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.


KBT135 - Waste Management 2012, KBT135

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-12-21 - 2013-01-07
Antal svar: 20
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 62%
Kontaktperson: Stefan Allard»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Kemiteknik 300 hp

1. Course material/textbook

We have not found any suitable textbook that covers all areas included in this course (at least not at a reasonable cost). Do you think it is a great disadvantage that there has not been any special textbook?

20 svarande

Yes»6 30%
No»14 70%

Genomsnitt: 1.7

- A compendium with each lecture covered in non-comprehensive text would be good!» (Yes)
- To have a theoritical base about the actual/previous ways of manage the waste» (Yes)
- Since there is no textbook, I think the slides could be more detailed though.» (No)
- The lecture notes provided are sufficient to explain the condition in society and the principles or solution needed to handle the waste, especially in technical part.» (No)
- To learn only with the slides it is not enough. It is not a posibility to go deep in the topic.» (No)

2. Several different lecturers were involved in the course. Do you think it is an advantage or a disadvantage if many different specialists are involved in a course? Please motivate!

20 svarande

Advantage»18 90%
Disadvantage»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 1.1

- Every lecturers and guest lecturers have their own expertise and deeper knowledge in certain area that could help student to understand the subjects » (Advantage)
- It could be an advantage, but then every speaker should have the same level and qualitiy. I.e. sometimes the slides weren"t good prepared.» (Advantage)
- For me is an avantage if I can listen specialists in different lectures. » (Advantage)
- We get to see different point of views and perspectives of the fundamental questions, principles are explained in different ways and by specialists within the area» (Advantage)
- Its better to have an expert for every field, but sometimes the organisation was to chaotic.» (Advantage)
- It is an advantage in the sense that the right people speek about their area of expertise. » (Advantage)

3. Should additional teaching/learning activities be included?

The course consisted of a series of lectures, a project work and study visits.
Do you think that any other teaching/learning activities should be included in the course such as tutorial lectures (räkneövningar), laboratory sessions etc. If you think so please motivate your answer.

20 svarande

Yes»4 20%
No»16 80%

Genomsnitt: 1.8

- Tutorial lectures probably needed in this course as it could help student to wide their resource through internet and books aside from the provided lecture notes.» (Yes)
- Tutorial lectures could be given considering the fact that students come from such a varied background. Even if the chemistry was more or less very trivial it was totally unfamiliar for me who didn"t come from a chemistry/biology background.» (Yes)
- But » (No)
- It is ok in current form. » (No)
- I think more additions to the course would make it too much for the semester work» (No)

4. Lecture: Introduction to waste management and to the projects (Stefan Allard)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

20 svarande

0 0%
3 15%
5 25%
12 60%
0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.45 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

5. Lecture: Ashes: Composition, treatment and use/or disposal (Britt-Marie Steenari)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

20 svarande

0 0%
1 5%
7 35%
10 50%
2 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.65 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

6. Lecture: Principles of bioremediation (Claes Niklasson)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

19 svarande

0 0%
0 0%
8 42%
9 47%
2 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.68 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

7. Lecture: Material balances for biological methods of handling waste (Claes Niklasson)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

18 svarande

0 0%
1 5%
5 27%
10 55%
2 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.72 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

8. Lectures: Waste flows in society: amounts and composition (Magdalena Svanström)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

19 svarande

0 0%
0 0%
2 10%
9 47%
8 42%

Genomsnitt: 4.31 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

9. Lecture: Waste flows in society: management strategies (Magdalena Svanström)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

19 svarande

0 0%
0 0%
2 10%
9 47%
8 42%

Genomsnitt: 4.31 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

10. Lecture: Recycling of metals I (Christian Ekberg)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

18 svarande

0 0%
1 5%
4 22%
9 50%
4 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.88 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

11. Lecture: Sludge treatment (Britt-Marie Wilén)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

18 svarande

0 0%
0 0%
6 33%
9 50%
3 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.83 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

12. Lecture: Recycling of plastics (Anna Jansson)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

17 svarande

0 0%
2 11%
5 29%
7 41%
3 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.64 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

13. Lecture: Hydrothermal waste treatment methods (Magdalena Svanström)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

18 svarande

0 0%
0 0%
3 16%
9 50%
6 33%

Genomsnitt: 4.16 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

14. Lecture: Thermal waste treatment methods (Christer Forsgren)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

16 svarande

0 0%
1 6%
4 25%
7 43%
4 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.87 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- A lot was repeated of what had been said in previous lectures!» (2)

