Visa resultat

TKDAT 1213-3 Programming paradigms, DAT121|DIT331

Opening questions

1. Which university do you belong to?

30 svarande

University of Gothenburg»		7		23%
Chalmers University of Technology»		23		76%

Genomsnitt: 1.76

2. Are you a second-year student at the CSE Bachelor programme?

30 svarande

Yes»		11		36%
No»		19		63%

Genomsnitt: 1.63

Your own effort

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

30 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		13		43%
Around 20 hours/week»		11		36%
Around 25 hours/week»		3		10%
Around 30 hours/week»		2		6%
At least 35 hours/week»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 1.9

- I suck» (At most 15 hours/week)

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

30 svarande

0%»		2		6%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		7		23%
75%»		14		46%
100%»		7		23%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- mostly on the early weeks i go to evertyhing then i go to less and less and then nothing because its 8 o clock and the exercise session was cancelled :(» (50%)
- Sadly I"m not very good at getting up early, and all lectures were held at 8am. Also missed some excercises because of illness and a ski trip.» (50%)
- I realy liked the way bernard presented the material.» (75%)
- missed two lectures because I was too tired, also missed one exercise» (75%)
- I intended to attend 100%.» (75%)
- I did not find some of the lectures worth going to since it did not help my learning by watching someone write code live, for example.» (75%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

5. How understandable are the course goals?

The goals are difficult to understand»		4		13%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		11		36%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		15		50%

Genomsnitt: 2.36

- _very_ difficult» (The goals are difficult to understand)

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

30 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		0		0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		24		80%
No, the goals are set too high»		6		20%

Genomsnitt: 2.2

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

No, not at all»		1		3%
To some extent»		21		70%
Yes, definitely»		6		20%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.3

- I think the exam was too hard. Some of the examples were not very close to what was shown on the exercises and on the lectures and that made it hard for me.» (To some extent)
- I mean, all you have to do is learn the pattern for transforming stuff. You don"t necessarily have to understand the concept and have no idea how to apply it in a real world situation.» (To some extent)
- It was more difficult compared to exams from earlier years. I think those exams were more fitting with the goals of the course.» (To some extent)
- I felt the exam might have tested these goals however I did not feel that we in fact had got to learn the things that were tested on the exam.» (To some extent)
- I have to say that I was very disappointed with the exam. The exercises did not prepare me for the exam at all. Very disappointed with the exercises and the lack of exercises after all. » (To some extent)
- It feels more as if this course went from being a course in programming paradigms to a course more focused in "ooh, look how good Haskell is!". It"s understandable since the course responsible also has been a teaching assistant for the course Advanced Functional Programming, but it"s not what the course should be all about.» (To some extent)
- I study too little :( Jean-Philippe! I am sorry!» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		9		30%
Some extent»		5		16%
Large extent»		12		40%
Great extent»		4		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.36

- Jean-Philip is a nice guy but his english isn"t very good so it is hard to understand what he says. He also often make programming mistakes which take a lot of time in the lectures» (Small extent)
- Lectures was ok, the exercise session felt poorly planned. » (Small extent)
- Plenty of assumptions during lectures that we have a deeper understanding in certain programming languages that have not been taught at all in previous courses.» (Small extent)
- Some of the exercise sessions were good (the ones with Dan as assistant). Other then that, the teaching was rubbish really..» (Some extent)
- Exercise +1» (Large extent)
- The exercise sessions (with Dan) were helpful. » (Large extent)
- I think the teaching/lectures were good but I didn"t like the lack of translation between paradigms since that is the goal of the course. I think people should know the paradigms when they take this course and JP should spend a lot more time with the translation since that is what this course is all about and what will be on the exam.» (Large extent)
- Very good every time i went to the lecture i understood perfectly fine » (Great extent)
- The lectures are good together with the course page, love how the material is presented. Exercises with Dan are great.» (Great extent)

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

Small extent»		12		41%
Some extent»		9		31%
Large extent»		6		20%
Great extent»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 1.93

- We only got lecture notes to help but the difficulty of the exams seems to be way higher than the level on the lecture notes.» (Small extent)
- Since there was no book all we had was the lecture notes which I felt was sometimes a bit confusing and hard to read since it all was a very long plain text.» (Small extent)
- A lot of google, trying to learn c and transformation-problems on my own. » (Small extent)
- There"s no literature and as I have said before the exercises are very lacking. When I do exercises I do one to learn how to do the exercise and the steps and then I need a second to make sure that I know what I"ve just learned with a second exercise but the exercises are not built this way at all right now. Really really disappointing!» (Small extent)
- No course book, no proper slides (it"s very tedious to read information from a big org-mode document) made one to google a lot of things instead. It was not satisfactory!» (Small extent)
- There were a bunch of practice tasks with either rushed or partly finished solutions which made it difficult to understand key points in certain procedures.» (Small extent)
- Sometimes it"s hard to understand what you mean when you just type "..." in the examples if i missed the lecture...» (Some extent)
- Good with lecture notes on the web page.» (Large extent)

