Visa resultat

FTS 2010/2011, TEK121

Your background and own effort

1. What is your educational background?

Chalmers I-programme»		15		41%
Chalmers Other programme»		9		25%
Sweden, Other university than Chalmers»		1		2%
European exchange student (Erasmus etc)»		5		13%
European MSc programme student with BSc from outside Sweden»		4		11%
Non-European MSc programme student with BSc from outside EU»		2		5%

Genomsnitt: 2.44

- Mechanical Engineering at Chalmers» (Chalmers Other programme)
- Teknisk fysik, med ett år utbytesstudier MSc Industiell ekonomi» (Chalmers Other programme)

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

36 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		9		25%
Around 20 hours/week»		11		30%
Around 25 hours/week»		11		30%
Around 30 hours/week»		3		8%
At least 35 hours/week»		2		5%

Genomsnitt: 2.38

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

36 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		2		5%
50%»		8		22%
75%»		16		44%
100%»		10		27%

Genomsnitt: 3.94

Goals and goal fulfilment

4. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		3		8%
The goals are difficult to understand»		1		2%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		9		25%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		23		63%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

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

36 svarande

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		17		47%
Yes, definitely»		17		47%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		2		5%

Genomsnitt: 2.58

- After doing the exam » (To some extent)
- to little time on the exam and the questions were not clear. » (To some extent)
- The exam had some very strange questions that was not clear whether or not they had been mentioned in the course. To solve this, try to stick with one definition of each thing in the course, as it was now, I was not sure about a few of the exam question because of name definitions.» (To some extent)
- During the examination Violeta obviously told a few students that the transport allocation problem couldn"t be completely solved. Why didn"t she tell that to everyone in the room?! I spent almost 40 min in vain trying to make an "optimal" solution!» (To some extent)
- The exam was very "typed" the questions were to a large extent the same as previous years, so to reach a pass i think you only needed to look at these and learn the answers to them. I also feel that the questions were too much of the character that tested my ability to "memorize" and not of analytic nature that tested if I had any kind of understanding of the topic. There was also too little time on the exam, I wrote contantly for four hours and finished the last question with 5 minutes left. There was no time to think, just write... To improve the exam, I would like to see a type of question like the intermodal transport exercise. Maybe start of by doing some calculations on two different alt. and then argue about the pros and cons with the two alt. This would require more depth in the knowledge. It also requires the ablity to put the knowledge in the right context. » (To some extent)
- Very extensive exam, felt like the time wouldn"t be enough.» (Yes, definitely)
- The exam was almost to big because there was no time to dig deep into anything, you just have to write obvious things.» (Yes, definitely)
- Good. Very open and broad questions. Hard to answer unless we know the material well. » (Yes, definitely)

Course structure and content

6. To what extent have the lectures been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		9		25%
Some extent»		14		38%
Large extent»		11		30%
Great extent»		2		5%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 2.16

- To be honest, the lectures are terrible. Ofcourse Dan and Violeta know what they are talking about. But they need to try and work on their presenting skills, and to make the subject more fun. The best and most interesting lectures have been the guest lectures, the regulöar ones have been somewhat of a sleeping pill.» (Small extent)
- They could be more interesting, that is trying to connect it to some examples in real life etc. » (Small extent)
- I did not attend Violetas lectures. But I did attend Dans in the beginning but this gave little to my learning so I stopped coming. I think it was hard to listen to him because you never knew where he was going, and the slides were not so good, when you looked at them later you had no idea what they were about. Too much tables and too much pictures that really did not say anything. And I must say, since Chalmers have a standard slide for presentations, maybe he can use that because all the clipart pictures do not look professional.» (Small extent)
- the slides has been good.» (Some extent)
- The lectures have been good! It would be nice to hear Dan talk a bit more from his own experiences, he knows a lot and is interesting to listen to!» (Large extent)
- The content of the lectures were the important parts of the course, and the slides were very helpful when studying for the exam.» (Large extent)
- Could have managed the course without so much lectures. They "tied it all together" in a good way though. Thinking about it in retrospect, without the lectures I would never have this through understanding of the course. They were infact essential to at least my learning.» (Great extent)

