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.

MPALG 1213-3 Advanced functional programming, TDA342|DIT260

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2013-03-15 - 2013-04-12
Antal svar: 15
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 31%
Kontaktperson: Maria Sörner»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Datateknik 300 hp

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»3 20%
Chalmers University of Technology»12 80%

Genomsnitt: 1.8

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»4 26%
Around 25 hours/week»3 20%
Around 30 hours/week»5 33%
At least 35 hours/week»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.46

- This course was the most intensive course I"ve had yet.» (Around 25 hours/week)
- Almost all time spent with the labs.» (Around 30 hours/week)
- This course is intense, I spent more time on this course than on any other course I have previously taken» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

15 svarande

0%»1 6%
25%»0 0%
50%»2 13%
75%»2 13%
100%»10 66%

Genomsnitt: 4.33

- Did MSc thesis work, could unfortunately not attend lectures.» (0%)

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?

15 svarande

The goals are difficult to understand»1 6%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»3 20%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»11 73%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- In order to understand the goals you must first understand the goals.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- I was really impressed by the pedantic approach to learning outcomes. Everything in the course is very structured.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- However it is not easy to understand all requirements the because they are very difficult concepts» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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.

15 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»11 73%
No, the goals are set too high»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 2.26

- The course is (in)famous for setting high goals. We all knew what we were getting into.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- At least for me, but I"m just a bachelor-student, and perhaps it feels more reasonable for a master-student» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

15 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»4 26%
Yes, definitely»8 53%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- Didn"t check if I knew how to implement monads for instance. Instead dragged in type families which we had very little assistance on learning.» (To some extent)
- Didn"t write the exam.» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)

Teaching and course administration

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

15 svarande

Small extent»3 20%
Some extent»6 40%
Large extent»5 33%
Great extent»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.26

- I generally understood each lecture about 3 weeks later.» (Some extent)
- Hard to » (Some extent)
- One could always get some ideas during the lectures (and Patrik is really a great lecturer). But most of the learning was done by coding and testing stuff.» (Some extent)

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

15 svarande

Small extent»4 26%
Some extent»5 33%
Large extent»5 33%
Great extent»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.2

- The lecture usually explained a topic thoroughly enough and therefore, the literature seemed rather redundant.» (Small extent)
- Good examples in RWH, better learning material on the Web.» (Some extent)

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

15 svarande

Very badly»1 6%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»3 20%
Very well»11 73%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- Good home page.» (Very well)
- The website was very organised, with the code form each lecture always available etc. Superb.» (Very well)
- The description of the labs were a bit too long and sometimes confusing. Shorter and more well explained assignment descriptions would be nice. Except that everything was awesome.» (Very well)

Study climate

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

15 svarande

Very poor»1 6%
Rather poor»1 6%
Rather good»4 26%
Very good»5 33%
I did not seek help»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- Jonas is very competent and helpful.» (Very good)

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

15 svarande

Very poorly»1 6%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»4 26%
Very well»10 66%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.53

- My lab partner knew far too little.» (Very poorly)
- It was good that we had a common lecture» (Rather well)

12. How was the course workload?

15 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»1 6%
High»8 53%
Too high»6 40%

Genomsnitt: 4.33

- Labs very time consuming. There"s a big gap between the intro course to functional prog. and this course. However, I do not think that the course goals should be lowered.» (High)
- It was high, but not non-managable. :) It"s a course giving advanced credits, it should be high (i.e. be challenging) workload.» (High)
- VERY HIGH, some weeks we spent well over 50 hours just on the assignments. » (Too high)
- I spent huge amounts of time on the labs, leaving no time to study for the exam, and then after the exam me and my lab partner still had work to do to complete all of the labs» (Too high)

13. How was the total workload this study period?

15 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»2 13%
High»6 40%
Too high»7 46%

Genomsnitt: 4.33

- Mainly due to this course» (Too high)
- Combining AFP with my bachelor"s thesis has been a lot of work.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