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

Very badly»		3		10%
Rather badly»		3		10%
Rather well»		19		63%
Very well»		5		16%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- This was the worst thing I"ve ever seen, no real material, a confusing website, just a long list of question that in the beginning was very unorganized» (Very badly)
- No real course web page at all which made it difficult locating documents.» (Very badly)
- I think I would prefer slides instead of Emacs ORG.» (Rather badly)
- Same reason as above.» (Rather badly)
- Just look at the course website and one can see it needs to be polished. It"s a mess at the moment, really. Also, the exercises should be marked from the get-go so one can focus more on the ones that should be next week as well before that week starts.» (Rather badly)
- Webpage works well but is not accessable through student portal.» (Rather well)
- - I think the lecture slides would work much better if they were split, so one file is one lecture instead of having this humongous document for the whole course. - Please update the homepage with the correct examination date or just don"t publish it at all. I almost missed the exam because of a wrong date on the homepage. - I think the exercises would be easier to access if only those we are supposed to do are published to the homepage and have solutions on another page. No pdfs or downloadables or stuff, just plain HTML.» (Rather well)
- Recored videos were really great! It was easy to repeat when you had the videos. More of them would be really nice for the next-year. » (Very well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		2		6%
Rather poor»		1		3%
Rather good»		10		33%
Very good»		11		36%
I did not seek help»		6		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- Why is Nikita here? We [edit] complained about his manners in the previous course, but he behaved in the same way this time! Even if we complained nothing happened. [end edit]» (Very poor) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- Exercise sessions were the main area to ask for help and that was once a week.» (Rather poor)
- Exercise sessions were good.» (Rather good)
- It feels like the exercises and the lectures are not of the same course sometimes. Not good!» (Rather good)
- Course assistants were nice enough to answer questions way pass school hours (via email). And the lecturer encouraged questions but you know... asking questions in class... not an option for many.» (Very good)
- Good exercise sessions and you could send e-mails if you wanted which is always good.» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		2		6%
Rather well»		5		16%
Very well»		10		33%
I did not seek cooperation»		13		43%

Genomsnitt: 4.13

- Many didn"t understand the same things, and no one really knew how to study for this exam at all.» (Rather poorly)

13. How was the course workload?

Too low»		3		10%
Low»		3		10%
Adequate»		18		60%
High»		6		20%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.9

- There were some exercises to do every week. » (Too low)
- so meany different things» (High)

14. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		1		3%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		17		56%
High»		10		33%
Too high»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

Summarizing questions

15. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		9		30%
Fair»		5		16%
Adequate»		2		6%
Good»		11		36%
Excellent»		3		10%

Genomsnitt: 2.8 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- It did not at all meet my expectations and I did not feel that I got to learn the things that I was supposed to even though I tried to follow the course and the material that was given.» (Poor)
- Potential to be a really good course. The content is good and the subjects. » (Poor)
- Since the exercises are the main of this course I find these lacking and did not prepare me for the exam. The exercises translate in one way between the paradigms and on the exam JP decided to translate the opposite way. That is absolutely okay but I didn"t see that kind of questions in the exercises. Really disappointing. » (Poor)
- Oh, were to start? As I noted earlier, it felt as if this course has become more of a "look how good Haskell is!" instead of a course in programming paradigms. It was a lot of examples to show how simple things were in Haskell and how tedious they were doing in, say Java ("It"s not very nice to write in a functional style in Java"). However, there were no examples how to simulate "real" object-orientation with side effects in Haskell (since that would make Haskell look very bad). Also, on the exam there was one question of something he hadn"t really covered in the course. I don"t count having that question in the lecture notes WITHOUT showing how to solve it is considered covering it..» (Poor)
- It"s a quite chaotic course, it needs more or maybe better structure to work out as intended.» (Fair)
- Whould have done better with some labs.» (Adequate)
- Might want to focus more on the concept instead of the hands on transformation. But maybe it"s good as it is, this course is on basic level after all.» (Good)

16. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

17. What should definitely be changed to next year?

18. Additional comments