Course Evaluation for DD2442 Seminars on Theoretical Computer Science Autumn 2014
General questions about the course
- How did you follow the course?
- 86% (6 st) I was taking the course for credit and have done all problem sets.
- 0% (0 st) I started taking the course for credit but did not finish it.
- 14% (1 st) I was a listener on the course.
- Did you find the course easy or hard?
- 0% (0 st) Very easy.
- 14% (1 st) Fairly easy.
- 43% (3 st) Medium.
- 43% (3 st) Fairly hard.
- 0% (0 st) Very hard.
- Did you find the course interesting?
- 71% (5 st) Yes, very interesting.
- 14% (1 st) Yes, fairly interesting.
- 14% (1 st) Neutral.
- 0% (0 st) No, not very interesting.
- 0% (0 st) No, not at all interesting.
- Did you understand sufficiently well at the beginning of the course what the course goals were?
- 100% (7 st) Yes.
- 0% (0 st) Don't know.
- 0% (0 st) No.
If you think this would have been needed, how should the course goals have been explained better?
I wasn't present at the first lectures so I cannot say much about it,
but I think the course goals are clear enough as they are presented on
the course website.
- In the prerequisites for the course, it said that "you
should have taken DD1352 Algorithms, Data Structures, and Complexity or
DD2352 Algorithms and Complexity or corresponding courses at other
universities, but actually most of what we do will be independent of
this material. You will need to know some probability theory and basic
linear algebra, and some knowledge of abstract algebra (groups, rings,
and fields) will also be helpful, although we will review briefly all
concepts that we will need. [...] Although the formal prerequisites are
very limited, you will need mathematical maturity and a willingness to
learn new stuff." Do you think this was a fair description?
- 86% (6 st) Yes.
- 14% (1 st) Don't know.
- 0% (0 st) No.
What if anything would you have added to or changed in the course prerequisites?
Perhaps also include a course in Discrete Mathematics.
- Do you think you personally had the required background to be able to follow the course?
- 100% (7 st) Yes.
- 0% (0 st) Don't know.
- 0% (0 st) No.
- What is your level of education?
- 0% (0 st) Master's student.
- 100% (7 st) PhD student or PhD.
- 0% (0 st) Other.
- How did you hear about this course? (Check all alternatives that apply.)
- 86% (6 st) Word of mouth.
- 29% (2 st) Lecturer on other course.
- 71% (5 st) Message on mailing list.
- 0% (0 st) Ad on bulletin board.
- 0% (0 st) Ad on the web.
Information and interaction
- How often did you refer to the course webpages to find information about the course?
- 29% (2 st) Several times per week.
- 29% (2 st) Once or twice per week.
- 29% (2 st) Just a few times per month.
- 14% (1 st) Just a few times during the duration of the course.
- 0% (0 st) Essentially did not refer to the webpages at all.
- 0% (0 st) Not applicable.
- What do you think about the quality of the course webpages?
(Were they kept up to date? Did they contain the information you needed?
Was the information easy to find?)
- 43% (3 st) Very good.
- 57% (4 st) Fairly good.
- 0% (0 st) Acceptable.
- 0% (0 st) Fairly bad.
- 0% (0 st) Very bad.
- 0% (0 st) Not applicable.
Any comments on the course webpages?
Very nice to have access to such extensive notes online and references.
- During the course we had a couple of "opinion polls" with a few
quick questions about the course that you were asked to answer. What do
you think about these opinion polls?
- 29% (2 st) They were really good and/or seemed very useful.
- 43% (3 st) They were fairly good and/or seemed somewhat useful.
- 14% (1 st) Neutral as to the value of these polls.
- 14% (1 st) They were fairly bad and/or did not seem very useful.
- 0% (0 st) They were really bad and/or seemed useless.
- 0% (0 st) Not applicable.
Any comments on the opinion polls?
Good, but sometimes the lecturer knows better.
- We experimented with using Piazza for student-instructor
interaction on the course. What did you think about Piazza (great,
so-so, or bad)? Anything in particular that you liked or did not like?
Any comparisons to KTH Social or other similar tools? What do you think
in general about organizing student-instructor interaction in this way?
Piazza was OK, a bit annoying with notifications, sent a ton of e-mails.
---
I think Piazza was a good tool for the purpose of student-instructor interaction.
---
I'm not too familiar with KTH social, but Piazza seemed to work well
for what it was intended for. It was friendly to the usage of latex
syntax and so on.
