| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Academic Year: | 2012/2013 |
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | INFORMATION RETRIEVAL - CS3245 | ||
| Note: | Feedback on module in general | ||
| Qn | Items Evaluated | Module Avg Score | Nos Responded |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Overall opinion of the module. | 4 | 19 |
| 2 | Grade likely to get for the module. | 3.789 | 19 |
| 3 | Difficulty level of the module. | 4.053 | 19 |
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 | | | 7 (36.84%) | 6 (31.58%) | 5 (26.32%) | 1 (5.26%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 153 (28.98%) | 246 (46.59%) | 101 (19.13%) | 18 (3.41%) | 10 (1.89%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 215 (22.37%) | 446 (46.41%) | 245 (25.49%) | 37 (3.85%) | 18 (1.87%) |
Frequency Distribution (Qn 2: Grades likely to get for the module)
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | A | B | C | D | F |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 3 (15.79%) | 11 (57.89%) | 3 (15.79%) | 2 (10.53%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 170 (32.76%) | 268 (51.64%) | 61 (11.75%) | 16 (3.08%) | 4 (.77%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 292 (30.80%) | 532 (56.12%) | 102 (10.76%) | 18 (1.90%) | 4 (.42%) |
Frequency Distribution (Qn 3: Difficulty level of the module)
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | Very Difficult | Difficult | Average | Easy | Very Easy |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 5 (26.32%) | 10 (52.63%) | 4 (21.05%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 87 (16.51%) | 228 (43.26%) | 192 (36.43%) | 18 (3.42%) | 2 (.38%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 122 (12.71%) | 362 (37.71%) | 443 (46.15%) | 27 (2.81%) | 6 (.62%) |
| Q1. | Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the module, and suggest possible improvements. (please provide your comments in English) |
| 1. | Interesting CS topic. Workload was a little heavy, but it was through the homework that we really learned the most. Could possibly cover less content, but more depth and real-life applications that involved IR. |
| 2. | Definitely beneficial for students as it covers search algorithm that is part of any computer scientist life |
| 3. | The scale of the assignments are not very manageable, too much workload for a level 3 module. |
| 4. | The workload for this module can be rather tedious with all the homework assignments and contents in the lectures can be rather heavy. An improvement can be to increase the weight age for the homework assignment and perhaps reduce weight age or omit the mid-term. |
| 5. | Projects should have been made compulsory group-work. Projects formed too large a percentage in the overall grade. Content was presented in an interesting manner. Tutorial sessions were very good; clear and concise explanations by Prof. |
| 6. | Strengths: It is an interesting module that covers a lot of areas on information retrieval. Improvements: Perhaps it might be useful to have lab lessons? Although there is a crash course into Python for this module, having lab lessons might still be useful. |
| 7. | Strength: - Opened one's horizons and knowledge on search algorithms. - Lots of hands-on experience with coding a 'simplistic' version of a search engine. - Inspires further pursuit of knowledge along this area as it resonates with what we usually do on the Internet. Weakness: - Content is rather heavy. |
| 8. | none |
| 9. | Strength: The syllabus has not changed much for many years. Students will always have seniors who took the module before to ask for guidance. Things taught in class are used in assignments. Webcasts are very well done for so many semesters. Weakness: All the assignments are about indexing and searching which most likely different as different people will implement them differently. It is hard to know whether what we have done is correct even with the help of posting individual results on the forum. |
| 10. | interesting material - the amount of time to spend on assignments is a bit deceptive - for example, the last assignment allows us to work in groups of 4, but the workload actually was not as great as assignment 2. |
| 11. | Nice pacing for assignments and use of webcast. |
© 2013 National University of Singapore. All Rights Reserved. For inquiries, please email to: ccence@nus.edu.sg