7. To what extent have the exercises been of help for your learning?

small extent»		5		13%
some extent»		14		38%
large extent»		14		38%
great extent»		3		8%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 2.41

- I had already done harder exercices using more methods than the one presented in this course. It was in a previous course taken in France.» (small extent)
- The calculations were so easy that i could have understood them without the exercise» (small extent)
- After doing the exam, I feel that the emphasis during the lectures, assignments and site visits is far from what was examined. For example the calculations were barely covered in the course and yet 25% of the grade is depending on them.» (some extent)
- I think the first one was ok but the second one was worthless.» (some extent)
- Sometimes the exercises was just to easy.» (some extent)
- The first excercise wasnt very helpful, it could have been more specific to learning objectives and course material. Especially so early in the course.» (some extent)
- For learning the two specific exam questions with calculations.» (large extent)
- Very clear and thorough, like exercises should be!» (great extent)

8. To what extent has the guest lecture "Sea Transport" been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		1		3%
Some extent»		9		32%
Large extent»		13		46%
Great extent»		5		17%
No opinion»		8

Genomsnitt: 2.78

- I thought the lecture was great but the relating exam question was really bad.» (Some extent)
- Very good lecture.» (Great extent)
- I was not able to attend unfortunately.» (No opinion)

9. To what extent has the guest lecture "Carriers perspective" been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		2		7%
Some extent»		10		38%
Large extent»		12		46%
Great extent»		2		7%
Vet ej»		10

Genomsnitt: 2.53

- I was not able to attend unfortunately.» (Vet ej)

10. To what extent has the guest lecture "Forwarders perspective" been of help for your learning?

11. To what extent has the guest lecture "Transport & IT" been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		8		28%
Some extent»		8		28%
Large extent»		10		35%
Great extent»		2		7%
Vet ej»		8

Genomsnitt: 2.21

- It was interesting but did not add much to this course.» (Small extent)
- Not very, not very interesting! Too many slides! Should have been more focused on some areas, lost track!» (Small extent)
- Too much "Transport" too little "IT".» (Small extent)
- I didn"t feel like he was talking about IT, more the whole cource and motor-cycle gangs in gothenburg» (Small extent)
- Interesting to listen to guest lecturers. Even though the learnings wasnt huge, there were quite some grains of gold. What UPS and FedEx use as competetive strengths for example. How DHL handle their terminal sorting.» (Large extent)

12. To what extent has the guest lecture "EU Transport Policy and Intermodal transport in Europe" been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		7		22%
Some extent»		8		25%
Large extent»		11		35%
Great extent»		5		16%
Vet ej»		5

Genomsnitt: 2.45

- The lecture was unfortunately quite uninteresting, even though the topic is extremely interesting and important!! The main reason for small extent though is that there wasnt much of EU policy questions on the exam» (Small extent)
- It was an interesting topic and a good lecture!» (Some extent)
- Good lecture but could not attend all of it.» (Some extent)
- Very intresting part, Johan was intresting to listen to. » (Large extent)
- A new perspective that we engineers have not had so much experience from. Would like to see this guy do two lectures, he had so much to say.» (Great extent)
- Very interesting lecture» (Great extent)
- This was by far the most interesting part of the course where I saw a connection between the parts of the course for the first time.» (Great extent)

13. To what extent have the site visits (Volvo and Port of Göteborg) been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		5		13%
Large extent»		17		47%
Great extent»		14		38%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

- Volvo was much better than the port visit. A lot better!» (Some extent)
- The visit in port was not really usefull because we could not get close to the ships (we had to stay in the bus). However, the one in Volvo was really good to see how they manage the spare parts.» (Large extent)
- Seeing the port and the tools they used made it easier to picture the literature.» (Large extent)
- Good to see the "structures" in reality.» (Large extent)
- Was also great, especially the Guest lecture by the Port» (Large extent)
- Very interesting and extremely good to first-hand look at the machinery, different loads and facilities we are talking about in the course. Especially port of Gothenburg was extraordinary!» (Large extent)
- Port visit was excellet, volvo wasn"t as good, but still good» (Great extent)
- Really positive to actually see what we have been talking about! Gave a good insight in how it works in reality.» (Great extent)
- Very good with site visits» (Great extent)
- The site visits were very giving in terms of learning and experience, and made the course a lot more interesting in my opinion.» (Great extent)
- More site visits!» (Great extent)

