| Faculty: | SCHOOL OF COMPUTING | Academic Year: | 2006/2007 |
| Department: | COMPUTER SCIENCE | Semester: | 2 |
| Module: | DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS - CS1102C |
| Qn | Items Evaluated | Module Avg Score | Nos Responded |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Overall opinion of the module. | 3.510 | 239 |
| 2 | Grade likely to get for the module. | 3.803 | 234 |
| 3 | Difficulty level of the module. | 4.356 | 239 |
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 | | | 32 (13.39%) | 97 (40.59%) | 77 (32.22%) | 27 (11.30%) | 6 (2.51%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 168 (11.55%) | 656 (45.12%) | 485 (33.36%) | 109 (7.50%) | 36 (2.48%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 247 (9.97%) | 1132 (45.70%) | 889 (35.89%) | 152 (6.14%) | 57 (2.30%) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | A | B | C | D | F |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 55 (23.50%) | 105 (44.87%) | 52 (22.22%) | 17 (7.26%) | 5 (2.14%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 378 (27.49%) | 636 (46.25%) | 275 (20.00%) | 60 (4.36%) | 26 (1.89%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 585 (24.74%) | 1228 (51.92%) | 457 (19.32%) | 68 (2.88%) | 27 (1.14%) |
| Nos. of Respondents(% of Respondents) |
| | | ||||||
ITEM\SCORE | | | Very Difficult | Difficult | Average | Easy | Very Easy |
| | | ||||||
Module | | | 100 (41.84%) | 126 (52.72%) | 11 (4.60%) | 2 (.84%) | 0 (.00%) |
Module at Same Level (Dept) | | | 315 (21.66%) | 693 (47.66%) | 393 (27.03%) | 41 (2.82%) | 12 (.83%) |
Module at Same Level (Fac) | | | 387 (15.62%) | 1030 (41.58%) | 923 (37.26%) | 117 (4.72%) | 20 (.81%) |
| Q1. | Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the module, and suggest possible improvements. |
| 1. | Good |
| 2. | While the module is supposed to teach us algorithms, we had to spend a lot of time learning C++ language, which is not really the objective of this module, and make our life pretty miserable. |
| 3. | Too many labs.. spend too much time on the weekly assignments. |
| 4. | The lecturer is a quite nice teacher. And his knowledge passes is important. |
| 5. | The Modules Syllabus is mammothous. I find it quite hard to cope up with so much portions. Though, the module is really interesting, I feel very discouraged when i don't get the results despite hard preparations. Maybe, if the module syllabus is divided into two parts it will facilitate easier study for students. |
| 6. | more hints and review for lab exercises. lab should be discussed in tutorials |
| 7. | The module is too difficult, time consuming and tiring. |
| 8. | The only down side in my opinion is the Course Marker used for our lab sessions. |
| 9. | too fast paced for those without programming knowledge |
| 10. | this module is very useful but the workload is a bit too heavy. THE Practical exam is vey difficult to score given the limited time. I would suggest having more normal labs but less percentage for PE. |
| 11. | This module is more in depth than cs1101c as we get a clearer picture of what the system is going through when the program is executed. |
| 12. | too many labs, taking too much of my time, can make the labs bi-weekly instead. |
| 13. | although the labs take up most of our time, it helps me consistently do my work ^_^ |
| 14. | it is very demanding on the student to do labs each week. |
| 15. | Strength: This module offers quite a lot of exercises and this could help students improve their programming ability. Weakness: The suggested solutions should be given to students after the labs so that they can learn something; and in case the solutions are not correct, they can inform the lecturers and tutors, too. |
| 16. | This is a wonderful module where I learnt a lot.. |
| 17. | I feel that the lecturers have to ride a BMW in LT7A. they just rush to complete syllabus right from the first lecture. And the labs submission is through course marker which is not available for all operating systems. The MAC users have to go in search of friends laptop to submit the lab each time. |
| 18. | needs constant hardwork |
| 19. | The labs were quite cumbersome and we were not implementation whereas the lab needed implementation. The students who knew C++ before were the only ones who could do the labs. |
| 20. | I think the recommended textbook is not very related and useful to this module. Although I read several time, I also couldn't understand it. I hope the recommend textbook will be better next titme. |
| 21. | strengths-extensive programming practise like weekly labs, good tutors weakness-too much data crammed into one course, course material not orderly oriented, no link or flow between topics improvements-decrease topics and elaborate explanantion in lectures |
| 22. | -- |
| 23. | Bridging course from c to c++ is too quick. People without programming background finds it too hard to cope |
| 24. | the module is very difficult in that it covers a lot of topics in a very little time.the module could be split into to modules and if possible teach c++ instead of c in cs1101c so that it would help us code in this module. |
| 25. | The module is really challenging and helped me really expand my programming knowledge. I wish I had more such modules in my course. |
| 26. | it is better to divide this module to two parts and be taught in two semesters |
| 27. | reduce the content of every lecture so that we can understand more at the first time. |
| 28. | I feel that with regards to chapters on graphs and trees, more animations can be used during lectures (java applets).They are more effective in explaining what are the required steps. |
