Chevron Left
Back to Robotics: Computational Motion Planning

Learner Reviews & Feedback for Robotics: Computational Motion Planning by University of Pennsylvania

972 ratings
248 reviews

About the Course

Robotic systems typically include three components: a mechanism which is capable of exerting forces and torques on the environment, a perception system for sensing the world and a decision and control system which modulates the robot's behavior to achieve the desired ends. In this course we will consider the problem of how a robot decides what to do to achieve its goals. This problem is often referred to as Motion Planning and it has been formulated in various ways to model different situations. You will learn some of the most common approaches to addressing this problem including graph-based methods, randomized planners and artificial potential fields. Throughout the course, we will discuss the aspects of the problem that make planning challenging....

Top reviews

Nov 27, 2018

The course was challenging, but fulfilling. Thank you Coursera and University of Pennsylvania for giving this wonderful experience and opportunity that I might not experience in our local community!

Jul 2, 2018

The topic was very interesting, and the assignments weren't overly complicated. Overall, the lesson was fun and informative , despite the bugs in the learning tool(especially, the last assignment.)

Filter by:

176 - 200 of 243 Reviews for Robotics: Computational Motion Planning

By Sj

Mar 13, 2016

Overall decent course.

This course focused less on the theory aspects in the course videos, which bothered me a lot considering I am paying for it. But the explanations were still good for those algorithms.

The assignments were good as well. I liked how they made us work on them instead of the first course where we were mostly tuning parameters. Hopefully MOOCs start having challenging assignments too.

The instructor explained really well too!

I didn't really end up visiting the Discussion Forums for this course at all. So can't comment on the participation from other students or TAs.

Future Advice -

Considering how other courses offer about 1-2 hours of course videos, I think this course could offer a lot more. One assignment problem focusing on one algorithm, while having other challenging algorithms taught in those videos to be left for our own implementation would help students a lot more i believe.

By Glenn B

Mar 8, 2016

The material is interesting, however there is not enough information provided by the course to effectively implement the algorithms in the allotted time of each week's assignments. It relies on deferring to external reading materials as primary sources, and these resources were not specified in advance to secure copies in a timely manner.

Additionally, there is a big disconnect between the knowledge provided by the weekly material and what is required to easily do the programming assignments in the suggested time of 3 hours.

Overall the course material needs to provide more background material to be more effective in delivering the knowledge expected each week. This may be an artifact of trying to cram what other online course provide in 7-10 weeks down into 4 weeks. If the intention is to give a "flavor" in 4 weeks, then the material needs to be distilled down into more of a cookbook format.

By Manoj R

Jun 2, 2018

Very good overview of basic topics in Computational Motion Planning. The material is nicely and intuitively presented in short video lectures and is a rapid overview of the first 5-6 chapters in the book by Choset et. al.

Some of the assignments were too simple and required us to work on the non-critical parts of the problem. For example, only focusing on descending along gradients of artificial potential fields, instead of constructing them and seeing the effect of different types of potentials.

Also, a dominant portion of my time was spent fighting the autograder. There are tips on the forums to help deal with this but sometimes an almost-complete solution is presented by some of the earlier students in a frustrated attempt to get help with the autograder.

Many of these autograder related problems have not been addressed for many months.

By Ajinkya K

Mar 6, 2016

Although the course covers interesting subject areas, I feel like the various topics should have been explored to a greater depth. I understand that someone with lesser background in the relevant areas might not agree with me. But overall, I felt slightly underwhelmed by the course.

Also, the skeleton of code provided for the assignments had minor errors and the instructions for assignments were sometimes ambiguous or even incorrect as compared to what was actually required of the code. But these minor issues will most likely get resolved in subsequent offerings of the course.

By Eduardo K d S

Aug 3, 2016

The course is ok, it touches on some interesting topics and it serves its purpose as an introductory course. Unfortunately more interesting topics are only briefly mentioned at the end of the last video. I also think the assignments can be improved, some assignments lack documentation, one of them had a coordinate system swapped from what was shown on screen and the evaluation of some assignments are quite tight, even if you have it working, unless you deliver exactly as it is expected you will fail, not to mention what is expected is sometimes blurry.

By Benjamin K

Dec 6, 2017

If the course had the same information and effort as week1 over all 4 weeks i would gave 5 stars, although the assignments are pretty good and I learnt something new, however the assignments are fun but the grader is annoying as the single error output is..... something is wrong... try again?!

By Keng-Hui W

May 8, 2016



作業提供skeleton的code非常的糟糕,不直覺的實作方式加上詭異的coding style






By Daniel W

Jun 5, 2016

First course of this specialization was really GREAT, byt this course disappoints.

Of course, there are some interesting topics, but the form of the course is way lazier. Videos are short, there is small amount of additional materials,

By Emiliano J B O

Feb 26, 2016

I think that the theory was very poor in sense of the videos were very short and with little content. The topics that we've seen were difficult to learn by itself, and a better explanation could be very useful in practice.

By Rafay A K

Mar 14, 2016

The first two assignments certainly tested knowledge of the subject however the last two assignmnets were lacking. Good course that does what it is supposed to do. More feedback from test cases would be very helpful.

By Антон Л

Oct 30, 2017

Lectures are small, assignments are poor quality, you will probably solve matlab coding problems and try to adapt your working (at least your visual inspection says so) solution bad autograder without ANY FEEDBACK

By Julius S

Jun 6, 2016

Great course! but there was too little content!!!! Double it !! Or double the coursework! make us do more work! Also, tell people to use 'parfor' to speed up the computations.

Otherwise, great course!

By Mike Z

May 23, 2016

Very good introduction course for motion planning. Could be better if there is more interactions with the TAs. Also the matlab assignments have some minor mistakes which takes time to figure it out.

By Emeka E

Mar 11, 2016

I think there is need to provide clearer instructions on how to get the programming assignments done. The course content is good, but doing the programming assignments needs to be more clarified.

By Alex M

Mar 13, 2016

Most of the homework assignments aren't graded correctly out of the box and have errors. Also, only specific solutions are selected. Otherwise it's great material at a good pace.

By Lucas H C S

Sep 23, 2017

Matlab online makes this course activities expensive in time, and some algorithms are not explained on the classe or texts, so you need to search a lot.

By Taimoor D K

Aug 27, 2018

Course content is very good however topics should be covered in much detail. Frequent bugs in programming assignments is also a concern.

By 李晨曦

Jun 24, 2017

Too few details of the algorithms are provided. The assignment are too simplified to help students develop a good grasp of the contents.

By Luke J

Sep 13, 2016

Not much content covered in course, especially compared to Aerial Robotics. No real great sense of achievement on completion.

By Unnat A

Jul 1, 2019

The lectures should cover more in depth theory to better explain the concepts before giving such challenging assignments.

By Rayad K

Mar 9, 2016

In comparison to the first course this one lacks a lot of organization and debugging before sending it to the public

By Marthinus J N

Apr 8, 2020

There was not enough examples or supplementary readings. Also the mentors and teachers dont reply on the forum.

By Sathvik D

Sep 24, 2017

Covers the essentials pretty well. But, the programming assignments need a lot of improvement !!!

By Ajay G

Nov 20, 2016

can be much better with little bit of more explanations and more relevant resources for help

By Chris A

Apr 7, 2016

Very interesting material, but also very light instruction. Requires some MATlab intuition.