14. What is your general impression of the course?

15 svarande

Poor»2 13%
Fair»1 6%
Adequate»1 6%
Good»7 46%
Excellent»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.66 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Did not learn enough. Everything was too hard. There was never any background information on what monads/functors/applicative functors are, which to me made it harder to understand lectures. And I didn"t come to terms with this before after the course.» (Poor)
- Very challenging course. Labs were very time-consuming. Exam was not directly related to what we"ve done in the labs» (Fair)
- I think Patrik is a very good lecturer. He explains very clearly, the whole course is very well organised and he makes an effort to add variety to the teaching. It was appreciated.» (Good)
- Very nice course except for the HIGH WORKLOAD.» (Good)
- I really liked the course. I think that there are not so many places in the world where people can learn these things. Thanks to Patrik, Jonas, all the guest lecturers and all the people involved in this course.» (Good)
- Fantastic course, really interesting and amazing to learn from the best, but the workload is very heavy» (Good)
- I think I somewhat understand what Haskell is all about now.» (Excellent)

15. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Too many assignments and too hard with too short period.»
- Lectures where we work together in groups.»
- The general content of the course and Patrik"s lectures. Also, I think that the idea of the format of old exam session with group exchange is really good.»
- All of the people involved in giving this course have been great, and it is inspiring to learn from the best. »
- The labs are tough but good.»

16. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- I urge you to seriously reconsider most of the guest lectures. I know that this course is a precursor to their research, but most of the guest lecturers are _horrible_ teachers/speakers. Just spend more time on the advanced/experimental language extensions instead.»
- You should pay attention to how to make student learn knowledge, rather than only test who can understand knowledge.»
- Skip some of the guest lectures and try to keep a slower pace instead. »
- Again, th assignments were too large and too difficult. Make them easier or just spend 10-15 minutes of a lecture to explain them properly or just give some extra hints.»
- I would really like to have lectures recorded (like in Dave"s TDA452 FP course), because they are really good, and Patrik is great lecturer, but the content is rather challenging, so it would be nice to review lectures several times to gradually grasp the concepts. It was not clear about the lab grades during the whole course. This is rather confusing because of the 60% weight of the labs for the final grade. So, I would like to have feedback with current grade for lab. Also, I am not sure if I really liked the amount of guest lectures. They were interesting and connecting the course with current research, but sometimes I felt that I would like, maybe, more time dedicated to some of the course contents (like type families, monad transformers, for example). The final thing in particular, is Agda lectures. I am not sure if I really gained something from those. Because, the language is really different, and looking through a lot of Agda code in one lecture was really hard, even to get used to syntax. And then the guest lecture was probably targeting people with experience in Agda, because it was really hard to follow and understand what"s going on (again, even at the syntax level).»
- The grading system for labs should be made explicit. Currently, one rarely gets information about how a lab is actually graded (just various adjectives like "good") even though the labs are a big part of the course grade.»
- More time spent explaining the advanced concepts such as monads and monadtransformers. One lecture each for these concepts feels insufficient, maybe two lectures each and a little more time will give the students a better understanding of these concepts.»

17. Additional comments

- Doubt how could Chalmers have that high reputation with poor teaching system.»
- The assignment descriptions gave the impression that they were open-ended, but actually the graders were very specific about what they wanted and our work was rejected a number of times before finally getting accepted. This was very frustrating and could have been avoided if the requirements were made explicit in the first place.»
- Functional programmming ftw!»
- Maybe I"m not intelligent enough for AFP. But this course was the worst I"ve ever taken measured in learning outcomes.»
- I personally believe that Chalmers should try and get a intermediate course because as it is right now the leap from Introduction to functional programming to Advanced functional programming is huge. Unfortunately, some things that is assumed to be of general knowledge in the AFP course are things that"s either not explained in the introductory course ("you don"t have to worry about how it works, just know how to use it" was something that sometimes was used in the introductory course) or completely new.»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.66

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.66
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.66

Kursutvärderingssystem från