| 29. | very intereasting module but requires more time. maybe can split it into 2 modules. |
| 30. | Hopefully more help can be given to the labs because they are pretty difficult to handle |
| 31. | The labs provided are ok. Perhaps more evaluation after the lab is needed, so that students can learn from their mistakes. |
| 32. | Learnt a lot, through trial and error, and a lot of time spent. Too much time is taken up by this module alone. Everyday is programming, programming, programming cos it's learning to program C++ from scratch. No time for other modules because its CA labs are too much, too many. |
| 33. | too cramped should have taught c++ beforehand and focus on data structures only |
| 34. | nil |
| 35. | This committee encourages students, especially weak students, to work hard and learn well, to their utmost limit, not so just for the grade, but more on 'learning for life". They do so by having more hands on experience - practical labs, in which case account for about 20% of the module. This makes students learn more and is thus more practical as compared to certain modules with 80++% weightage on the final paper.. Very well done!! |
| 36. | Too advanced programming for beginners who may have just learnt the basics of the language in Semester 1 |
| 37. | It teaches us the usefulness of programming in everyday life |
| 38. | too many labs... not enough tiem to concentrate on other modules..workload is very high |
| 39. | It should have more exercise |
| 40. | Quite a bunch of stuff are introduced to us in one go, soo many things in the syllabus. Though all of them are necessary |
| 41. | Pace is too fast, not easy to get. Lots of practise to make perfect. |
| 42. | Strength: Interesting. Have labs so its quite practical. Emphasis on real world apps. Weakness: Poor adminstration of module. Suggested answers for lab are not given after lab 2 (there r 9 of them). Midterms are released only 1 month after the test. Suggested: More algorithms should be taught. General purpose solving like dynamic programming, backtracking, hill climbing shld be emphasized |
| 43. | The teachers should release suggested solutions for the lab exercises that they give us weekly, as this will allow us to improve on our coding style.Currently they dont release the suggested solutions stating that if they wrere to release it then students will think that is the only correct solution and will always try to follow the suggested answer.But this may not be true at all in general.For me, i try to extract all the good algorithms(techniques, not the code itself) used in the solutions and understand them and learn to think and code better in future assignments.Hence they should consider releasing the suggested solutions. More practice should be given in terms of practical lab assignment to prepare for Prectical Exam(rather than just 1 per week) and more question papers to preapre for final written test. The university should be strict when it comes to keeping exam questions secret but what happened for my computing Practical Exam is totally contradictory.The Practical Exam questions was almost entirely leaked to some/many students by the teaching assistants of this module!! My friends and others who were in Mr Pavel's tutorial class already knew what the question was about beforehand. It seems he told his students about the question before the exam during his tutorial classes.Just minutes before i entered the lab for the exam, there were students beside me discussing on the question( The exam question this year: calculator using expression tree)... I did not believe them, until i saw the question paper itself minutes later.I was stunned !!...This clearly gave some advantages to those students over others like me.Unfair. The lecturer and teaching assistants for this module may argue that even if the student knows the question, it still doesn't give him any advantage as everything depends on his level of knowledege on the subject and his ability to do the question within 2 hours. BUT, there ARE students who will try and practice a lot on that narrowed down scope that will enable them to perform better during the exam, DEFINITELY. If i knew the question, i would definitely do much better as i would have tried all the possible solutions and prepared myself better by only focusing on that particular subject....the bottom line is that...it is simply unfair to people like me who are working hard and there are students who know almost the entire question !! |
| 44. | this module is very useful but it is also very time-consuming. |
| 45. | difficult but managable. there could be foundation lectures on c++ in the holidays to allow for better transition from CS1101, as initial jump was quite bad. |
| 46. | Too much content covered in one semester. I have friends from other countries who did not cover so much content in j1/j2 in the span of two years. It'd be much more manageable and enjoyable if it was split into two modules of 4 MCs each. |
| 47. | maybe the lecturer should show more on-hand things during lecture, for example maybe show some coding during lecture so that the it's easier for the students to understand certain codes. |
| 48. | Lecture too fast. Notes sometimes too brief (only provide pseudo code) |
| 49. | it is too difficult for programming amateurs. |
| 50. | it will be better if the lecture can go slower. |
| 51. | weakness: may take up too much time for weaker students. |
| 52. | more help for labs, the TA right now help very little |