14. To what extent has the book been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		7		19%
Some extent»		12		33%
Large extent»		10		27%
Great extent»		7		19%

Genomsnitt: 2.47

- I only read some parts of it» (Small extent)
- Too basic, a lot of unneacessary reading.» (Small extent)
- The book is not worth having as a text book and does not help students very much. » (Small extent)
- the book in combination with the lecterue slides. » (Some extent)
- I liked the book better than the lectures» (Some extent)
- Maybe could have been made better accompanied with review questions or a few excersices» (Great extent)

15. To what extent have the articles been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		9		25%
Some extent»		21		58%
Large extent»		3		8%
Great extent»		3		8%

Genomsnitt: 2

- I did not read all the articles» (Small extent)
- A4, by Hesse and Rodrigue was not very good. Too complicated and did not add to my learning. » (Some extent)
- The article violeta wrote about dry port that I read for seminar 2 was good for my learning in this topic. But the other articles, there must be some better, and I also feel like there has happened a lot and they where quite old.» (Some extent)
- Many articles explain the areas and conecpts in a good way and it woulf be preferable to have many more articles than a text book» (Large extent)
- Especially the second literature assignment was astonishing!» (Great extent)

16. To what extent has the assignment "Intermodal Transport" been of help for your learning?

small extent»		6		16%
some extent»		14		38%
large extent»		14		38%
great extent»		2		5%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- Must be more challenging, this is a master course with case easier than the logistics course during the bachelor (I3)» (small extent)
- To easy assignment...» (small extent)
- The assignment was on an embarrasing low level.» (small extent)
- Too broad. Too early in the course. I should have directed and guided our reading --- rather than test our elementary math skills.» (small extent)
- I don"t think an assignment is necessary to understand the fundamentals of this problems/topic. A lecture about it would have been sufficient.» (some extent)
- Very simple exercise that didn"t really give me a challenge.» (some extent)
- It was about rather easy calculations and then we had to discuss the results but we did not know how deep in the discussion we had to go to get points (which was a bit disapointing).» (large extent)
- Good assignment but not very clear what was expected (pages, effort etc)» (large extent)
- It was a bit too easy, you can make it more difficult and more of a challenge, especially since the guiding told us exactly what to do. Make some room for a personal point of view to see how the students analyse and solve it.» (large extent)
- Was a good assignment» (large extent)
- This was the best exercise. But I think, since we are students at a master program at Chalmers, that the bar should be set a bit higher. The calculations I think should be solved by the students for instance.» (large extent)

17. To what extent has the assignment "Literature Assignment" been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		14		38%
Some extent»		18		50%
Large extent»		2		5%
Great extent»		2		5%

Genomsnitt: 1.77

- It was really hard to see the link between this assignment and the lectures. Actually none of the lecture deal with the problem of performance measurements» (Small extent)
- It was a hard assignment, and it took too much time. It would give more if it was divided and/or placed earlier in the semester.» (Small extent)
- dind not like the assignment. It did not feel motivated. » (Small extent)
- I think that the articles was really bad and it was a too big assignment. I would rather see an exercise more like the intermodal transport, but with the route planning for ex. Where you can incorporate the calculations of the route planning with some theory to make the knowledge more deep.» (Small extent)
- To be honest, LA was one of the worst exercises I"ve done in my time in Chalmers. To compare articles that are remotely similar, and to speak about it for 15 minutes was very time consuming but didn"t give me much learnings at all. The task itself was very vaguely written, with sentences like: "The frameworks you have discussed in task 1 should be used to comment on how different measurement approaches/perspective can be used to analyze different ways to improve a transport system. Each group will get their own article describing a potential route to improved transport." But it was in many cases not even possible to compare the articles in task 1 with the second article. And also, no where in the instructions did it say exactly what we were supposed to do with the last article. » (Small extent)
- The literature assigment was alright but is better to grade it or give extra point to get up the effort put into it.» (Some extent)
- Was an okey discussion, but could have been a lot more connected to the course. Think an assignment that has less to do with us reading many articles and go into them in details doesn´,t help us tomuch. Could have been a lot more fun and interesting assignment in transportation field.» (Some extent)
- It was a little bit tricky too understand what to do in task2» (Some extent)
- The articles was GREAT! The seminar was AWESOME! Definitely keep the different articles for different groups, it made possible to learn and discuss many things about e.g. dry-docks that I found extraordinary!» (Great extent)

