult to understand» 1 7%

The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer» 5 35%

The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn» 8 57%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- Questions about the written goals are pretty pointless. No one really looks at them. The reason is that it"s almost impossible to write down meaningful goals for learning in this way. These questions should be removed from all the evaluation forms. It"s better to ask concrete things about the course instead.» (?)

5. 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.

13 svarande

No, the goals are set too low» 0 0%

Yes, the goals seem reasonable» 10 76%

No, the goals are set too high» 3 23%

Genomsnitt: 2.23

- See 4.» (?)

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

13 svarande

No, not at all» 1 7%

To some extent» 7 53%

Yes, definitely» 5 38%

I don"t know/have not been examined yet» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.3

- See 4.» (?)

Teaching and course administration

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

15 svarande

Small extent» 5 33%

Some extent» 8 53%

Large extent» 2 13%

Great extent» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.8

- Useless supervision. Seems like there is no coordination between assistants and examiner at all.» (Small extent)
- It was difficult to relate our project work to the teaching.» (Small extent)
- Lectures were dense and good, weekly meetings very helpful in writing the report.» (Large extent)

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

15 svarande

Small extent» 3 20%

Some extent» 7 46%

Large extent» 2 13%

Great extent» 3 20%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- The book is fantastic, but given how specific the project topic is most of our material came from a variety of papers rather than the course literature.» (Some extent)

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

15 svarande

Very badly» 1 6%

Rather badly» 3 20%

Rather well» 9 60%

Very well» 2 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- The page is ugly and didn"t seem to be up to date since it got regular new things that contradicted old information.» (Very badly)
- Some issues with .tex templates not actually matching what we were to submit.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

15 svarande

Very poor» 0 0%

Rather poor» 4 26%

Rather good» 5 33%

Very good» 6 40%

I did not seek help» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

- Did"t get along with supervisor» (Rather poor)
- Sure, talking in high-level pseudocode and concepts with the supervisor helps but there is really no way to getting good feedback on what you"ve done so far except for the report. For the project itself there were very limited opportunities to ask questions about.» (Rather poor)
- The project supervision could be improved a lot.» (Rather poor)
- We were supervised by Birgit who was very approachable and flexible.» (Very good)

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

15 svarande

Very poorly» 0 0%

Rather poorly» 2 13%

Rather well» 5 33%

Very well» 7 46%

I did not seek cooperation» 1 6%

Genomsnitt: 3.46

- The group dynamics were often troublesome, with one member dropping out mid-course and one member seemingly trying to coast through with minimum effort. That sort of thing is always a problem with (more or less) random group assignments, I guess.» (Rather poorly)
- I had a good group.» (Very well)

12. How was the course workload?

15 svarande

Too low» 0 0%

Low» 1 6%

Adequate» 3 20%

High» 9 60%

Too high» 2 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- Overall I felt the work load was a bit light. Much of this was likely due to us having to reduce the scope of our project for other reasons: as is we were 3½, people and did what I"d consider to be adequate work for 2.» (Low)
- It was rather good. A bit oscillating but that comes from the natures of working in a project I guess.» (High)

13. How was the total workload this study period?

15 svarande

Too low» 0 0%

Low» 0 0%

Adequate» 4 26%

High» 9 60%

Too high» 2 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.86

- I had 3 courses this period, so that"s not indicative of much.» (High)

Summarizing questions

14. What is your general impression of the course?

15 svarande

Poor» 3 20%

Fair» 2 13%

Adequate» 4 26%

Good» 6 40%

Excellent» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.86 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I"ve heard that it"s gotten better since last year but honestly it"s useless. I wanted to do a ML-project but ended up doing games which is freaking boring and a bad toy example of what AI really is.» (Poor)
- I did not like the way this course was structured. It could more accurately be described as a course in "report writing" that AI. * Very much time and effort had to be spent on the project proposals, the surveys, and the report. I do not think this contributed to my learning very much. * Writing literature surveys might be valuable to deepen you knowledge in a subject you already know much about, but when you know nothing it is just a waste of time. Research papers is a poor introduction to a subject. * Writing reports is not a good way to learn a technical subject like this. You have to actually work with it. This is way most courses have assignments where you solve problems. * There were lectures about many interesting subjects, but since there was no opportunity to work with most of them, the lectures left little lasting knowledge. * I think most of the project suggestions are to small to do in a meaningful way in a group of four. In its present form, I must discourage anyone from taking this course.» (Poor)
- It feels a bit like two course baked into one and neither is done well. The AI course should be divided into two courses instead a base course with basic information about AI and a advanced course with an optional project.» (Fair)
- Thought there would be more help from supervisor and better lectures» (Adequate)

15. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- the deadlines every week»
- Fun subject, just to much of a project course without guidness from supervisor and too little solid informtion from lecture»
- I like that we pick the topics we think sound interesting for further studies. Even if that apparently means everyone works with games...»
- Good information and good website.»
- the exploration of the other two general AI areas (surveys) together with the more specific AI area.»

16. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Would be rather fun to do right than just doing something, more hands on advice from supervisor»
- The course focuses too much on references and report. remove the survey part and the pre-proposal, focus more on the project, and don"t require so much focus on the references, the survey part of the course destroyed my interest in the course. »
- More lectures, shorter lectures, even more defined projects proposals.»
- I would"ve liked a broader approach. Currently the focus is very heavily on our project and we don"t learn all that much about other branches of AI. I would have appreciated reducing the scope of the project in favor of public student presentations of their work or just more varied faculty lectures.»
- Create two courses instead.»
- the supervision sessions, we didn"t feel like we were getting any good feedback until last week when it almost was to late.»
- Other course structure. This course, I kind of "only" learned about a specific topic (my project).»
- I"d prefer if the AI-subject was split in to two courses, one where you get a broader knowledge about the subject and a follow up course where you are able to do a project. It seems that this course is trying to do both in a too small timespan»
- The way that the projects are selected.»

17. Additional comments

- Prasad has a very bad attitude against the students. He seems like a know-it all. He"s supposed to help and judge, not only judge...»
- I guess my basic feeling is that it"s a very good project-based course. However, I"m not entirely sure that it should be quite so project-based.»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.86

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 2.86
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.46

Kursutvärderingssystem från