| 53. | too complicated at the beginning |
| 54. | TRYING TO CRAMP TOO MANY THINGS IN THREE MONTHS. |
| 55. | even if you did study for this module, go for consultation etc... , u might not be able to get the grade. it's that tough |
| 56. | The module encompasses too many new concepts in a short time. the leap from C language to C++ is rather steep to be covered in only 2 weeks. It really sets those with no programming background (and NO, CS1101C doesn't really count because that module was just basic programming) at a disadvantage. |
| 57. | the module has too large a comtent that we can hardly understand everything. what's the propuse of teaching so much while the students can only understand half of it. and through out the whole semester struggling with it. some more, this module is too time consuming. with a lab submision each week, we have not much time left for other modules. please be more considerate to students with no computing back ground, well majority of us don't have. |
| 58. | It's not as hard as it seems, but requires a lot of practice (which sadly, I didn't do). |
| 59. | strengths - it gets you to think out of the box weakness - too many topics covered , too little time |
| 60. | Labs are very time consuming but necessary. Maybe more easy questions could be set. I don't like the idea of students presenting in tutorials. Most of the time, students don't explain their solutions clearly. More weightage could be given to lab, ie 25%. 0% for class participation. |
| 61. | This module can really put alot of stress on students initilally, but after some time, we start to understand most of the concepts. |
| 62. | Too much for a 5 MC module |
| 63. | It isnt applicable to all engineering students. University admissions brochures should state CLEARLY that such a module will have to be read for certain courses. |
| 64. | lab standard too high |
| 65. | this modules covers too many things, so the lecturer has to rush, it is quite difficult to follow sometimes |
| 66. | Too little time for a programming language module. |
| 67. | The teaching pace is too fast, with too much materials cramped together. Students are not able to catch up and grasp the knowledge well due to lack of time. |
| 68. | The workload is too much. Having lab every week is too taxing. Should cut down on number of labs. |
| 69. | Too time consuming. Maybe it is better to split the content into two modules. But reli appreciate all the efforts and helps given by Lecturer, tutors... They reli spend a lot of time to make our lives easier. |
| 70. | lecturer was rushing throughout and we end up having 1 more week extra.. could have spend more time on more difficult topics like those taught in the middle which forms the basis of the module |
| 71. | Module is not taught in detail and the content of this module is puzzling MOST of the time. |
| 72. | Patient. Enable students to understand the theory better |
| 73. | too much to cover |
| 74. | -- |
| 75. | This module is difficult and workload is heavy |
| 76. | The modules is taught with the speed of light and many many knowledge included, please lighten the workload for students. |
| 77. | This module was really tuff..it din't allowed us to study the rest of our modules...every week we had to do lab which din't allowed us to study other modules...the number of labs shud be reduced so students could concentrate on other modules as well |
| 78. | The module is comparatively difficult for first timer. Programming require a lot of training and exercise but the course span is too short for all that. It does not take into account that on average, majority of students may not have any basic in C++ or programming at all. It would be preferable that this course allow pair programming just like what has been done in CS1101C so that new programmer can accelerate their learning process. |
| 79. | Overall, the module is quite interesting. The first few lectures, however, have a lot of material packed into a few slides. It gets better towards the end though!! |
| 80. | weakness: too broad the syllables.really have to know by heart all algorithms for finals. quite taxing when debugging the lab assignments. nevertheless, a good course to really understand C++, data structures and algorithms |
| 81. | THE COURSE IS VERY FAST PACED. The way it is taught is not very good. New topics are taught a few days prior to the labs which makes it very difficult to cope with . the teaching is also very substandard |
| 82. | Please lengthen the duration of this module. |
| 83. | More meaningful feedback from CM would be nice. |
| 84. | We just learnt so many things in so little time. It's not easy and unfair for people who just introduced to programming in the first place. |
| 85. | This was probably the most difficult module this semester. Where on one hand it was interesting, it had a major weakness because of which most of the students were not off to a good start. In the first few lectures, the pace was very fast and it was a big jump from C to C++. It would be better if the lecturer spends more time on the minute details, tell students more about the new concepts like that of classes and about the differences in syntax of this new language. We had a firm grasp on the concepts but had no idea how to implement them on the compiler because of lack of knowledge of syntax. Once you have spent 3 weeks with a lecturer, you tend to get on-track.Lastly, since this is a 5 MC module having a 1 hr tutorial is not doing justice to the module. It should be at least one and a half hours so that there is ample time to go through the presentations given by the tutors. The tutorials were presented very "hastily" |
