DD2426 Robotik och autonoma system

Resultat av kursutvärdering


    Some questions to help make the course better.


  1. Was the course easy or difficult?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very easy.
    2. 7% (1 st) Easy.
    3. 40% (6 st) Average.
    4. 40% (6 st) Quite difficult.
    5. 13% (2 st) Very difficult.


  2. Did you find the course interesting and meaningful?

    1. 87% (13 st) Yes, very much.
    2. 13% (2 st) Yes.
    3. 0% (0 st) Neutral.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not particularily.
    5. 0% (0 st) No.


  3. Did you buy the course book?

    1. 27% (4 st) Yes.
    2. 73% (11 st) No.

  4. How did you like it?

    1. 7% (1 st) Very good.
    2. 27% (4 st) Good.
    3. 33% (5 st) Neutral.
    4. 7% (1 st) Quite bad.
    5. 0% (0 st) Terrible.

  5. How much of the course book did you read?

    1. 33% (5 st) Less than 20%.
    2. 20% (3 st) 20-40%.
    3. 7% (1 st) 40-60%.
    4. 7% (1 st) 60-80%.
    5. 0% (0 st) More than 80%.

    Comments on course book:

    I did not buy the coursebook so I can not say it's good or bad. However, I attending the lectures and towards the exam I sat down and took notes from the powerpoint slides. This was well enough to pass the exam. If a high grade is desired, the powerpoint slides alone will not suffice.
    ---
    i guess it's ok, it just doesnt correspond to our course very well. It throws up a lot of formulas without explanation or justification
    ---
    I lend it from a friend. and it was okey, usefull to read befor the exam


  6. How many of the lectures did you attend?

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 20%.
    2. 13% (2 st) 20-40%.
    3. 33% (5 st) 40-60%.
    4. 20% (3 st) 60-80%.
    5. 33% (5 st) More than 80%.

  7. How did you find the lectures pedagogically? (Explanation? Speaks so that one understands? Good and understandable answers to questions?)

    1. 27% (4 st) Very good.
    2. 67% (10 st) Good.
    3. 7% (1 st) Acceptable.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 0% (0 st) Did not attend.

  8. How did you find the pace on the lectures?

    1. 0% (0 st) Way too fast.
    2. 13% (2 st) A bit too fast.
    3. 80% (12 st) OK.
    4. 7% (1 st) A bit too slow.
    5. 0% (0 st) Way too slow.

    Comments on lectures:

    Could probably have had a brief c lecture for people that were new to c. Maybe some more stuff with direct connection to the robot and the milestones, like more talk about the eyebot platform and api, image recognition stuff etc.
    ---
    The slides where good prepared and included the most important parts in an understandable way.


  9. Did you attend the guest lecture about RoboCup and the winners from last years competition?

    1. 60% (9 st) Yes.
    2. 40% (6 st) No.

  10. Did you find the guest lecture relavant and interesting?

    1. 7% (1 st) Yes very much.
    2. 40% (6 st) Yes.
    3. 20% (3 st) So so.
    4. 7% (1 st) No.
    5. 7% (1 st) It was bad.

    Comments on guest lecture:

    I heard it was pretty good.
    ---
    It was interesting and rewarding listening to winners from last year.
    ---
    They seemed more concerned about impressing people than anything else. They talked about al the advnaced stuff they did but in reality it wasn't used. And using neural networks and things of that nature for this kind of a project is comical at best.


  11. How big part of the course material besides the project part overlaps with other courses you have read?

    1. 27% (4 st) Less than 10%.
    2. 40% (6 st) 10-30%.
    3. 20% (3 st) 30-50%.
    4. 13% (2 st) 50-70%.
    5. 0% (0 st) More than 70%.

    Comments on the overlap:

    Read the AI course with you Patric.
    ---
    Mechanics and microsystem technology (transducers etc.)
    ---
    ofcourse all of the math was familiar, but most of the mechanics, navigation, computer vision etc was new


  12. How did you like the project part of the course?

    1. 80% (12 st) Very good.
    2. 13% (2 st) Good.
    3. 7% (1 st) Acceptable.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.

  13. How much time did you spend on the project?

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 30h.
    2. 20% (3 st) 30-60h.
    3. 33% (5 st) 60-100h.
    4. 20% (3 st) 100-140h.
    5. 20% (3 st) More than 140h.

  14. How did you like the setup with three milestones to give incentive to start early?

    1. 73% (11 st) Very good.
    2. 13% (2 st) Good.
    3. 13% (2 st) OK.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.

