Visa resultat

Computational Material Physics, TIF035

1. To which program do you belong

Ph.D GU»		0		0%
Ph.D Chalmers»		1		16%
Masters GU»		0		0%
Masters Chalmers»		4		66%
International Masters GU»		0		0%
International Masters Chalmers»		1		16%

Genomsnitt: 4

- Fundamental Fysik master program chalmers. Finns inte länger.» (Masters Chalmers)
- ERASMUS» (International Masters Chalmers)

Your own effort

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

6 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		1		16%
Around 20 hours/week»		0		0%
Around 25 hours/week»		3		50%
Around 30 hours/week»		1		16%
At least 35 hours/week»		1		16%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

- Rather equilibrated overall» (At most 15 hours/week)
- more in the last weeks, less in the first weeks» (Around 25 hours/week)
- It varied but as this was my only course I spent a lot of my time on it. The work load was ver concentrated. And more time to spend on the code assignments would have been helpful. They were accessible the whole time so maybe it"s just my own fault to not begin earlier. I also decided to do them on my own which makes them more difficult.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

6 svarande

0%»		1		16%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		0		0%
75%»		1		16%
100%»		4		66%

Genomsnitt: 4.16

- I usually do.» (100%)

Course

4. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		0		0%
The goals are difficult to understand»		0		0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		1		16%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		5		83%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

- Maybe at the beginning it could have been clearer» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- The information on the theory exam could have been clearer but it is very understandable that the first time it is conducted that it is a bit vague. » (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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

5 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		1		20%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		3		60%
No, the goals are set too high»		1		20%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Except the coding assignments. They were challenging.» (No, the goals are set too low)

6. The course has had several paths to examination. What is your opinion regarding the choice of examination form?

Not good»		1		16%
It was ok»		2		33%
Very good»		3		50%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- the exam should be later, after all the other time consuming task are finished.» (Not good)
- The second code assignment was much harder than all other assignments. Maybe this should be made more clear at the start of the course or maybe it should be made more easy. » (It was ok)
- Liked the several parts a lot!» (Very good)

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

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		3		50%
Yes, definitely»		1		16%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		2		33%

Genomsnitt: 2.83

- The home exam tied it all together at the end. Good.» (To some extent)
- I really don"t.» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)

8. There have been two code assignments given during the course. In the first you are asked to find the ground-state energy of helium using DFT. What is your opinion regarding that code assignment?

Not good»		1		16%
It was ok»		2		33%
Very good»		3		50%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- too difficult for me» (Not good)
- Excellent! I would have wanted to spend a little more time on it and do it more thoroughly, but it was a great exercise which really forced me learn a lot. Very much appreciated.» (Very good)
- It gave a very good introdution to DFT» (Very good)

9. The second code assignment focus on the band structure of silicon. What is your opinion regarding that code assignment?

Not good»		1		25%
It was ok»		1		25%
Very good»		2		50%

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- I think this one was way too hard or maybe was it me being stupid. It also had a deadline at the same date as one of the exerises which made it even harder to complete. This was a bit of a pity since it seemed to be an intresting assignment that would have given me some valuable insight into bandstructure calculations.» (Not good)
- Excellent! I would have wanted to spend a little more time on it and do it more thoroughly, but it was a great exercise which really forced me learn a lot. Very much appreciated.» (Very good)

10. We used python and the atomic simulation environment (ase) during the computer exercises. What is your opinion regarding the use of python and ase?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		4		66%
Very good»		2		33%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- some times it felt like you did not understand what was needed for certain problems.» (It was ok)
- They could have been more challenging although they did go through some very important aspects of running simulations. I"ve had experience with ase before.» (It was ok)
- Maybe there should have been more explaination off what we were actually calculating and why we were using specific values of parameters in the programs. » (It was ok)

11. During the course you have had access to Beda (cluster machine at Chalmers). What is your opinion regarding the use of Beda in this course.

