Visa resultat

Timber Engineering, VSM196

Your own effort

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

29 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		3		10%
Around 20 hours/week»		8		27%
Around 25 hours/week»		12		41%
Around 30 hours/week»		6		20%
At least 35 hours/week»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.72

- I don"t really remember...» (Around 20 hours/week)

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

29 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		3		10%
75%»		6		20%
100%»		20		68%

Genomsnitt: 4.58

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. To what extent did you reach the following goal? After the course the student should understand the specific aspects of timber construction and have basic knowledge of wood-based products.

0-20%»		0		0%
20-40%»		0		0%
40-60%»		4		13%
60-80%»		16		55%
80-100%»		9		31%

Genomsnitt: 4.17

4. To what extent did you reach the following goal? After the course the student should have a good knowledge of structural design using timber and panel products.

0-20%»		0		0%
20-40%»		0		0%
40-60%»		3		10%
60-80%»		16		55%
80-100%»		10		34%

Genomsnitt: 4.24

5. To what extent did you reach the following goal? After the course the student should understand the main points of how to design a stabilsing system for multi-storey timber buildings.

0-20%»		0		0%
20-40%»		1		3%
40-60%»		3		10%
60-80%»		15		51%
80-100%»		10		34%

Genomsnitt: 4.17

6. To what extent did you reach the following goal? After the course the student should understand mechanical behaviour of connections and be able to design different connections.

0-20%»		0		0%
20-40%»		0		0%
40-60%»		7		24%
60-80%»		18		62%
80-100%»		4		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.89

7. To what extent did you reach the following goal? After the course the student should understand how different properties of floor components affect the dynamic behaviour of wood-based floors.

0-20%»		0		0%
20-40%»		2		6%
40-60%»		8		27%
60-80%»		13		44%
80-100%»		6		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.79

- The FEM project gave me a good understanding of the subject.» (80-100%)

8. How understandable are the course goals?

The goals are difficult to understand»		0		0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		12		41%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		17		58%

Genomsnitt: 2.58

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

28 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		0		0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		26		92%
No, the goals are set too high»		2		7%

Genomsnitt: 2.07

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

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		20		68%
Yes, definitely»		7		24%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.37

- -One extremely strange question on dowels on the exam (no 4). Had very little to do with what the teaching has been about. The question did"nt really give a chance for the students to show what we know about dowels and connections. The explaining figure was very hard to understand.» (To some extent)
- The last of the calculation examples on the exam (no.4) was more of a theory question than a calculation example. Not good.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		4		13%
Some extent»		15		51%
Large extent»		9		31%
Great extent»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.24

- Very unstructured lectures. » (Small extent)
- There were too many lectures on connections and some repetition between Robert"s and Crocetti"s lectures. It would have been better to get good examples and more literature abour this subject.» (Some extent)

12. To what extent has the design exercise been of help to reach the course goals?

Small extent»		2		6%
Some extent»		2		6%
Large extent»		17		58%
Great extent»		8		27%

Genomsnitt: 3.06

- We made a lot of calculations but we have no idea if they are correct. It seems like no attention at all was paid to correcting them after we turned them in.» (Small extent)
- It should be better if we got the designtask corrected before we go it handed back. Now we didn´,t know what in the designtask was wrong and what was right so e couldn´,t use it to study for the exam» (Large extent)
- The number of bonus points on the other hand do not really correspond to the amount of work that need to be put in such a project.» (Large extent)
- It was pretty much work!» (Large extent)
- Should have been given more points for the final exam, it was alot of work. But I learned alot of it. » (Large extent)
- The design was a great help in understanding the problems and design pricedure but it is a bit disappointing that we can maximum get 3 points for the design task. It was a lot of work, my group handed in more than 50 pages of hand-calculation and felt that this work was not taken into account enough. I would propose that at least one third of the total points in the course should be able to achieve in the design task. » (Great extent)

13. To what extent has the FEM-project contributed to a better understandning of the dynamic performance of timber floors?

