| | |
| Teacher Assessment Report | |
| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Academic Year: | 2011/2012 |
| 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. | 4.087 | 23 |
| 2 | Grade likely to get for the module. | 4.217 | 23 |
| 3 | Difficulty level of the module. | 3.783 | 23 |
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 | | | 5 (21.74%) | 15 (65.22%) | 3 (13.04%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 163 (33.13%) | 237 (48.17%) | 75 (15.24%) | 13 (2.64%) | 4 (.81%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 212 (23.66%) | 441 (49.22%) | 192 (21.43%) | 28 (3.12%) | 23 (2.57%) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | A | B | C | D | F |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 7 (30.43%) | 14 (60.87%) | 2 (8.70%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 175 (36.23%) | 254 (52.59%) | 43 (8.90%) | 9 (1.86%) | 2 (.41%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 274 (31.10%) | 501 (56.87%) | 93 (10.56%) | 11 (1.25%) | 2 (.23%) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | Very Difficult | Difficult | Average | Easy | Very Easy |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 0 (.00%) | 19 (82.61%) | 3 (13.04%) | 1 (4.35%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 74 (15.04%) | 230 (46.75%) | 168 (34.15%) | 18 (3.66%) | 2 (.41%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 106 (11.88%) | 368 (41.26%) | 383 (42.94%) | 29 (3.25%) | 6 (.67%) |
| Q1. | Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the module, and suggest possible improvements. |
| 1. | Strength: The module is thought out as a very good incremental scope of teaching. |
| 2. | Content is simple but assignment is hard as we have to study the coding part by ourselves. |
| 3. | interesting module. the prog language use is very interesting. |
| 4. | this module covers lots of useful content. While it is a bit hard to grasp all of them. |
| 5. | Lack of HW answers (at least for the essay questions) hinders my revision for the exams. More past year papers could be provided. |
| 6. | Assignments can be too time consuming at times |
| 7. | Very useful information about information retrieval and can be applied in many fields. |
| 8. | Workload feels a bit too heavy, but everything else is great. |
| 9. | Allowed me to learn a very useful language and understand how information are being retrieved. |
| 10. | This module helps me to understand more the concept of Information Retrieval and its relevance and application. |
| 11. | ---------------- |
| 12. | NA |
| 13. | Good |
Loading... please wait.