| 86. | The module has too much workload for a level 1 module, and while the labs are something that i greatly appreciate and feel that i have learned a lot from, they increasingly became the only thing i would be doing during the week, causing me to neglect my other subjects. I think this should be made a level 2 module, or maybe split into two parts, with the data structures one part, and algorithm analysis etc as a separate module, so that once we are adequately equipped with the tools, we can go on and look at the second part. |
| 87. | too much to learn within a semester. A tough subject as it uses up too much time compared to other subject. Workload and lab are high. |
| 88. | Strength of the module lies in teaching students to solve problems in simple steps. Weakness is that there is lots of C++ coding for the 1st half of the semester, so it is kind of difficult for students without programming background to catch up. |
| 89. | this module was too taxing. every week a difficult graded lab and lots of assignments to go with it. It was too difficult. |
| 90. | Very taxing. Too much work load! |
| 91. | Very fast pace module. I think it could be further break up to 2 semester study or more. My friends back in Malaysia who study the exact same subject as CS1102C had the whole syllabus covered in 2 sem and it seems they understand more because they have more time to spend on understanding the topics rather than just rush through and finish it in one sem. |
| 92. | Module introduces alot of pseudocoding which is good but there should be extra classes or supplementary notes with actual codes. The recommended textbook has codes but their implementation sometimes slightly differ from the pseudocode given. |
| 93. | Workload is too heavy. It is not porpotional to the MC that we get. |
| 94. | reduce syllabus |
| 95. | I don't think i am the right person to comment on the strengths and weaknesses as i honestly haven't put in enough effort..and well..while other modules can be managed without too much of the same..this clearly can't.. |
| 96. | The algorithm and data structures module is quite an interesting and useful module. The only drawback regarding the module is that the workload is enormous. Firstly it is a difficult module and hence requires a lot of input. Secondly the designer's of the module made a big mistake in increasing the actual workload by increasing the syllabus and giving weekly labs and tutorials, both of which contribute a significant amount to the final grade. The designer's of the module were right in increasing the credit for the module but it would defamation in the name CS1102C to give it anything less than 6 MCs. Ironically I have yet to figure out whether the module aims at teaching us C++ or Data Structures and Algorithms. If both then we are being taught TWO DIFFERENT MODULES for the MCs of only one module. In short I think the syllabus of the module needa to be revised and it needs to be decided whether electrical engineers in particular need to study C++ or algorithms. And if both i think the concept of completing 160 MCs in 4 years is misleading as we are actually doing 163 MCs and not getting credit for the 3 MCs of extra work being done in this module. Lastly the module needs to be raised to a level 2 status. |
| 97. | -Strength:good lecturer -weakness:high work load, bad lecnote |
| 98. | heavy workload, difficult midterm test |
| 99. | Rather than including too many topics in the course, maybe concentrating on general algorithm development and the coding that goes along with it might be better... |
| 100. | Too much is thought in too lilttle time and the level of testing is too high. |
| 101. | please provide more exercise and attached answers. |
| 102. | The module is so tough. Apparently it should be further divided into "C++" and "data structure". Now the workload is much too heavy. Please please please please please please please please please just throw away CourseMarker, or provide with us another module on "How to make UNIX system/CourseMarker happy", cuz most of us HAVE to waste nearly one whole day or more EVERY WEEK just trying to communicate with the UNIX/CourseMarker with our dear but poor poor Windows system... Possibly a survey on students who took/are taking CS1102C will show how we...HATE...CourseMarker... |
| 103. | too many stuff for this module, very heavy work load. Dr Tan Sun Teck is very kind, but in order to finish the scope, he has to teach very fast, it's very difficult for me to understand all of the materials very clearly. |
| 104. | quite interesting, but rather difficult for those without programming background |
| 105. | The course maker is not convinent. |
| 106. | lecturer went too fast in the second part of this semester. it takes time for student to digest the matirial that has been taught. |
| 107. | too difficult!!! it should be separated into two modules, one c++ one data structure |
| 108. | useful but difficult |
| 109. | to cut down some contents. It is too much to cover within one semester. |
| 110. | very good |
| 111. | Useful |
| 112. | the time is so limit for us to learn enough stuff |