Small extent»		3		10%
Some extent»		17		58%
Large extent»		8		27%
Great extent»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.24

- It was a good exercise and showed in a good way how the floor reacted.» (Some extent)
- Bad instructions of how the project was going to be made. Hard to get help and to ask questions.» (Some extent)
- It could have been better with teacher» (Large extent)
- all students were more struggling with the abaqus programm than with the dynamic performance. It would be good to introduce the program abaqus a bit more earlier and to a larger extent. One introduction to it is not enough, a whole course would be appropriate.» (Large extent)

14. To what extent has the FEM-project contributed to a better understanding of the practical use of FE-analysis?

Small extent»		2		6%
Some extent»		14		48%
Large extent»		13		44%
Great extent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.37

- to much time was spent on trying to understand the program» (Small extent)

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

Small extent»		9		31%
Some extent»		10		34%
Large extent»		9		31%
Great extent»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

- The lecture notes was very unstructured and hard to understand.» (Small extent)
- Dålig litteratur... Nytt material borde tas fram. Dåligt att själv behöva skriva ut det. Bättre att köpa häften på Cremona iså fall. » (Small extent)
- I would prefer less examples that are calculated more thouroughly and correctly. There were some numbers wrong or the solution was hard to read in some cases - students are distracted by that» (Some extent)
- It"s bad to hand out things we can"t use, like STEP where we had to know what we could use and what we could not use. The only information about this was on the lectures, so if you missed that lecture, you didn"t know what"s outdated.» (Some extent)
- The Step books are good» (Large extent)

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

Very badly»		7		24%
Rather badly»		9		31%
Rather well»		11		37%
Very well»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.27

- No good at all, never right questions, never right solutions and never in time» (Very badly)
- The administration was really really really bad. No structure whatsoever of the calculation examples and all the answers were wrong.» (Very badly)
- The exercises should have been distributed earlier and preferably with readable and correct solutions, which was often not the case.» (Rather badly)
- The course literature was not well organised. The copies of different papers on the website did not fit to together with the table in the course memo. To have solution for all the examples would be nice too.» (Rather badly)
- Very often additional information about the design task was given only in class, it would be good to also put it on news at the course home page.» (Rather badly)
- OK-» (Rather badly)
- Up-to-date course home page. But why not post all old exams with solutions?» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		6		20%
Rather poor»		7		24%
Rather good»		9		31%
Very good»		5		17%
I did not seek help»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.65

- the teachers was available to little. It also seemed like we should learn to much by our own.» (Very poor)
- Not allowed to ask when it wasn´,t consultation, and on the consultationtime it was no teacher there» (Very poor)
- It seemed like the goal for the teachers was to not be available at all. The attitude was not "how nice to be able to help you" but more "you should know this, whats wrong with you".» (Very poor)
- Taskig attityd då elever kommer upp o frågar saker, med vissa undantag. Förstår att lärare har mycket annat att göra men lite trevlig attityd efterfrågas.» (Rather poor)
- if officiell office hours exist, the lecturer should then be there. My group was two times unsucessfull to get help during the office hours since no one was there. But i have to say that we always got help during lecture breaks for example» (Rather good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		3		10%
Rather well»		10		35%
Very well»		15		53%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- Bra grupp!» (Very well)

19. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		11		37%
High»		15		51%
Too high»		3		10%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

20. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		8		27%
High»		15		51%
Too high»		6		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.93

- have no time to spend on the course. All time are put on design task and FEM-project» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

21. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		5		17%
Fair»		6		20%
Adequate»		7		24%
Good»		11		37%
Excellent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.82

- Väldigt rörig och ostrukturerad kurs. Egentligen är det inte svår matematik och mekanik kursen innehåller men Robert lyckades göra det mesta väldigt obegripligt och osammanhängande. » (Poor)
- Very unstructured course with poor guidance from some of the involved personel. » (Poor)
- Dålig struktur på kursen. Ansvarig borde ta Maries & Karins kurser (Bärande konstr. och Konstr.tek.) som förbild. Styr upp uppgiften med veckovisa redovisningar så lär man sig ännu bättre. Bättre övningsräkningar (Där det fakstiskt räknas lite). Det känns ofta som kursansvarig inte riktigt har tänkt ut på förhand vad som ska hända under lektionerna. Generellt dåligt förberett. Designtask PM var så hastigt ihopplockat att saker från föregående år hade klippt och klistrats med, som inte hade anknytning till våran upg. Redovisning formen på projektet framgick knappt tydligt förrän efteråt... Felaktigalösningar delades ofta ut fast RK visste att svaret var fel och sa det (map ny EC). Borde ju då naturligtvis uppdaterats innan! Ex. som detta och något taskig attityd framhåller en o vilja att "walk the extra mile" för studenterna. Utbildning framstår som obetydelsefull. Ledord för nästa år. Framförhållning, struktur, tydlighet. » (Poor)
- could be an excellent course with better administration and not so high work load» (Fair)
- Förväntar man sig mycket av studentarna måste det också finnas ett stort engagemang av lärare. Bra designuppgift, dock lite "maffig" kanske. Hr man utlovat 2h lärar handleding i veckan och ABSOUT ingen annan gång ska då också lärana finnas till hands under de timmarna...» (Fair)

22. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

23. What should definitely be changed to next year?

24. Additional comments