This page contains a summary of feedback in and from the Seminar on Computational Creativity in autumn 2011.

First, a word about feedback during the seminar. Giving and receiving feedback was one of the main student activities in the seminar. Draft reports were reviewed in writing and discussed face-to-face by two other students and at least one teacher. Draft slides were commented by two other students (or were they? this was not enforced by the teachers). The oral presentations were commented by everyone using a simple form. There was a good amount of discussion in the class room, too, about the contents of the talks and reports.

At the end of the seminar, the participants were asked to give feedback on the seminar using the feedback form of the department. At the time of writing, 7 out of 9 participants have answered the questionnaire. Here is a summary and some comments on this feedback. All student feedback is in italics.

1. What did you think of the standard of the course?
Average 3,3 on a scale from 1 ("too easy")" via 3 ("good") to 5 ("too difficult")

For all the following questions, the scale is 1 ("disagree"), 2 ("I mostly disagree"), 3 ("maybe"), 4 ("I mostly agree"), 5 ("I agree").

2. I was given a clear idea of why I need to be taught what was taught at this course.
Average 4,2

3. I feel I have a deep knowledge of the subject matter of the course.
Average 3,7

4. I learned skills that will be useful later in my studies or work.
Average 4

5. The atmosphere was good for studying at this course.
Average 5

6. The teacher activated the students.
Average 4,9

7. The teacher made it clear what was important and what was secondary information.
Average 4,8

8. The teacher explained difficult matters so that they were easy to understand.
Average 4,2

9. The external facilities for the course were good (room, tools).
Average 4,7

10. On the whole, I am satisfied with the course.
Average 4,9

Comments by Hannu on the feedback above: I am very happy to hear that the students have been so satisfied with the seminar! I am most satisfied myself: I think that overall the reports and talks were exceptionally good.

The first questions (2-4) received slightly poorer grades. This may partially relate to the fact that creativity does not have immediate applications for the students. At the same time, two out of three of the learning objectives were learning to write and to give talks. I certainly hope the students learned such general skills for their future work and career.

Here are representative comments on the open questions of the feedback form.

What was the best feature of the course?

• Inspiring topics. Learn about new topics.
• The draft/final report system was good.
  
• The seminar was well-organized. Everyone knew when he/she needed to do what.
  
• It was was a very relaxed seminar (e.g. compared to some others).
  
• I liked turnitin [a plagiarism detection system we used in the seminar].
  

Comments by Hannu: I, too, think that the system with draft reports, written reviews and discussions works fine. (I am not sure if the feedback for oral presentations should rather be discussed in the class than collected anonymously in writing.)

What was the worst flaw about the course?

• So many dropped the seminar and there was nothing else instead.
• There could have been more example topics for students who did not have clear idea already.
• There's the general problem with seminars that the amount (and intensity) of work feels a bit too much for 3 credits.

How would you like to develop the course?

• More topics!
• I don't know if the workload could be diminished by paying more attention to confining the topic choices and discussing the requirements (for own contribution, for example).
• The link to the Comp. Creat. Workshop could be stronger, so that the workshop would start before the seminar and you could have more time to implement something in the workshop.
• Perhaps the time could have been used to deepen the knowledge of one's own topic, for example by going into detail of one unclear issue and clarifying it through an informal mini-presentation.

Comments by Hannu:

• Seminar drop-outs are a serious problem. Maybe we should just overbook a bit and count on some students dropping out.
• Clealy, more (different) topics need to be prepared for the next seminar.
• It is good that the issue of 3 credits being too little for seminars came up. This should be discussed at the department level, assuming it is not just this seminar. Thanks also for the suggestion on how to reduce unnecessary workload!
• About the computational creativity workshop: our idea was that students could take a topic they have learned about in the seminar (or the autumn school), and then work on an implementation relatively intensively over a relatively short period of time. For some reason, seminar participants were not attracted by the workshop or were not able to take it. The short period of time for the workshop was intended to keep the workload limited.
• Personally, my biggest concern was the schedule. I would like to avoid double sessions, and now we ended having them even though we had drop-outs. I guess it just takes more planning with the students already before the seminar to get the schedule right (and students committed, to avoid drop-outs).