| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Academic Year: | 2010/2011 |
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY - CS1101S | ||
| Note: | Feedback on module in general | ||
| Qn | Items Evaluated | Module Avg Score | Nos Responded |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Overall opinion of the module. | 4.86 | 43 |
| 2 | Grade likely to get for the module. | 4.738 | 42 |
| 3 | Difficulty level of the module. | 4.14 | 43 |
QN\SCORE | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Qn 1: Overall opinion of the module. | Excellent | Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Poor |
Qn 2: Grade likely to get for the module. | A | B | C | D | F |
Qn 3: Difficulty level of the module. | Very Difficult | Difficult | Average | Easy | Very Easy |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | Excellent | Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Poor |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 37 (86.05%) | 6 (13.95%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 361 (19.59%) | 838 (45.47%) | 491 (26.64%) | 113 (6.13%) | 40 (2.17%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 434 (16.16%) | 1262 (46.98%) | 788 (29.34%) | 154 (5.73%) | 48 (1.79%) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | A | B | C | D | F |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 33 (78.57%) | 7 (16.67%) | 2 (4.76%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 565 (31.76%) | 739 (41.54%) | 336 (18.89%) | 103 (5.79%) | 36 (2.02%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 753 (29.03%) | 1261 (48.61%) | 434 (16.73%) | 107 (4.12%) | 39 (1.50%) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | Very Difficult | Difficult | Average | Easy | Very Easy |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 13 (30.23%) | 26 (60.47%) | 1 (2.33%) | 3 (6.98%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 435 (23.60%) | 854 (46.34%) | 471 (25.56%) | 69 (3.74%) | 14 (.76%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 464 (17.31%) | 1078 (40.21%) | 984 (36.70%) | 133 (4.96%) | 22 (.82%) |
| Q1. | Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the module, and suggest possible improvements. |
| 1. | -concepts covered are useful -the module also stretches one abilities -perhaps the workload is a little too heavy for the mcs |
| 2. | The modules goes at so fast a pace that those without programming background end up not developing a strong foundation, getting up tending to make many beginner programming mistakes. But they end up able to do fairly complex algorithms. For those with some programming foundation, it is an excellent way to change the way one thinks about programming to do cool stuff. |
| 3. | While I must say that this module is really tough, it has a great learning experience for me. As a student with no prior programming background, the lecturer and the teaching staff has done a great job in imparting me with the methodology in programming. I think that the module is special in the sense that the amount of teaching support in this module is unprecedented and unrivalled in the NUS. More importantly, all of them are very approachable for consultation. In addition, questions posted at the forums are answered almost immediately. As such, the amount of help that we get from the teaching staff is a lot, and as such I was able to get the help I needed when I was stuck at a particular concept or a problem. However, the module's workload is a little heavy, due to the nature of the game system implemented this year that is aimed to help students be more consistent in their work. There were times when the assignments came in thick and fast within a matter of 2 days, and as such, a lot of time was devoted to doing and learning the assignments well. Nonetheless, due to the amount of work that we have to do, ultimately, we had much more practice, and thus, it reinforced and enhanced our understanding of the material. One suggestion that I would like to make is to make the assignments a little more spaced out, so that the students would have more breathing space. |
| 4. | This module does a good job of teaching the knowledge required for programming. The use of a simple-to-learn language (Scheme) is both a good and a bad thing.The good thing is that we can get to focus more on learning the methodology of programming, rather than the syntax of the language, such as Java or C. However, this means that we will be disadvantaged for future classes, due to less familiarity with the main languages in use. However, I suppose that cannot be helped as this is considered a higher level class compared to the standard CS1010 class. The module has a really heavy workload. It definitely takes up more time than the 5 MCs that it is worth. |
| 5. | Weaknesses: Workload timings and distribution can be improved Syllabus quite heavy Strengths: Challenging Creative game system for teaching Provides high amount of assistance to students. |
| 6. | One of the most heavy modules. Intensive but really fun Has a really good community to help each other learn which is very rare in other modules. |
| 7. | This module is fun and challenging. There is exposure to a wide variety of problems which serve as a good introduction to these sort of problems. Perhaps the structure of the course could be tied to follow CS1231 as I noticed there were a few cases where CS1231 material was covered in CS1101S before it appeared in CS1231. The student-tutor ratio and tutor support is amazing (~5:1 student:tutor ratio, ~12 tutors) Tutors are approachable, and being grouped with peers allows for more peer interaction. Having such small tutorial groups helps by ensuring that any problems with course material surfaces quickly or can be identified and rectified more quickly. I think more time could be devoted to learning how to solve problems e.g problem solving approach/techniques. |
| 8. | This year there are some positive changes to the course, like a facebook platform and breaking up of problem sets into smaller chunks. |