18. To what extent have the group seminars been of help for your learning?

19. How did you perceive the mix between lectures, guest lectures, assignments, exercises, own literature studies, etc.?

Course administration

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

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		1		2%
Rather well»		18		51%
Very well»		16		45%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- some lectures are still not posted and it is strage that only Violetta has the access to keep the web updated» (Rather badly)
- It would be great if all guest lecture material could come up on the course webpage.» (Rather well)
- Sometimes the slides were not available before the lectures.» (Rather well)
- Could have beem more structured on the home web page» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		0		0%
Rather good»		11		31%
Very good»		21		60%
I did not seek help»		3		8%

Genomsnitt: 3.77

22. How was the course workload (i.e. only consider Freight Transport Systems course and not the MSCP!)?

Too low»		3		8%
Low»		7		20%
Adequate»		21		60%
High»		4		11%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.74

23. How was the total workload this study period (i.e. for the courses Freight transport + MSCP together)?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		2		5%
Adequate»		17		50%
High»		13		38%
Too high»		2		5%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

Summarising questions

24. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		5		14%
Fair»		6		17%
Adequate»		11		31%
Good»		12		34%
Excellent»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 2.94

- The course feels somewhat "useless". A lot of the information is common knowledge and easy to assess by oneself just by pure logic. But the other information feels like something one would easly look up if needed in the future. There are ofcourse some knowledge that is gained by FTS, the overall picture of how everything work etc. But a lot is lost du to the bad presenting and meaningless information in between. The group projects have been rather good, maybe more of these and less lectures?» (Poor)
- Some shots of motivation comes in when going on site visits and listening to guest lectures, but the overall » (Poor)
- I think that it is a interesting topic and you need to know these stuff...but everything was so basic and logical. » (Poor)
- feels strange that a master course on a technical university contains a coure were the students are to know measures on containers, pallets and woltage used for tranins...» (Fair)
- Is this really an advanced level course at a master program? I"m dissapointed over the context of the course. The course should, in my point of view, dig more deeper into freight transport systems and don"t only give basic learnings.» (Fair)
- I think the course was too much about describing the trivial things about transport. (E.g. "what is a container, lorry...etc?") Those things was adequatly covered in the site visits. Also I don"t see the point of the transport/ production allocation exercises. The math is quite simple and the problems could easily be intuitively understood. Therefore I don"t think it is reasonable to spend so much time on such exercises. (And I don"t write this because I "don"t like math", I think the time could be better spent covering more interesting topics).» (Fair)
- I don"t think this course should be a master course because it were to easy.» (Fair)
- I really wanted to know some parts and the subject itself is a very important part of the SCM Programme. Much needs to be changed however.» (Fair)
- The course deals with interesting topics but it can be developed further with more cases and less focus on the final exam. This would fit the content better.» (Adequate)
- There is a need for a lot of detailed knowledge for the exam. It would be interesting to go a little bit deeper in the course, and not as detailed.» (Good)
- The subject is interesting! » (Good)
- Extremely interesting topic, very good site visits (!!), well-covering book and seminars that allow for discussion, debate and depth-understanding. Lectures could have been a bit more interactive with actual reading requirements.» (Good)

25. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

26. What should definitely be changed to next year?

27. Additional comments