Perhaps it was a bit weird that in reality we just
posted solutions which we had already turned in for the problem sets. I
don't know how to make that work differently though. The idea of online
discussion is nice, and sometimes it was interesting to follow.
---
Piazza works well enough. LaTeX support is good, but not seamless. I
did not like getting spam about internships. KTH Social would be as good
if it supported LaTeX, although I did not dare checking.
Lectures
- How many of the lectures did you attend (21 all in all including guest lectures)?
- 0% (0 st) Less than 20%.
- 0% (0 st) 20-40%.
- 0% (0 st) 40-60%.
- 14% (1 st) 60-80%.
- 86% (6 st) More than 80%.
- What do you think about the number of lectures on the course?
- 0% (0 st) Way too many.
- 14% (1 st) A bit too many.
- 71% (5 st) About right.
- 0% (0 st) A bit too few.
- 14% (1 st) Way too few.
- 0% (0 st) Don't know
—
didn't attend lectures.
- What do you think about the regular (non-guest) lectures by
Jakob Nordström from a pedagogical point of view? (Was the material
explained well? Did the lecturer speak and write clearly?)
- 71% (5 st) Very good.
- 29% (2 st) Good.
- 0% (0 st) Acceptable.
- 0% (0 st) Fairly bad.
- 0% (0 st) Very bad.
- 0% (0 st) Don't know — didn't attend lectures.
Any comments about the pedagogical contents of the regular lectures? (Bonus points for constructive criticism.)
very helpful having the lecture notes printed out so you could go back and forth a bit.
---
Nothing to complain about here to be frank. The lecturer was very
thorough (which I prefer) and it was great that one was given printed
notes just before the lecture started. The material was presented
lucidly, and in a good pace.
- In particular, what do you think about the pace of the regular lectures?
- 0% (0 st) Way too fast.
- 14% (1 st) A bit too fast.
- 86% (6 st) About right.
- 0% (0 st) A bit too slow.
- 0% (0 st) Way too slow.
- 0% (0 st) Don't know — didn't attend lectures.
Any comments about the pace of the lectures?
Actually, in the beginning it was a bit too slow, and at the end a bit too fast. So on average it was about right ;)
- Did you prepare for the lectures in advance (by looking through
the handwritten lecture notes, say, or refreshing your memory about
what was said last time, or by looking at the paper(s) to be covered
during the lecture?)
- 0% (0 st) Yes, always.
- 0% (0 st) Yes, often.
- 14% (1 st) Sometimes.
- 14% (1 st) Seldom.
- 71% (5 st) Pretty much never.
- 0% (0 st) Not applicable.
- The course had a couple of guest lectures. In general, what do you think about having guest lectures on a course like this?
- 71% (5 st) Very good — they should definitely be kept.
- 29% (2 st) Good — it's reasonably valuable to have them.
- 0% (0 st) Neutral — they didn't hurt but skipping them would probably be just as fine.
- 0% (0 st) Fairly bad — we should have had less of them.
- 0% (0 st) Very bad — guest lectures should have been skipped altogether.
- 0% (0 st) Don't know — didn't attend the guest lectures.
Any comments or feedback about the guest lectures in general?
Not essential, but it does enrich the course. Should be kept whenever possible.
---
It was cool to have Michael do a couple of lectures. He did a very
nice job, but I'm not sure one can expect that as a general outcome
though. With that said, the idea of having experts of their fields
lecturing is certainly a good one.
---
Seems like a good idea to have an expert explaining his or her topic.
- How did you like Michael Forbes's guest lectures?
- 71% (5 st) Very good.
- 29% (2 st) Good.
- 0% (0 st) Acceptable.
- 0% (0 st) Fairly bad.
- 0% (0 st) Very bad.
- 0% (0 st) Don't know — didn't attend the lecture.
Any comments or feedback to Michael?
Perhaps the notes we received wasn't up to the same standard as Jakob's, but otherwise it was great.
---
The lectures were demanding but accessible and well-prepared.
- What do you think about the choice of topics on the course?
- 29% (2 st) Very good.
- 43% (3 st) Good.
- 14% (1 st) Acceptable.
- 0% (0 st) Fairly bad.
- 0% (0 st) Very bad.
- 14% (1 st) No opinion.
Any particular comments on the choice of topics? Should we have had more
of something? Less of something? Something that should have been
included that we totally missed?
I would have liked to have seen more of the method of multipliticies,
that stuff was really cool. I wouldn't know what subject to replace
though, it was all very interesting to me.
---
A bit too much coding (theory).