| 9. | Strengths: Very interesting and challenging Teaches many important concepts Game-based learning is very engaging and motivating Excellent lecturer Weaknesses: Very heavy workload |
| 10. | It is a very interesting module which i feel trains my thinking alot. |
| 11. | Is very hard.can remove some of the things taught? |
| 12. | Professor is extremely efficient, good amount of workload and strives to bring out the best in his students |
| 13. | Too much workload, and incoherent / ambiguous objectives. Many of the PS (now called missions) are incommensurate with the aims and objectives of the course - testing obtruse skills like figuring out complexity (note: NOT managing complexity), mathematics, and patience in reading verbose task description and extremely messy code templates. Much of the focus is not on learning per se, but in inflicting pain onto the student. While it could be argued that withstanding pain is a form of learning itself, the unfortunate poor assembling of teaching materials (including but not limited to the problem of the PS listed above) and conflicting aims of creating evil exam papers. Moreover, a good curve may be reflective of a good exam (very questionable, and i disagree with this premise), but it is ironical if students should become statistical tool in measuring how good an exam is. Moreover, the greatest lessons of life and everywhere else typically doesn't entail any exam that we are all so used to, evil or not. There is indeed a great teaching support. So much that diseconomies of scale and other inefficiencies becomes apparent. Because of the vast number of tutors, it becomes more difficult in ensuring basic policies be followed. Trivial things from feedback channel and student-tutor communication protocol, to consistency in marking and conduct of DGs. Also, tutors unfortunately have too much autonomy in shaping aspects of the course to the ends that they think is good for the student. The problem with this need not be expounded on too much; how the OOP mission exploded in complexity and detracted from the original learning objectives is a case in point. In fact, as mentioned, for the first programming course (for some student) and a introduction to programming methodology course, I find it hard to describe what my takeaway from this course is. Most of the learning comes from the experience of hacking around, trudging along, and getting burned by our own code rather than real insights that come from good teaching. This is not a bad thing - the learning from pain - but I argue that way more could be done to enhance the teaching aspect, and not just focusing on the learning aspect. And a big problem underpinning this is to determine in very tangible terms what the heck the course wants to really teach (that won't be forgotten in 9 years time). There are many, many many good things about the course. I believe that this has been and will be elucidated, by other students and in self-indulging moments, that it is pointless to mention them through such a channel. |
| 14. | This module requires much of our time. But the work effort of coordinating everything together the lecturer and the tutors are commendable. The way this module is structured helps us to learn bit by bit and slowly, everything comes together. |
| 15. | Too many assignments. 5 mcs is an understatement. |
| 16. | May be fast for people totally new to programming. |
| 17. | this module forces students to think which is good. however, the workload is heavy. |
| 18. | Awesome lecturer. Very approachable. Module actually has a culture of its own. Java portion of the course is rather rushed and tutorials and lectures are not in sync. Students often start on java only 2 weeks after it is first taught due to preparation for practical exam and lack of java assignments before PE. |
| 19. | Discussion groups should be more interactive! |
| 20. | The module being modelled as an rpg is both fun and addictive (helping students to take their minds off of the difficult course material). Being a 5 MC module, the difficulty of the module is to be expected |
| 21. | Strengths: The game feature of this lecture is awesome, students are "forced" to review the topics through the interesting missions provided. So missions here are like "make-up" lecture. I love this kind of learning process, so students will understand what's going on through missions. Besides that, the recitation(review session) provided in this module is so effective. Weaknesses: Too heavy for students without programming background and due to the missions and competition in this module, students usually pay less attention to other modules. |
| 22. | Strengths: All features are pretty good. Weaknesses: Lecturer should speak slowly. |
| 23. | Generally, the module teaches lots of new thing about programming. And about the weaknesses, the professor runs so fast! |
| 24. | Very good module with the teaching support exceptional. Challenging and gives a strong foundation to CS students. |
| 25. | I think the game system introduced this year is very interesting. This is its main strength. This module has no weakness. |
| 26. | The lecturer of this module is interesting and energetic, besides he and his assistant tutors prepare well and organized a lot of add-value project! |
| 27. | strength: we can get much on programming; weakness: too much workload. |
| 28. | Best module at all times |
| 29. | Very demanding but worth it for newbies. Strongly suggest more MC's for it. |
| 30. | need a lot of time |
| 31. | Perfect, really. Make it 6MC, please. |
| 32. | The module let students know how to think, which is a fundamental skill for computer science. |
| 33. | The Prof is quite interesting and so is this module. |
| 34. | this module contains lots of interesting and challenging stuff. However, I think the contents our prof has taught is not so enough for us to solve the problems he gives us. |
| 35. | This module is perfet! |
| 36. | I think this module is excellent, although at first it seems very difficult for me. |
| 37. | The module contains so much material to learn. However, it is one of the best lectures I have encountered. |