15. Lecture: Handling of radioactive waste (Stefan Allard)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

17 svarande

0 0%
2 11%
5 29%
9 52%
1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.52 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- well done althought not yours» (4)

16. Lecture: Recycling of metals II (Britt-Marie Steenari)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

18 svarande

2 11%
1 5%
7 38%
8 44%
0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.16 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Due to technical problems and the fact that to little hand outs were brought this lecture was a complete embarrassment! » (1)

17. Lecture: Modelling and simple optimization of biological treatment systems (Claes Niklasson)

Please grade the lecture from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

18 svarande

0 0%
1 5%
3 16%
12 66%
2 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.83 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

18. Study visit to Ryaverket

Please grade the study visit, if applicable, from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

14 svarande

1 7%
0 0%
5 35%
7 50%
1 7%

Genomsnitt: 3.5 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Did not visit!!» (3)
- Sorry wrong field.. I was at sobacken» (3)
- did not do» (3)

19. Study visit to Sobacken

Please grade the study visit, if applicable, from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest mark!

14 svarande

1 7%
1 7%
5 35%
7 50%
0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.28 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I attended the other one.» (?)
- I lost a whole afternoon! The quality of this study trip was horrible. Small and easy questions about the biogas or about the value of the working engineers could not be answered. We are not a Kindergarten group, we are the next engineers who want to work for the company. But it was not a good publicity for them.» (1)
- It was difficult to hear the guide, so I didn"t learn as much as I could have.» (4)
- Would"ve been nice having an engineer guiding us around and answering questions» (4)

20. The project

Do you feel the topics offered were relevant? Please grade from 1 to 5, with 1 being very irrelevant and 5 very relevant.

20 svarande

0 0%
0 0%
4 20%
11 55%
5 25%

Genomsnitt: 4.05 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The presentation part was a bit bad because of the fact that you dodnt knew who was going to present the work, this added some stress.» (4)
- The project had some relevance BUT it did bring out some frustration in groups. It was a bit unclear from the introduction that the scheduled project time was going to be unsupervised. People showed up at the booked class rooms and was expecting a supervisor. When I say supervisor I mean a person their to help us get things started and point us in the right direction. At the first project session, a lot of people were missing groups. A lot of people also felt confused or didn"t know were their group mates where. Maybe with the aid of ping-pong the students could communicate better with each other.» (4)

21. Project group size

Please indicate the number of project group members you feel makes a good group.

20 svarande

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

3 15%
11 55%
14 70%
2 10%
1 5%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
10»0 0%

- It wouldn"t have been a problem to have » (2, 3, 4, 5)

22. Project bonus

Should the project affect the final grading? It can now give you a maximum of 6 points in addition to result of th written exam.

20 svarande

Yes»20 100%
No»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1

- I think it"s a good system as it is.» (Yes)
- YES! However these bonus points MUST be sent to students before the exam. We haven"t still heard anything about these or seen them on the website which brings alot of frustration.» (Yes)
- I think a bit more can be better regarding the time spent for it» (Yes)

23. Course administration

Please grade how the course administration and course information has worked, with 1 being terrible and 5 excellent.

20 svarande

0 0%
4 20%
6 30%
7 35%
3 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.45 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Course administration was terrible! Simply terrible! I"ve never through out my studies at Chalmers experienced such a unstructured course. With so many different topics and lecturer"s its extremely important to make sure that everything is presented in a chronological manner. This was however not the case, which I"m sure that both Stefan and the lecturer"s are aware of. » (2)

24. Exam

Please indicate how well the exam reflected the course, with 1 being "poorly" and 5 "very well".

17 svarande

0 0%
1 5%
1 5%
10 58%
5 29%

Genomsnitt: 4.11 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I wouldn"t be able to comment the exam since I became sick during the study week and wasn"t able to take the exam.» (?)
- The exam covered a lot of the material.» (4)

25. Comments/suggestions in general

Please feel free to make any comments or suggestions relating to this course!

- It will be very nice to put the learning outcomes into every powepoint lecture. I missed it so much during preparing on exams.»
- Håll den röda tråden så blir det bra, just nu blev det vara rörigt och grötigt med hopp mellan olika ämnen som egentligen skall vävas samman. Med så mycket olika föreläsare är det viktigt att hålla den röda tråden för att inte tappa fokus på ämnet.»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.77


Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.77
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.69


Kursutvärderingssystem från