    Comments on the projects:

    I have no idea how much time I spent on the project. The easiest would probably be to look at how long time we was logined in on the computer.
    ---
    There should one milestone for playing football, before the actual competition.
    ---
    milestones are very good to ensure a steady progress.
    ---
    The project requires a lot of time. Maybe this course should have more credits because of this.
    ---
    Make milestone 2 again as the minimum requirement to pass the course. This will make the competition again more interesting for all the teams and the visitors.


  15. Do you think that your group worked well as a team?

    1. 27% (4 st) Yes, very well
    2. 47% (7 st) Yes
    3. 13% (2 st) So, so
    4. 0% (0 st) Not so good
    5. 13% (2 st) It was a disaster

  16. Do you think that the grading system on the project was fair?

    1. 13% (2 st) Yes, perfectly
    2. 73% (11 st) Yes
    3. 7% (1 st) So, so
    4. 7% (1 st) It was a disaster

  17. As a teacher it is very hard to tell who did what in a group. Do you think it would be a good idea to let the group have some way of adjusting the grades, e.g. one level, while maintaining the sum of grades so that not all members get the same grade with the motivation that not all did as much.

    1. 7% (1 st) Yes, very good idea
    2. 27% (4 st) Yes
    3. 60% (9 st) Not so good
    4. 7% (1 st) Never heard anything so stupid before

    Moe comments on the project:

    It would be very hard. Would probably be persons that think they did more even if they didn't.
    ---
    17 is good in theory, but will probably be difficult to do in practice..
    ---
    I don't see how it would work well. Responsibility lies within the group to solve the tasks evenly. Skills of certain fields should be dicussed before the team is put together (eg. a good programmer is a must and should not "waste" time on the mechanics), and if a person doesnt know what to do then its up to the project leader to delegate the work accordingly. Oh yes, a project leader should be appointed in every group. Furthermore, as in any project, no matter what the subject is, there's always someone who does a bit more than others.
    ---
    It is often hard to determine who did how much and invested how much time.
    If one team is confronted with the problem that one team member doesn’t want to work on the project the team has to decide itself to work in the future with or without this team member.


  18. Did you get the help you needed during the project?

    1. 40% (6 st) Yes.
    2. 33% (5 st) Sometimes.
    3. 27% (4 st) Not that often.
    4. 0% (0 st) Never.

  19. Was lab assistant knowledgeable, accessible and helpful?

    1. 33% (5 st) Very good.
    2. 40% (6 st) Good.
    3. 20% (3 st) So so.
    4. 7% (1 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.

    Comments on the project help:

    We asked very few questions. It was more about rules and stuff like that.
    ---
    purple paper arrived a bit too late..
    ---
    Maybe it would have been useful more information about how to do the project, using whole reports is a little bit confused. A guide about how to program a robot for this purpose could have been useful.


  20. What do you think of the level of difficulty of the exam?

    1. 0% (0 st) Too difficult
    2. 7% (1 st) Difficult
    3. 60% (9 st) Just right
    4. 27% (4 st) Simple
    5. 0% (0 st) Too simple

  21. Do you think that the exam tested the material taught in the course?

    1. 60% (9 st) Yes.
    2. 33% (5 st) Somewhat.
    3. 0% (0 st) No.

    Comments:

    As an electrical engineer the exam involved quite a lot of old gained knowledge
    ---
    The project requires a lot of work, so it's fair that the difficulty of the exam is not too hard.


  22. How many other courses did you read in paralell to this one??

    1. 0% (0 st) None.
    2. 27% (4 st) One.
    3. 60% (9 st) Two.
    4. 13% (2 st) Three.
    5. 0% (0 st) Four or more.

  23. The course is given in English. What do you think about that?

    1. 33% (5 st) Would not have taken it if given in Swedish
    2. 27% (4 st) I was good that it was in English
    3. 33% (5 st) Don't care
    4. 7% (1 st) Would have prefered Swedish

  24. What fraction of the total study time during period 4 did you spend on this course?

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 15%.
    2. 20% (3 st) 15-30%.
    3. 47% (7 st) 30-50%.
    4. 13% (2 st) 50-70%.
    5. 20% (3 st) More than 70%.

    Comments:

    The other two courses wasn't much to do in.
    ---
    originally planned for less than 15%, but turned out to be around 40-50% due to haveing to pick up the slack from other groupmembers.
    ---
    I've spent more than 200 hours on the robot build
    ---
    a lot of time...