- What do you think about that we have (very intentionally)
tended to run over 5 minutes on the first half of the lectures and only
get a 10-minute break?
- 14% (1 st) Very good; makes excellent sense to use the time this way.
- 14% (1 st) Fairly good; seems to make sense to use the time this way.
- 57% (4 st) OK/neutral as to whether this is good or bad.
- 0% (0 st) Fairly bad; probably would have been better to have a 15-minute break.
- 0% (0 st) Very bad; definitely would have been better to have a 15-minute break.
- 14% (1 st) No opinion.
- What do you think about that we have sometimes (less
intentionally) run over on the second half of the lectures and finished a
bit late?
- 0% (0 st) Very good; makes excellent sense to use the time this way.
- 29% (2 st) Fairly good; seems to make sense to use the time this way.
- 43% (3 st) OK/neutral as to whether this is good or bad.
- 14% (1 st) Fairly bad; lectures should preferably end on time.
- 0% (0 st) Very bad; lectures should definitely end on time.
- 14% (1 st) No opinion.
Problem sets
- Did you personally find the problem sets easy or hard?
- 0% (0 st) Very easy.
- 14% (1 st) Fairly easy.
- 29% (2 st) Medium.
- 29% (2 st) Fairly hard.
- 14% (1 st) Very hard.
- 14% (1 st) Don't know — didn't do problem sets.
- In general, how would you assess the appropriateness of the level of difficulty of the problem sets?
- 0% (0 st) Far too easy.
- 0% (0 st) A bit too easy.
- 86% (6 st) About right.
- 0% (0 st) A bit too hard.
- 0% (0 st) Far too hard.
- 14% (1 st) Don't know — didn't do problem sets.
- What do you think about the number of problem sets and the number of problems per set?
- 0% (0 st) Far too few problems all in all.
- 0% (0 st) A bit too few problems.
- 71% (5 st) About right.
- 14% (1 st) A bit too many.
- 0% (0 st) Far too many.
- 14% (1 st) Don't know — didn't do problem sets.
- What do you think about the deadlines for the problem sets and how much time was given for them?
- 0% (0 st) Far too much time.
- 0% (0 st) A bit too much time.
- 71% (5 st) About right.
- 14% (1 st) A bit too little time.
- 0% (0 st) Far too little time.
- 14% (1 st) Don't know — didn't do problem sets.
- What do you think about the grading of the problem sets (based on the problem set solutions returned to you so far)?
- 0% (0 st) Far too harsh.
- 0% (0 st) A bit too harsh.
- 86% (6 st) About right.
- 0% (0 st) A bit too lenient.
- 0% (0 st) Far too lenient.
- 14% (1 st) Not applicable.
- How much time on average would you say that you spent per problem set?
- 0% (0 st) Less than 5 hours.
- 0% (0 st) 5-10 hours.
- 14% (1 st) 10-20 hours (up to half a week of working time).
- 43% (3 st) 20-30 hours.
- 14% (1 st) 30-40 hours (up to a full week of working time).
- 14% (1 st) More than 40 hours.
- 14% (1 st) Not applicable.
- How well do you think the problem sets corresponded to the material presented during the lectures?
- 43% (3 st) Very well.
- 29% (2 st) Fairly well.
- 14% (1 st) Somewhat, but not too well.
- 0% (0 st) Fairly badly.
- 0% (0 st) Very badly.
- 14% (1 st) Don't know — didn't do problem sets.
Do you have any comments or feedback on the problem sets?
Peer evaluation
- Did you personally find it a useful exercise to peer evaluate
the problem set solutions of a fellow student? Did you learn anything
from doing the peer evaluation?
- 43% (3 st) Very useful.
- 29% (2 st) Fairly useful.
- 14% (1 st) Neutral.
- 0% (0 st) Not very useful.
- 0% (0 st) Not at all useful.
- 14% (1 st) Not applicable; didn't participate in peer evaluations.
- Do you think that having peer evaluation as one of the requirements is a relevant form of examination?
- 57% (4 st) Very relevant.
- 14% (1 st) Fairly relevant.
- 14% (1 st) Neutral.
- 0% (0 st) Not very relevant.
- 0% (0 st) Not at all relevant.
- 14% (1 st) Not applicable; didn't participate in peer evaluations.
- Did you personally receive useful feedback on your problem set
solutions from your peer evaluator? (Note that this is asking about the
peer evaluation comments, not about the instructor's grading.)
- 29% (2 st) Very useful.
- 43% (3 st) Fairly useful.
