| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Academic Year: | 2008/2009 |
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | TEXT PROCESSING ON THE WEB - CS5246 | ||
| Note: | Feedback on module in general | ||
| Qn | Items Evaluated | Module Avg Score | Nos Responded |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Overall opinion of the module. | 4.313 | 16 |
| 2 | Grade likely to get for the module. | 4.188 | 16 |
| 3 | Difficulty level of the module. | 4.375 | 16 |
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 | | | 6 (37.50%) | 9 (56.25%) | 1 (6.25%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 96 (40.51%) | 113 (47.68%) | 26 (10.97%) | 2 (.84%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 143 (38.13%) | 183 (48.80%) | 43 (11.47%) | 6 (1.60%) | 0 (.00%) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | A | B | C | D | F |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 6 (37.50%) | 7 (43.75%) | 3 (18.75%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 102 (43.40%) | 122 (51.91%) | 9 (3.83%) | 2 (.85%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 166 (44.62%) | 186 (50.00%) | 17 (4.57%) | 3 (.81%) | 0 (.00%) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | Very Difficult | Difficult | Average | Easy | Very Easy |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 7 (43.75%) | 8 (50.00%) | 1 (6.25%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 42 (17.72%) | 110 (46.41%) | 84 (35.44%) | 1 (.42%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 48 (12.77%) | 163 (43.35%) | 155 (41.22%) | 10 (2.66%) | 0 (.00%) |
| Q1. | Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the module, and suggest possible improvements. |
| 1. | The coverage and depth of this module are just right for me. Though the workload is heavier than other modules, I enjoyed doing the projects very much and have learned a lot from the projects. I hope this module is offered more often in the future--I've waited to take this module for over 1 year. The tutorial questions are well designed--I like the style of open-ended questions--it enhances my thinking and problem solving abilities. There are uncountable good things of this module I want to talk about; however, as the lecturer pointed in the mid-term survey that negative feedback is more valuable, I'm going to mention more negative aspects of this module now. The time of the lectures are not satisfactory to me. Evening may be the only available lecture time slot for part-time masters, but for others, it overstretches the body and mind. For the tutorials which are placed after the lectures, the situation is worse. The tutorial questions are good ones; the teacher is a good one; the students are good ones; just the time is not right. Also, I suggest the lecturer put the project deadline 1 day ahead of the lecture day, so that nobody would have any excuse not coming to class. If the deadline is just 3 hours after the lecture (like this sem), most of the students would just skip the class and rush their projects (I did). Overall, this module is one of the best I've ever taken in my whole life. It is rich and enjoyable. Just hope the timing would improve next time. |
| 2. | strengths: harsh homeworks and timely feedback on them;clear notes, presentation and supplements; active forum; detailed weblinks available; webcast available. |
| 3. | The module is strongly focused on text and basic IR techniques. I would prefer to have at least one lecture focus more on the current web. For example, what techniques have people used to process semi-structured text on the web? What about web 2.0? How do we differentiate between pages with user-generated content and pages with more authority? |
| 4. | This module is a little difficult for students who come into contact with the NLP area for the first time. |
| 5. | Very interesting module and cover many aspects of text processing |
| 6. | Strengths: Interesting and relevant subject, and good coverage of topics in the area of IR. Very rigorous assessment of students through very challenging assignments and difficult questions raised in tutorials. Weaknesses and improvements: Difficulty level of topic could be daunting at times, if it is the intent of this course to appear difficult, that is OK. However, if students are expected to pick up concepts fairly quickly, then enforcing a foundational pre-requisite module might help to constrain students to those who are ready to take on the challenges of this course. |
| 7. | work load is a bit too heavy. |
| 8. | Assignments too difficult and way too openended. as a result, with limited time resources, other parts of the module is compromised, for eg. forum participation, readings/revision. otherwise, an excellent module. |
| 9. | The course has webcam feature, which is helpful for student to revise and catch up throughout the course. |