Student evaluation form

Transcription

1 Student evaluation form Back Number of respondents: Multiple choice question Percentage Name of course: [Insert name of course here!] Course Objectives: [Insert course objectives (målbeskrivelse) here!] I experienced a good correspondence between the teaching and the course objectives (as indicated above) Please indicate the answer that best represents your opinion Strongly agree 29,4% Agree 41,2% Neutral 11,8% Disagree 5,9% Don't know 11,8% 2. Multiple choice question Percentage I think that the practical execution of the course was successful (facilities, equipment, information dissemination etc.) Strongly agree 11,8% Agree 58,8% Disagree 11,8% 3. Multiple choice question Percentage I experience a good coherence between the various course elements (lectures, practical work, etc.) Strongly agree 23,5% Agree 52,9% Neutral 11,8%

2 Disagree 5,9% Strongly disagree 5,9% 4. Multiple choice question Percentage I experience the course as relevant to my personal educational objectives Strongly agree 35,3% Agree 35,3% Disagree 11,8% 5. Multiple choice question Percentage In cases where I needed feedback on my work (presentations, assignments, papers, reports) I was able to adequately get such feedback from the teachers Strongly agree 47,1% Agree 35,3% Disagree 0% 6. Multiple choice question Percentage For me, the teaching material is adequate for this course. Strongly agree 23,5% Agree 41,2% Neutral 23,5% Disagree 5,9% Strongly disagree 5,9% 7. Multiple choice question Percentage Compared to my background knowledge I experience that the academic level of the course is Far too low 0%

3 Low 17,6% Adequate 70,6% High 0% Far too high 5,9% Don't know 5,9% 8. Multiple choice question Percentage I experience the work load of the course as Much too low 0% Somewhat low 11,8% Adequate 35,3% Somewhat high 52,9% Much too high 0% 9. Multiple choice question Percentage In this course, for me the average work load per week was (including classes, preparation, written assignments etc.): Under 10 hours 0% hours 23,5% hours 47,1% hours 17,6% hours 5,9% Over 30 hours 5,9% 10. Open question If you have further suggestions for improving the course or other comments and/or elaborations on your answers above (please refer to question number): Den høje workload skyldes hovedsageligt at undertegnede ikke er nogen særlig dygtig programmør og derfor brugte meget tid på formentlig trivielle ting. Håber at næste hold får en robot hver fra starten. For det er rimelig frustrerende at bruge de første 8 dage på at få player/stage til at virke inden man overhovedet kan komme igang med at løse opgaven. I didn't learn much from the lectures. I usually don't get much from lectures, so that isn't a problem with course, but with me. I learn by reading. My problem with this course is the lack of good reading material. The Kalman filtering article was nice (Welch & Bishop), but the rest of the course material wasn't sufficient for me. Where is Mahalanobis described? Also, the course description needs to mention the heavy use of probability and statistics. The course doesn't teach you about statistics, but uses it without mentioning it as a prerequisite.

4 So to sum up: I know the Kalman filter, Fuzzy logic and I've becomed a bit more comfortable in C++. I still don't know what we really did with the covariance matrix and mahalanobis in assignment 3 (even though I did most of the programming), cvmahalanobis is still just magic. Assignment 4 is still mostly in front of us, and I'm still trying grasp the statistics in the lecture notes by Peter Johansen. This is a great and fun course. However, it could be improved by having better software available, both the control-interface to the robots, and the supplied tracking software. Contrary, one could argue that in the real world, one would encounter such problems anyway, and therefore students should learn to face them up front. However, it is simply more fun and instructive to solve such exercises in a protected ideal-world type of environment. For instance, bad capability of tracking colored landmarks seems irrelevant/out of scope, and is basically just annoying. It was an annoyance that not all groups had access to a laptop, now that the laptops are required for controlling the robots. Whether to limit the amount of persons admitted to the course or to buy an extra laptop, I don't care, but something ought to be done. Regaring software it seems, unfortunately, that you has only a marginally better understanding of the pitfalls than we do, which made getting help to the debugging rather more difficult. Besides that, the course lived up to my expectations. Flere robotter og større lokale :) Desuden ville det være en rigtigt god ide fremover, at gøre som I gjorde i opg 4, nemlig at udlever en skal, som man så benytter. Desuden er det til tider RIGTIGT frustrerende at bruge 1-1 time på at robotten ikke opfører sig som den skal - kamera virker ikke, motor control failure etc. Jeg ved I har kæmpet med setup'et, men jeg håber, at I kan finde en bedre løsning til næste år. Vi har, næsten, hver gang brugt tid på at blot få robotten til at kunne det den kunne sidst :( Too many people in too small a room was often the case. Also, the "presentation"-system didn't make a lot of sense. People saw each others robots performing every time they were in robolab, and with no thorough follow-up in the lab on the problems that might have arisen in an implementation, the presentation didn't add that much knowledge to the participants. Building the excercises around the robot curling world from the beginning could have fun. Ex 1: Drive around a landmark. Ex 2: Drive around without touching the landmark. Ex 3: Locate landmark and drive to it. Ex as they are. Godt: + lærer og instruksture + faget + pensum + eksamen Skidt: - antallet af robotter - imagelab størrelse - manglende ilt i imagelab - begrænset hvor meget arbejde man kan udføre hjemmefra 11. Multiple choice question Percentage I experience the course language (English) to be very difficult 0% difficult 5,9% adequate 35,3% easy 58,8%

5 don't know 0%