- 14% (1 st) Neutral.
- 0% (0 st) Not very useful.
- 0% (0 st) Not at all useful.
- 14% (1 st) Not applicable; didn't participate in peer evaluations.
- Did you personally find the posting and discussion of solutions on Piazza useful? Did you learn anything from it?
- 14% (1 st) Very useful.
- 29% (2 st) Fairly useful.
- 0% (0 st) Neutral.
- 43% (3 st) Not very useful.
- 0% (0 st) Not at all useful.
- 14% (1 st) Not applicable; didn't participate in peer evaluations.
Do you have any comments or feedback regarding the questions above or on any other aspect of the peer evaluation process?
Sometimes it would have been nice to see the teachers comments for
the problem set I evaluated. For example there were a few instances
where I did not quite get what my peer was trying to do but I was also
not sure whether it was because it was wrong, poorly explained or simply
me not getting it.
Paper presentation
- Do you think that having an oral presentation of a paper as one
of the requirements for the highest grade on the MSc course and for a
pass on the PhD course is a relevant form of examination?
- 57% (4 st) Very relevant.
- 14% (1 st) Fairly relevant.
- 14% (1 st) Neutral.
- 0% (0 st) Not very relevant.
- 0% (0 st) Not at all relevant.
- 14% (1 st) Not applicable; will not present a paper.
Do you have any comments or feedback regarding the paper presentation requirement?
Seems like a good idea.
Workload and course credits
- How much of your total study/working time did you spend on this course (on average per week, say)?
- 29% (2 st) Less than 15%.
- 14% (1 st) 15-30%.
- 43% (3 st) 30-50%.
- 0% (0 st) 50-70%.
- 0% (0 st) More than 70%.
- This course gives 7.5 ECTS credits. What you you think about this compared to the number of credits given for other courses?
- 0% (0 st) Should have given more than 7.5 credits.
- 100% (7 st) 7.5 credits was about right.
- 0% (0 st) Should have given less credits.
Concluding questions
- Did you experience that you were discriminated against on this course due to gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or disability?
- 0% (0 st) Yes.
- 0% (0 st) Don't know.
- 100% (7 st) No.
If yes, in which way?
- How do you assess the course from a gender perspective (e.g.,
with respect to course material, course contents, lecturer et cetera)?
I could not see that this course had anything to do with gender.
---
Gender neutral.
- Although we did not do so this time, the seminar course is
meant to be given with ca 16 45-minute lectures (or possibly ca 8
90-minute lectures), not ca 20 90-minute lectures. It should still cover
essentially the same amount of material, but the students should do a
larger portion of self-study. How do you think such a set-up would have
affected this course? What could/would have been positive and/or
negative aspects?
I think it would have seriously decreased the value of the course. I
found the topics pretty difficult and would not have grasped them as
well as I have if there had been fewer lectures.
---
I believe this 20 90-minute lecture format was very appropriate for
this course. If there were to have been fewer lectures, I believe the
amount of study time needed would have increased by much more than the
the "extra" time spent in lectures.
---
I think this model was good, although it may have been fairly time
consuming to the lecturer. I liked it since the material was presented
so nicely, with the notes and everything.
I would have been ok with
less lecture time and more paper reading time myself, but I'm not sure
this is appropriate for a master level course. As it was given now, the
course was very suitable for both master and PhD students.
---
Nonsense. It is hard to understand the course material, so having
less lectures would mean either a lot more work for each student, being
confused or having student presentations. But we are already using
student presentations to do something useful, namely learning new
topics.
- Do you have any comments on (general) aspects of the course that should stay the same in the next offering of the course?
I think the format of 20 90-minutes lectures was good. I would also keep the peer evaluation and the paper presentation.
---
The course was great, and I think it would have been for a master
student as well. Very good lectures on interesting topics, at least for
mathematicians and theoretical computer scientists. Also fairly recent
material, which is always nice.
The problem sets model is good, one should not have exams in a proof heavy (theoretical) course such as this.
I definitely think this course, or something similar to it, should be given at least biannually.
---
The format (lectures problemsets presentation) looks good. Peer grading was also interesting.
- Do you have any suggestions for how the course could be improved?
In my opinion it would have been more interesting to touch upon more subjects and instead do less details on each one.
---
Perhaps award more credits to master students who take the course? I
think the fact that it contains 20 90-minute lectures may make them less
inclined to take it, which is too bad.
- Any other final comments on the course?
I think this was a very good course and should be given again in more or less the same format.
---
Thanks for a great course!
|
