ENKÄTER
 

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

Visa resultat

Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.

PPU115- Advanced Production Systems HT2010, PPU115

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-10-22 - 2010-11-07
Antal svar: 9
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 69%
Kontaktperson: Tommy Fässberg»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers: masterskurs

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

9 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»4 44%
Around 20 hours/week»5 55%
Around 25 hours/week»0 0%
Around 30 hours/week»0 0%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.55

2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

9 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»1 11%
100%»8 88%

Genomsnitt: 4.88

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

9 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»3 33%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»5 55%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»1 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.44

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

7 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 14%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»6 85%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.85

5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

7 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»6 85%
Yes, definitely»1 14%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.14

Teaching and course administration

6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

9 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»4 44%
Large extent»4 44%
Great extent»1 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- The teaching mainly helped for the quizes, and was therefore very important. Teaching was much better than reading the papers.» (Large extent)

7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

9 svarande

Small extent»2 22%
Some extent»6 66%
Large extent»1 11%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.88

8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

9 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»6 66%
Very well»3 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

Project

9. What did you think of the mini-project?

- It is a good way to show what you know in a subject. However, the project was not very well-planned from the supervisors and very much time was spend on figuring out what to do. I think that in such a case, where a industrial way of working is used, the project is not a mini-project. The course must therefore either focus more on the project or make smaller projects.»
- The task could have been better designed.»
- Its quite interesting to work, because it really tests the knowledge of thinking, i.e. lot to think in all scenarios..»
- A bit out of the course scope but interesting.»
- Good but the intital instructions could have been better.»
- Very good, reasonable size and great that there were several projects to choose from!»
- Badley chosen project. A litle more exciting task that will be possible to improve.»
- Very good. It"s a nice way to learn from others. Could have been more feedback on the report to guide.»
- Interesting and very learn»

Laborations

10. What did you think about Laboration 1 (DES)?

What was good/bad with the laboration. Was it fun? Did you learn anything?

- It was good, took a bit too long time to get feedback thou.»
- The principle could have been understood with a smaller amount of data (much "boring work").»
- It was fun..and i learned how to sort it out the data"s from large number and also i learned how to disregard the values which are not affecting the model. So it was good to work with that kind of thing.»
- Not needed. Why not include a "input data management" part in the simulation course?»
- Good and intresting.»
- Fun and educational. »
- Good»
- Very good. Gave a good view of the difficulties with data collection.»
- Best of the three labs. Good to learn about how data handling works in reality.»

11. What did you think about Laboration 2 (ErgoSim)?

What was good/bad with the laboration. Did you learn anything? Did you have the prerequisites to cope with the lab?

- Very good to see how such a program works. Good that no theoretical report was needed.»
- Mainly good.»
- It was good and i learned the Ergo simulation very much by using the Jack Software...»
- Good lab but way to little time to understand the subject/software/concepts. Why not have 3 lectures prior to the lab?»
- This laboration was intresting, but it should have been good with a lecture with the software before the laboration. »
- REasonable size of the task but a bit too free to actually get the learning targets.»
- Godd to see the program, not so exciting to write a report about it»
- Learnt a lot in the program because it was completely new to me, but could have been more like the first lab. Better to have a goal with the things you do in the software.»
- The lab was only a demonstration of the simulation software. Not a very good lab.»

12. What did you think about laboration 3 (Path planner)?

What was good/bad with the laboration. Did you learn anything? Did you have the prerequisites to cope with the lab?

- Hard for exchange students and others that haven"t taken a robotics course to follow the instructions in the PM.»
- Mainly good. Four hours is too short, either the lab should be 2x4 hours or some preparation in the software before the lab should be done.»
- It was good but only thing it was too much to work with the path planner..I learned about how to operate multi robot"s in an efficient way and in an optimized manner.»
- Good laboration. But as with the other lab, to little time.»
- The laboration was to big to fit into 4 hours.»
- Not suitable since all of the students doesn´,t had the robotic course in the spring. »
- good, but it could be earlier in the the period so that there would be time to solve it completley»
- Had done some before´,, but this gave a better understanding about the program so it was really good! »
- Bad prepared lab. softwares used didn"t work together. Didn"t learned anything new.»