| 113. | The course for this module is very lengthy. Apart from the course, the labs are released evry week, being lengthy, consume whole week and thus whole week is wasted after the lab. Althoug it has been allocated 5 Mcs but the workload is far greater. The module being difficult, exam should be set easy rather than tough like our midterm exam. No matter how hard you put in you still struggle not only in this particular subject but also lag in other subjects. The module's course should be cut down, it should be changed to a level two module and the labs should be made easier and correpondingly the papers should be set easy to give a fair chance to all. The module being difficult offers edge to people who already know this module (before the start of this module) and hence making life difficult for other students that start from scratch. The good thing about this module is the lab that is given weekly. It allows us to test our selves and helps a lot in learning. Its even safe to say that i havent learn that much in class than doing labs. Having said that, the level of difficulty should be lowered for the labs so that we dont end up doing the lab as if it was the only thing that existed to us. |
| 114. | Weekly labs stimulate self-study, which is good. Weakness is in the necessity of very much self-study, and at times it is not easy to understand things without being explained. |
| 115. | stength: build on logical thinking and improve skills on programming weakness: very time consuming |
| 116. | course module is quite tough, learning curve at the start is pretty steep and takes some time for one to aclimatise. |
| 117. | start easy and slowly move on... a big jump from cs1101c |
| 118. | The weekly labs are able to allow students to strengthen their logic for the module. Its good. But perhaps more examples and explanation can be given for the Big O notation part.(complexity calculation) |
| 119. | Teaching C++ language is a very good skill to have. But, for people that does not have any background in C++, it is a complete struggle. Especially this module is about data structure and algorithms. So you are "expected" to know C++ syntax before hand. Only 3 lectures were taught on the syntax. I think this is very unfair for those who have taken C++ before, especially foreigners and A level students who took computing. An average students only have C background due to CS1101. If C++ is going to be the ultimate aim, why not teach C++ from the start to replace 1101. So we will be familiar with the syntax and do not have to scratch our head when it comes to C++ syntax dealing with data structures and algorithms. The practical lab sessions every week is a great pain in everyone's head. People with prior C++ knowledge can finish within 1-2 day, sometimes at most 3 days. For normal people, they spent more than 5-7 days (more than 30 hours in total on each lab. What is the resultant consequence? No time for other modules. My suggestion to have simpler questions for the lab that test your understanding, not test that whether you can think in terms of the question setter way. Or alternate week problems. This causes a lot of distress among students. A quick glance at the forums would show up. People stay up to 4-5am just to do this lab. The scope of the syllabus is too broad. Many things in such great details are taught at 1 shot, how would one be able to cope with it unless you are genius and have C++ background? The additional 1 MC worth of effort is as good as another module. |
| 120. | Interesting and engaging lecturers and tutors. Overall, I enjoy the module although it's tough. |
| 121. | more help on the C++ language |
| 122. | The learning curve at the beginning is too steep, more time and example is needed to learn c++ language |
| 123. | This module required us to have C++ knowledge. However there were only minimal lessons on C++ programming. As such most of us figured out how to do C++ by ourselves along the way. A lot of time is hence wasted on getting the correct C++ syntax than figuring out the correct algorithm. Perhaps instead of learning C in CS1101C (taught last sem), we straight away start with learning C++. I believe CS1101C can be modified. For eg, instead of teaching C format output, straight away teach C++ streams. Do away with the topic on 'Structures' and substitute with 'C++ Classes'. In that way, we'll be better prepared for CS1102C. |
| 124. | steep learning curve but Dr Tan and all other tutors were very helpful |
| 125. | This module gives a good introduction to the C++ language as well as the basic building blocks for complex data structures. Although i feel it might be better to teach C++ in CS1101C instead.. since after this module, i'll more likely be using C++ stuff more.. I feel the practical exam is not very practical.. i would suggest scrapping the practical exam and put heavier weightage on the labs.. as the labs are where the recommended programming practises are developed (eg. proper documentations, modularity, etc..).. with the 2.5hr constraint of the PE, we tend to focus more attention to the results rather than the process (ie, getting the correct output rather than how to get it) cos more weightage was given to getting the right output.. what is the aim of the PE?? to test whether students can churn out the results in the time limit?? or to test whether students practise good programming skills/techniques? |
| 126. | Good practise with lab assignment weekly but rather hectic |
| 127. | too much to learn, too much lab work. though suff help outlets are given. students do not hav the time to dedicated to only this module. we do have other modules to take care of. |
| 128. | the modules may be too rush, esp at the start where we had difficulty understanding C++ |
| 129. | Too much time and effort needed for the weekly labs. Worth 10 MCs at least for the time spent! |
