| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Academic Year: | 2007/2008 |
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | FOUNDATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - CS3243 |
| Note: | Feedback on module in general |
| Qn | Items Evaluated | Module Avg Score | Nos Responded |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Overall opinion of the module. | 3.925 | 40 |
| 2 | Grade likely to get for the module. | 3.975 | 40 |
| 3 | Difficulty level of the module. | 3.975 | 40 |
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 | | | 8 (20.00%) | 23 (57.50%) | 8 (20.00%) | 0 (.00%) | 1 (2.50%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 88 (18.45%) | 193 (40.46%) | 153 (32.08%) | 33 (6.92%) | 10 (2.10%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 129 (18.17%) | 290 (40.85%) | 227 (31.97%) | 45 (6.34%) | 19 (2.68%) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | A | B | C | D | F |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 10 (25.00%) | 24 (60.00%) | 3 (7.50%) | 1 (2.50%) | 2 (5.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 136 (28.94%) | 242 (51.49%) | 69 (14.68%) | 16 (3.40%) | 7 (1.49%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 190 (27.10%) | 372 (53.07%) | 110 (15.69%) | 22 (3.14%) | 7 (1.00%) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | Very Difficult | Difficult | Average | Easy | Very Easy |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 10 (25.00%) | 19 (47.50%) | 11 (27.50%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 134 (28.09%) | 223 (46.75%) | 113 (23.69%) | 5 (1.05%) | 2 (.42%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 164 (23.10%) | 304 (42.82%) | 231 (32.54%) | 9 (1.27%) | 2 (.28%) |
| Q1. | Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the module, and suggest possible improvements. |
| 1. | Good modules, dedicated lecturer |
| 2. | Insufficient time to work on test questions. |
| 3. | Not enough examples. |
| 4. | a bit more emphasize on the practical side of AI would be good |
| 5. | Covered fun topics regarding AI. |
| 6. | Not an easy module, but it's a level 3 module, thus not surprising |
| 7. | interesting concepts learn useful and fun projects |
| 8. | Interesting module |
| 9. | frankly both the assignments do not meet the objectives of learning AI. breakthrough kinda meets the requirements, but in the end, students just submit their agents, get a score, and that's all. they have no idea what was wrong with their evaluation function, and as mentioned, a random agent sometimes perform better than a lousy evaluation function. so what's the point? the tank project is not too good too. too much time was spent on understanding the lecturer's code, and adjusting the tank's speed, how to avoid deathmine etc. did we learn much about AI techniques? no. |
| 10. | A vast field which results in this module covering only a small part |
| 11. | The module helps us a lot in exploring AI itself and also let us have a hands on experience of coding AI for agents (which in fact doesnt turn out to be easy like in theory wise). The module is slightly heavy for the projects portion, like for example the tank game in which we are not given a slight direction on how to start it and ended up more like a disaster than really exploring for different ways to code an agent. |
| 12. | not sure |
| 13. | Covers AI topics generally and gives a good overall picture of the concepts. Fun and interesting. There is much to learn from this course. |
| 14. | Too many topics to cover, |
| 15. | NA |
| 16. | Very interesting subject, highly challenging in terms of mental exercises. 2 projects within a sem is abit on the heavy side, but challenging nonetheless. |
| 17. | Too difficult. =( Mid-term very difficult. |
| 18. | This module has 2 good projects. I like them. |