  25. If you could make the choice again, would you have taken the course?

    1. 73% (11 st) Yes, definitely
    2. 7% (1 st) Yes
    3. 20% (3 st) Maybe
    4. 0% (0 st) Probably not
    5. 0% (0 st) No way in hell!

    Comments:


  26. 5 good thins about the course (that we should try to preserve):

    The competition. Even if it don't make any difference when it comes to grades it is very fun and makes you motivated.
    ---
    Milestones, Competition, Good lectures, Nice exam, good to be able to see last years reports.
    ---
    milestones structure and incremental approach towards a solid milestone.
    ---
    Hard to list 5 things, I think the course was very good in most parts.
    ---
    The actual building, the practical part
    The exam
    The teachers
    The contest

    ---
    1. very rewarding. totally opened up my mind towards robots and answered a lot of questions and thoughts i was curious about.

    2. A summary of many courses since robotics is about so many fields: mechanics, programming etc..

    3. project based courses are rare but rewarding experiences. you have responsibilities which would let your teammates down if u dont do your best..

    4. robots are cool!

    5. it's fun to solder...=)

    ---
    The project is really interesting.
    The competition is a good incentivation to work propertly.

    ---
    it is a practical outlet for the theoritical things we have read.
    ---
    The Tournament was great.
    Milestone early in the course so you start building the robot in time.
    the opportunity to read reports from last year.
    The Project.

    ---
    -The goal to perform well at the competition.
    -To have the ability to determine the own grade self by fulfilling the milestones.
    -The workshop which could be used all the time.
    -The high degree of creativity to build the robot (Software - / Hardware implementations).
    -To make the old reports public in order to learn from the experiences of former teams.

    ---
    -practical
    -mix of several knowledges
    -equipement


  27. 5 bad things about the course (that we should try to fix):

    If the hardware have been better more time could have been put into the AI-part of the course.
    ---
    Brief C lecture, more electronics (fun:), guest lecture from some other robotics/ai guy may be fun?, maybe milestone for enemy avoidance/awareness.
    ---
    i wont include it in bad things but its a suggestion.
    We should be given the option to make any kind of final project to do, like it shouldnt be fixed for soccer robot, we can be given 5 options like make a swimming robot, make a racing car, make a rope climbing robot, and etc.... so, for doing that the same incremental approach should be applied so that everyone get the option to make and learn new things

    ---
    I would have loved some better equipment for constructing the robot. The tools available were very low standard, so that in combination with quite short time to build limited the constructionoptions allot.

    Also, a better quality camera would make image processing allot easyer, and that would give more time to work on more advanced locomotion and localisation.

    ---
    dont grade groupe work
    could have used better (more graphical) software i.e labview not smart to do this in C. To program the micro processor isn't intresting, to make it adaptive and having an internal map is, but to programing intensive in C.
    The hardware should be pumped so that god reliable pictures can be taken

    ---
    The machines and the available constructing hardware (although I understand that it's impossible to get any better because KTH generally hates practical work)
    ---
    1. i seriosuly believe that a better camera would directly lead to a better course since alot of frustration would dissapear... =).
    2. an air-conditioner in the workshop......?

    ---
    Few credits according to the work that must be spent.
    We are taught in robotics theory, but not so much about how to be guided during the project.

    ---
    More time goin through some more theory about camera preception.
    better camera.

    ---
    -Make milestone 2 again to the minimum course requirement which has to be fulfilled 1 week before the real competition.
    -Start with the practical part in the first week.
    -Check more often the actual developing status of the different teams.

    ---
    -gap between algorithm of the course and the robot


  28. Do you think that you were treated differently in this course because of sex, sexuality, ethnic background or disability?

    1. 0% (0 st) Yes.
    2. 13% (2 st) No sure.
    3. 87% (13 st) No.

    If yes, in what way?


  29. How would you grade the course from a gender perspective (e.g. regarding course material, content, teacher, etc)?

    I think it was really good.
    ---
    A
    ---
    Don't see why gender would make any difference.
    ---
    ?
    ---
    Good!
    ---
    maybe instead of an expensive coursebook, the lecturer could put together a course compendium which goes into depth of the essentials. the powerpoint presentations are not really interesting reading although the do depict the course.
    ---
    The course material was good and included lots of information about robotics. The teacher tried to make the course material more transparent by implementing some movies but sometime there were too many movies within one lecture.
    All in all: very good course and keep on doing it so good!!!


patric@csc.kth.se

Denna sammanställning har genererats med ACE.