Study climate

13. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

9 svarande

Very poor»1 11%
Rather poor»1 11%
Rather good»3 33%
Very good»4 44%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

- No, feedback during the project» (Very poor)
- Concerning the mini-project I felt that the supervisor didnt really knew the task(s) and therefore became less useful. (He tried however, which is good of course)» (Rather poor)
- Bad feedback on the report! » (Rather good)
- Anders Skoogh and Björn Johansson is always helpful.» (Very good)

14. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

9 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»1 11%
Rather well»2 22%
Very well»6 66%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

- One person hadn´,t understood the guidelines for how to make an report at all and was not even trying to help at the laborations. Other than that it was great between us other 4 in the group.» (Rather well)

15. How was the course workload?

9 svarande

Too low»1 11%
Low»4 44%
Adequate»4 44%
High»0 0%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

16. How was the total workload this study period?

9 svarande

Too low»1 11%
Low»1 11%
Adequate»3 33%
High»2 22%
Too high»2 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

Course Team

Rate the lecturers, Lab coordinators and others performance during the course.

17. Johan Stahre

9 svarande

Excellent»1 11%
Very Good»1 11%
Good»7 77%
Poor»0 0%
Very Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- Interesting first lacture. Could have held more lectures!» (Excellent)

18. Anna Davidsson

Lecture in Advanced Production Systems

9 svarande

Excellent»1 11%
Very Good»5 55%
Good»3 33%
Poor»0 0%
Very Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.22

- Guestlecturers are most often very interesting. The subject was however very basic (simulation course, lean production, logistics)» (Very Good)

19. Dan Lämkull

Lecture in ergonomics

9 svarande

Excellent»0 0%
Very Good»5 55%
Good»4 44%
Poor»0 0%
Very Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.44

20. Björn Johansson

9 svarande

Excellent»0 0%
Very Good»4 44%
Good»4 44%
Poor»1 11%
Very Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- Not really focused (unfortunatly this holds true for the whole course)» (Poor)

21. Anders Skoogh

9 svarande

Excellent»1 11%
Very Good»6 66%
Good»2 22%
Poor»0 0%
Very Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.11

22. Per Nyqvist

Laboration 3 Path planner

9 svarande

Excellent»1 11%
Very Good»2 22%
Good»5 55%
Poor»1 11%
Very Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- Per should maybe try a lecture or two prior to the lab, it will make is subject a bigger part of the course and the lab will be even more interesting.» (Very Good)

23. Hans Sjöberg

Laboration 2 ErgoSim

9 svarande

Excellent»0 0%
Very Good»2 22%
Good»6 66%
Poor»1 11%
Very Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

24. Rikard Söderberg

Lecture in geometry and tolerance

9 svarande

Excellent»6 66%
Very Good»3 33%
Good»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Very Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.33

25. Anne-Marie Tillman

Environmental sustainability in production systems

9 svarande

Excellent»0 0%
Very Good»6 66%
Good»2 22%
Poor»0 0%
Very Poor»1 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.55

- She tried to adapt her subject to a production perspective which I am thankful for (rather then just use the "standard slides" and give the "standard lecture").» (Very Good)

26. Tommy Fässberg

Course co-ordinator

9 svarande

Excellent»2 22%
Very Good»5 55%
Good»2 22%
Poor»0 0%
Very Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- No complaints at all.» (Very Good)

Summarizing questions

27. What is your general impression of the course?

9 svarande

Poor»1 11%
Fair»1 11%
Adequate»3 33%
Good»3 33%
Excellent»1 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.22

- Re-use of knowledge from simulation course. Three interesting subjects (geometry assurance, ErgoSim, Path planning) but way to little knowledge was distributed. Why not have a couple of lectures from each subject followed by a lab?» (Poor)

28. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Same thing to be followed as it available now»
- The subjects. They are all interesting.»
- The DES-part and the part about geometry and tolerance.»
- The DES-lab and projects and the lecture on geometry and tolerance. Preferably the lab of pathplanning should be switched out for geometry tolerance laboration instead. »
- The project»

29. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Allocate some extra time to work with laboratory.3»
- More lectures (especially before labs). Better course literature and better examination.»
- More work in the beginin of the course. It was to large workload in the end of the cource.»
- Preferably the lab of pathplanning should be switched out for geometry tolerance laboration instead. »
- More individual tasks, now there are not much to set induvidual grades from.»
- More individual parts.»

30. Additional comments

- Make sure that everybody understands the ethics of report writing, as discussed in the feedback meeting.»
- More lectures and better engagement from teachers. The course does not give what is stated in the course description.»
- Good course that uses skills from previus courses.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från