Visa resultat

Joining Technology 2011, MMK210

Your own effort

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

22 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		9		40%
Around 20 hours/week»		7		31%
Around 25 hours/week»		5		22%
Around 30 hours/week»		1		4%
At least 35 hours/week»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.9

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

22 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		2		9%
50%»		5		22%
75%»		8		36%
100%»		7		31%

Genomsnitt: 3.9

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals (learning outcomes)?

I have not seen/read the goals»		6		27%
The goals are difficult to understand»		0		0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		7		31%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		9		40%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

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

17 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		2		11%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		14		82%
No, the goals are set too high»		1		5%

Genomsnitt: 1.94

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

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		5		26%
Yes, definitely»		7		36%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		7		36%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- the last question was a bit hard to understand what he wanted us to do» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		10		45%
Large extent»		9		40%
Great extent»		3		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.68

7. Please judge the lectures and content on Welding techniques

21 svarande

Poor»		1		5%
Fair»		4		20%
Good»		10		50%
Very good»		5		25%
Did not participate»		1

Genomsnitt: 2.95

- Stenbacka, too much lecturing in detail from slides. And very much Swedish language mixed into the English(?)» (Fair)
- tak all of the lecture in english. otherwise good lectures. would have liked to have the lab with welding techiques at the same time so you could see exactly what the lecture was about» (Fair)

8. Please judge the lectures and content on Heat conduction and Physical metallurgy

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		4		18%
Good»		12		54%
Very good»		6		27%
Did not participate»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.09

- Johan, writing on the board seems inefficient. How about sharing those notes and instead go through them orally?» (Good)
- I could not see the point of the lectures at the time they were held. It seemed as though it was just writing a whole lot of text on the blackboard without any discussion. However, upon studying for the exam, I found the lecture notes a very good complement to the book (in which the text is very dry and sometimes hard to grasp). A little more discussion during the lectures though might be good to keep the interest on a reasonable level. » (Good)

9. Please judge the lectures and content on Fatigue design

21 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		6		31%
Good»		12		63%
Very good»		1		5%
Did not participate»		2

Genomsnitt: 2.73

- It might just be me who don"t know enough strength of materials theory, but it was hard to follow the lectures. Also, please just keep the regular break times. It just gets hard to concentrate when there is not enough breaks.» (Fair)
- Breaks system a mess. E.g 5+30+5 min break on a whole morning. More important than one might think..» (Fair)

10. How did you experience the Matlab assignment?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		8		36%
Good»		11		50%
Very good»		3		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.77

- It felt a bit repetitive.» (Fair)
- Keep this, but maybe add a brief, optional MatLab introduction for students with poor experience in the program? And more on how to get points, seems like we got tons of info through 32 graphs..» (Very good)

11. How did you experience the Welding Technology lab session?

Poor»		1		4%
Fair»		1		4%
Good»		7		33%
Very good»		12		57%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- The report was too much though. How about a question sheet instead of a whole report of a bit of practise?» (Good)
- MOST INTERESTING PART» (Very good)
- I think it"s really good to get some hands on experience.» (Very good)
- Very interesting to see and try the different techniques.» (Very good)
- Better if it was earlier in the course» (Very good)
- but would have liked to have earlier» (Very good)

12. How did you experience the Welding Metallography lab session?

Poor»		2		9%
Fair»		6		28%
Good»		11		52%
Very good»		2		9%

Genomsnitt: 2.61

- Very boring» (Fair)
- Really hard to see the fields for an untrained eye. And again, question sheet instead of a whole lab report. A too late return of it to, still haven"t, and it"s 2 days untill exam..» (Good)

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

Small extent»		4		19%
Some extent»		7		33%
Large extent»		8		38%
Great extent»		2		9%

Genomsnitt: 2.38

- In my opinion the book is overprized. Since the lecture are closely related to the book, the book is not really necessary» (Some extent)
- E-book could be just an aid though, since almost everything seems to be included in the slides of Stenbacka..» (Large extent)

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

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		2		9%
Rather well»		17		77%
Very well»		3		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.04

- Some confusion about the schedule, otherwise good.» (Rather well)
- No comment, bad or good.» (Rather well)

15. How did you experience the study visit to ESAB?

Should be cancelled»		0		0%
OK»		0		0%
Interesting»		12		75%
It gave me competely new insights - very interesting!»		4		25%
Did not participate»		6

Genomsnitt: 3.25

- Almost everything you could ask for. They should"ve told us how long it lasted and that food was included though. Nobody wants to leave too early..» (Interesting)
- it was really nice to see all of the machines and how they were used. » (It gave me competely new insights - very interesting!)

16. How did you experience the study visit to Volvo Pilot Plant?

Should be cancelled»		1		7%
OK»		8		57%
Interesting»		2		14%
It gave me competely new insights - very interesting!»		3		21%
Did not participate»		8

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- I wish we had been able to see more welding in practice.» (OK)
- Very much robot-like reception. In, sit, listen, look, out. No break, no drink, no fruit, no telling where the bathroom is. They should remove some parts or spread it out on more time instead..» (OK)
- OK, but quite much repetition in the presentations in regards to the lectures. Better to see the actual welding processes in production.» (OK)
- would have liked a break between the lectures, was embarassingly difficult to stay awake in that room. and to have it earlier in the course would be good. » (OK)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		0		0%
Rather good»		2		9%
Very good»		15		68%
I did not seek help»		5		22%

Genomsnitt: 4.13

- Johan is easy to talk with» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		1		4%
Rather well»		8		36%
Very well»		10		45%
I did not seek cooperation»		3		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.68

19. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		4%
Adequate»		20		90%
High»		1		4%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Late labs with full reports is not perfect.» (Adequate)
- The book was little bit complicated some times» (Adequate)

20. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		1		4%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		15		68%
High»		5		22%
Too high»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 3.22

- Alot of handins in both courses, but thats usually a good thing» (High)

Summarizing questions

21. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Adequate»		8		36%
Good»		11		50%
Excellent»		3		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.77

- Name of course a bit missleading. 95% is welding. Other joining technologies are only mentioned on the side.» (Good)
- Johan is good. » (Good)

22. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

23. What should definitely be changed to next year?

24. Additional comments