Summary

Instructor Contribution:

• 2021: Students appreciated Goodwin's passion and knowledge, though some found his lectures occasionally lengthy and difficult to distill into key points. His instruction was seen as instrumental, especially for non-CS majors.
• 2023: Goodwin created a supportive learning environment and was praised for fostering student engagement. He provided detailed project guidance and spent time with each student to ensure understanding.

Class Activities and Discussions:

• 2021: Class discussions and activities were diverse and enriched by the varied backgrounds of students. Weekly labs and discussions offered practical exposure, though some students noted unclear class objectives.
• 2023: Discussions allowed for exploration of diverse topics, with flexibility in project topics enhancing engagement. The class setup encouraged independent exploration within the supportive framework provided by Goodwin.

Feedback:

• 2021: Feedback was positive but limited, with some students noting a lack of major assignments for detailed assessment. However, Goodwin provided valuable input during labs and project work.
• 2023: Students received positive feedback and were encouraged to succeed and explore various topics, with a noted emphasis on positive reinforcement.

Office Hours:

• 2021 & 2023: Students rarely attended office hours, often receiving necessary support during class time. Goodwin remained accessible, particularly during lab sessions.

Most/Least Useful Aspects:

• 2021: Hands-on labs were highlights, though some students desired more direct coding experience. The book and other resources were beneficial, though some materials and redundant tasks were seen as less useful.
• 2023: The project-based structure was highly valued for its practical and exploratory nature. Students appreciated the light and engaging atmosphere fostered by Goodwin.

Workload and Time Commitment:

• 2021: The workload was light, mostly completed in class. The minimal out-of-class assignments allowed students to focus on collaborative in-class work.
• 2023: Workload was variable but generally lighter than other courses, focused more on in-class projects than traditional assessments.

Intellectual Development:

• 2021: The course inspired students to think critically about the intersection of art and ML and encouraged exploration beyond traditional CS applications.
• 2023: Students felt more equipped to engage with generative AI and machine learning concepts, seeing potential applications across fields.

Overall Impressions:

• 2021: The class was often described as enjoyable and intellectually stimulating. Some students sought clearer integration of art theory and coding but appreciated the philosophical explorations.
• 2023: The course was received very positively; students praised Goodwin’s teaching as approachable and insightful, noting the fun and educational class climate.

Student Respondent Demographics:

• 2021: Mainly seniors from Pomona and Harvey Mudd, taking the course for various reasons, often not as a core requirement.
• 2023: Evenly split between sophomores and seniors, from Claremont McKenna, Harvey Mudd, and Pomona, largely taking the course out of personal interest.