| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Academic Year: | 2010/2011 |
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Semester: | 1 |
| Module: | INTRODUCTION TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - CS3243 | ||
| Note: | Feedback on module in general | ||
| Qn | Items Evaluated | Module Avg Score | Nos Responded |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Overall opinion of the module. | 3.564 | 55 |
| 2 | Grade likely to get for the module. | 3.764 | 55 |
| 3 | Difficulty level of the module. | 4.2 | 55 |
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 |
Frequency Distribution (Qn 1: Students' Overall Opinion on the module)
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | Excellent | Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Poor |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 4 (7.27%) | 32 (58.18%) | 11 (20.00%) | 7 (12.73%) | 1 (1.82%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 65 (14.71%) | 210 (47.51%) | 124 (28.05%) | 26 (5.88%) | 17 (3.85%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 141 (16.89%) | 409 (48.98%) | 229 (27.43%) | 37 (4.43%) | 19 (2.28%) |
Frequency Distribution (Qn 2: Grades likely to get for the module)
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | A | B | C | D | F |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 8 (14.55%) | 30 (54.55%) | 14 (25.45%) | 2 (3.64%) | 1 (1.82%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 110 (25.23%) | 239 (54.82%) | 71 (16.28%) | 14 (3.21%) | 2 (.46%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 195 (23.55%) | 478 (57.73%) | 135 (16.30%) | 17 (2.05%) | 3 (.36%) |
Frequency Distribution (Qn 3: Difficulty level of the module)
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | Very Difficult | Difficult | Average | Easy | Very Easy |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 19 (34.55%) | 28 (50.91%) | 8 (14.55%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 72 (16.33%) | 214 (48.53%) | 136 (30.84%) | 15 (3.40%) | 4 (.91%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 128 (15.37%) | 364 (43.70%) | 316 (37.94%) | 21 (2.52%) | 4 (.48%) |
| Q1. | Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the module, and suggest possible improvements. |
| 1. | Interesting projects. Teaching style follows the textbook too much. |
| 2. | Would be nice to spend some more effort during the PROLOG lessons trying to convert us from the imperative programming mindset to the declarative one. I think it was really difficult making that shift. And even if we kind of understand what the declarative programming paradigm means, much effort is still needed to get used to *solving* problems in a declarative manner. So it would be very nice if you could more gently ease us into this new frame of thought. |
| 3. | The module is quite interesting, especially the homeworks |
| 4. | good module , makes us think logically |
| 5. | Some of the assignments are asking for quite alot with not much guidance provided, namely the prolog assignment. Maybe 1 tutorial could have been spent as a prolog tutorial to help students get started earlier |
| 6. | Webcast is easily re-watchable and understood. Excellent support given for teaching materials, tutorial solutions etc. |
| 7. | I think it is quite a difficult module. Hard to cover everything in details in short period of time. But I found this module is quite interesting, if I have more time, I think I would spend sometime solving AI problem. |
| 8. | There's plenty of conceptual stuff to be taught, I find it hard to apply these concepts on projects. Also, this module requires a good foundation of programming languages. Tutorials were ok, but the questions given during tests and exams don't seem that easy at all! |
| 9. | Interesting module. It clearly explains the concepts in artificial intelligence, but is quite difficult. |
| 10. | Strengths: AI is an interesting topic. Games are a fun way to learn about AI Weakness: Constantly changing project specifications; Project 2 was not an enjoyable experience. |
| 11. | This module is a fair introduction to artificial intelligent. The course content is moderate. Assignments are well designed. However, I believe that there should be more paper-and-pencil homework along with programming homework. |
| 12. | We need more tutorials on prolog. |
| 13. | N/A |
| 14. | This module is very different to understand.. It is too tough. Reduce the difficulty. Easier assignments and exam please. This is very demoralising. |
| 15. | Midterm was a killer, so are the assignments. More like a level 4/5 module. |
| 16. | The course is too theoritical, and the lecture notes are too brief (not suitable for revision). |
| 17. | Lecturer is not bad, tutor was quite good too. |
| 18. | interesting. increase weight-age for assignments and increase timing allowed for assignments |
| 19. | Interesting homework assignments, however as this is the first wumpus world assignment using LeJOS, some specifications and requirements were not well defined such as the use of black borders. The use of shades is an interesting idea but there were too many shades that were needed to be taken into consideration, which may cause problems when sensing the tiles as the values are close to each other. A suggestion is to decrease the number of shades by having a default no value shade that is never used and a same shade colour for the glitter tiles. The glitter tile used in the world can be calibrated to this shade while other glitter tiles calibrated to the default tile colour. Since there can only be one glitter tile, it would not affect the way the robot will run and can increase the threshold range for the detection of shades. |
| 20. | Concepts are sometimes quite difficult to understand. Should let students have more chances to apply what they have learnt. Second project on robots is too open-ended, left too many uncertainty for students. Rules should be set clearly, and project demo more organised and catered to take into account environmental factors like varing light conditions and wear and tear of maps. Due to nature of lego mindstorms, robot should not be made to navigate open-loop, as there are too many factors we cannot control. |
| 21. | Very difficult |
| 22. | For HW2T, assignment rubric was unstable. The rubric was ever changing, even after the project has started, and throughout the few weeks of the duration of the project, we had to work with ever-changing rubric. There was a great deal of uncertainty. I understand that you want us to program the robot to accommodate different varying environments in the real world, but that was not made clear to us. The module was more like Theories of Artificial Intelligence than an introduction, because some of the questions in the module require abstract thinking, as well as proving... not quite what one would expect for an introduction. Off the top of the hat, it might be a good idea to split this module into two? So that the deeper concepts can be covered more slowly and in detail. |
| 23. | -no comment- |
| 24. | Interesting module that covers a well ranged introduction to AI. |
| 25. | No doubt it is a very interesting module but the materials taught are too technical or sophisticated for an introductory module. Perhaps, giving more lessons on a new language that we are required to learn would help us a lot in doing assignment #2. |
| 26. | Assignments are not well thought out and not well graded accordingly. especially when hosting the assignment in poor environments like sunfire with a driver that times out from time to time( not due to the coding of the clients). Functions coded are evaluated based on assumptions that sunfire could do better . Legos robot were never meant to detect amount of light deflected on the floor and the demo on that day itself has shown is point. Not much teams are able to retrieve the gold, no matter how sound the search algorithm in the robot may be. Further more, people coding for the puzzle bridges are expected to be familiar with a combination of sunfire, c and prolog. given that there was not much information on how the c code works. it would seem that it is very demanding for students who are still trying to figure out how to use the prolog in sunfire rather than in SWI or other IDE like eclipse/ |
| 27. | Too big a difference in how material is taught and the style of exam questions, possibly due to the lecturer's liberal arts background which is not as prolific here. Not that liberal arts is bad, but the students do not have proper understanding as to how to handle such cases. |
| 28. | A little more time should be allocated for prolog. |
| 29. | Interesting but difficult. Currently one of the trending field in research. |
© 2011 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved. For inquiries, please email to: ccence@nus.edu.sg