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		3		50%
Very good»		3		50%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- It wasn"t such a large part of the course. It was nice to have reserved nodes to run on.» (It was ok)
- Nice to be able to do fast calculations!» (Very good)

12. How have you experienced of the practical side (queuing time, user account, etc) of using Beda been?

Not good»		1		16%
It was ok»		3		50%
Very good»		2		33%

Genomsnitt: 2.16

- you never know how long the queing time is» (Not good)
- No complaints.» (Very good)
- I did not encounter much problem with the queuing time so I"m very pleased.» (Very good)

13. During the second exercise you used the SIESTA code. What is your opinion regarding the use of that particular code?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		6		100%
Very good»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- The general feeling that is left is that siesta is not as versatile as dacapo. If that is not true that might be important to stress.» (It was ok)
- It was hard to get the differene betweeen SIESTA and DACAPO.» (It was ok)

14. During the third exercise you used the DACAPO code. What is your opinion regarding the use of that particular code?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		3		50%
Very good»		3		50%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- see previous.» (It was ok)
- The general feeling that is left is that siesta is not as versatile as dacapo. If that is not true that might be important to stress.» (Very good)

15. The aim of using several different codes was to allow you to experience different implementations of DFT. Do you feel that this aim was achieved?

No, not at all»		0		0%
Perhaps»		3		50%
Yes, very much so»		3		50%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- hard to tell.» (Perhaps)
- see previous» (Perhaps)
- By definition, yes.» (Yes, very much so)

16. The first computer assignment allowed you to use ab intitio methods to determine the conformal energy of ethene and ethane. What is your opinion regarding that particular assignment?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		2		33%
Very good»		4		66%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- Maybe there should be more fous on understanding rather than getting actual results.» (It was ok)

17. The second computer assignment allowed you to use a material screening procedure to find alloys between Mg and Al. What is your opinion regarding that particular assignment?

Not good»		1		16%
It was ok»		4		66%
Very good»		1		16%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Probably because of the problem in the Sulfur PP, the goqls weren"t reqlly clear» (Not good)
- pitty that we didn"t manage to do it all the way» (It was ok)
- the first part was really good. But then there were some problems in the second part that made it impossible to deal with the problem to 100% ...» (It was ok)
- see privious» (It was ok)
- It is a shame that the second part of the assignment wasn"t executable.» (Very good)

18. The third computer assignment allowed you to investigate how CO interacts with Pt. What is your opinion regarding that particular assignment?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		4		80%
Very good»		1		20%

Genomsnitt: 2.2

- see previous» (It was ok)

19. What is your opinion regarding the optional course projects?

Not good»		0		0%
It was ok»		3		50%
Very good»		3		50%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- I enjoyed the lectures.» (It was ok)
- didn"t do any.» (It was ok)

20. In your opinion how was the connection between lecturers and exercises?

Not good»		1		16%
It was ok»		4		66%
Very good»		1		16%

Genomsnitt: 2

- some lectures were very nice some i could not follow» (Not good)
- it was not clear all the time that what was being done in the excercises was taken up in the lectures. But if you wanted to get deeper into what was really going on behind all calculations you could go back to the lectures and get more understanding.» (It was ok)
- Not to great, but I"m not sure if it was necessary. » (It was ok)
- maybe there should be more bridging between exercises and lectures. Maybe a short sum up at the end of the computer excerises.» (It was ok)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		2		33%
Large extent»		2		33%
Great extent»		2		33%

Genomsnitt: 3

- To heavy lectures. Hard to grasp.» (Some extent)
- If you had a question there was always time to get an answer. » (Great extent)

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

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		6		100%
Large extent»		0		0%
Great extent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Lecture slides were good. Didn"t by the book, too expensive.» (Some extent)

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

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		0		0%
Rather well»		3		50%
Very well»		3		50%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

Study climate

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		0		0%
Rather good»		0		0%
Very good»		6		100%
I did not seek help»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 4

- fast answers to e-mails.» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		1		16%
Rather well»		0		0%
Very well»		4		66%
I did not seek cooperation»		1		16%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

- Shame though.» (I did not seek cooperation)

26. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		1		16%
High»		5		83%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

- computational always takes a lot of time. Hard to get it down. Maybe take one home exercise away due to the fact that there is also this home exam this year.» (High)
- High at times. Low at others. At the moment very low. The theory exam doesn"t seem too terrible.» (High)
- Computational = High workload. Maybe too much at the end of the course.» (High)

27. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		2		33%
High»		3		50%
Too high»		1		16%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

- Maybe because i read 150%» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

28. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Adequate»		0		0%
Good»		3		50%
Excellent»		3		50%

Genomsnitt: 4.5

- difficult to say, some things were excellent(Anders as a teacher)but sometimes the bar was set to high for me... Some of the lectures were hard to follow» (Good)
- It is always nice to produce your own work. Some more understanding is needed.» (Good)
- I found the course very interesting and fun. learned a lot. Mostly computational but also some theory behind it.» (Excellent)

29. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

30. What should definitely be changed to next year?

31. Additional comments