| 130. | interesting module, learnt alot. Could have abit more guidance for lab sessions though, instead of throwing people with no background like me into the deep end of the pool. |
| 131. | The workload can get pretty heavy, when compared to other modules. Especially because of the once a week lab sessions. I guess thats why CS1102C is 5 MCs. =D |
| 132. | For people with no background on computing at all, except for a pre-resq module (CS1101), programming is totally an alien subject, and expecting students to understand, grasp and also implement C and C++ codes is just something that me and many of my friends do not anticipate. ALthough we understand the syllabus have already been cut down, maybe it would be just better to let students learn the pseudocode first then the coding later... |
| 133. | slower pace at the beginning of course for those with no C++ background. Show how to implement simple programs during the lecture so that we know how it is done at the beginning as I was very lost during the first 4 weeks. |
| 134. | This module is cover data structures and algorithm rather extensively. Students who have backgrounds tend to score better setting other students at a disadvantage. |
| 135. | This module requires a lot of time spent on it. Students with no programming background are likely to suffer compared to those who have already learnt this module before. I suggest that a more detailed syllabus of C++ coding be included so that those without C++ background can learn better. |
| 136. | not enough time |
| 137. | C++ source code could be provided for the later chapters, and examples of full programs too, so that students can better understand how to go about coding. |
| 138. | More examples on the codes that are used instead of pseudocodes for the lecture notes |
| 139. | feels very disadvantaged not havin any computing background. |
| 140. | It is not easy for students to grapse the foundation for computing easily especially for students like me who are slower in learning. |
| 141. | starting part assumes students already know C++ very well |
| 142. | Perhaps can tone done on the pace of teaching I noticed that for the later part of the module, the schedule is a bit mixed up. For example, we will have the programming lab on hashing, THEN the tutorial. I believe that it should be the other way round. Since the lab is supposed to be a DIFFICULT exercise while the tutorial is supposed to be a basic exercise for us to learn new concepts. |
| 143. | Excellent course structure |
| 144. | too time consuming, resulting from the long hours spent on labs, especially trying to get exact outputs and not the correct algorithm |
| 145. | This module is quite good, explaining us the algorithms and data structures. |
| 146. | The module expects the students to know a lot of the subject from before hand, which makes it much more difficult for those of us who have not done programming before |
| 147. | As of now, the module seems to be quite tough. it places a lot of burden on the students. weekly exercises such as labs(which are not that easy and are time-consuming) take up a lot of time leaving little time to study for other modules.so the concerned people should consider reducing the workload imposed by this module.as for the strengths it enhances our programming skills which is very important in today's world. |
| 148. | The strength of hte module is it enhances the programming and analysing skills of students. The amount of course covered is extensive and hence the students with programming backgrounds are able to excel and gain knowledge whereas students with less programming knowledge lack behind and are always catching up throughout the semester. Maybe have a programming test like CAP and put students in different difficulty levels so the lower experience students will do the course over 2 semesters instead of 1. |
| 149. | time consuming |
| 150. | Helps develop the thinking process in students, ensuring that we plan before executing any action. However, the module, especially the practical labs are very challenging and time-consuming (though it does encourage regular practice). |
| 151. | I think department should revise on the syllabus of this module. Because I don't think that we are as engineering student need to study so deep inside about data structure and algorithm, since we are not from school of computing. And some more the topics that are covered in one semester are too many(almost every week we learn about new thing & new chapter). It took a lot of our time just to study this one killer module and made us ignored other modules. What the main concern is whether it is really usefull to learn all those things for our future?? Since not every students are going to be a programmer. Why don't they just teach the general one and for those students who are interested in programming, they can take the advanced module in programming. |
| 152. | The module is very difficult. There is too much to be learnt in such a short period of time. I feel that too much is expected of the students, even for a 5MC module. If the students took only this module plus not more than 3others, then it will still be okay. But as we all take at least 5 modules, this module really stresses us out. Especially the labs. Most of us spend the entire weekend just trying to figure out how we should start programming, then spend another 2or 3 days just debugging the program. And this impedes a lot on our other modules. They should seriously consider making it a bit easier. |
| 153. | - I just see that the module is quite hard and the practical labs take too much time, especially the Courese Marker usually gets problems. |