Visa resultat

V13 - Mechatronic design, SSY155

Your own effort

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

31 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		8		25%
Around 20 hours/week»		13		41%
Around 25 hours/week»		6		19%
Around 30 hours/week»		3		9%
At least 35 hours/week»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.22

- No motivation» (At most 15 hours/week)
- If there was more hours of exercise sessions, it would be good. » (At most 15 hours/week)
- Most of those houres were used to work around problems in the softwares we were supposed to use and to understand confusing problem descriptions» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

31 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		2		6%
50%»		2		6%
75%»		7		22%
100%»		20		64%

Genomsnitt: 4.45

- The lectures I attended were mostly confusing. Got the feeling that the teacher were looking at the slides for the very first time. Not well prepared lectures.» (25%)
- Mostly last 3 weeks» (50%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		8		25%
The goals are difficult to understand»		7		22%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		13		41%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		3		9%

Genomsnitt: 2.35

- Can"t find any description of goals for the course on course homepage.» (I have not seen/read the goals)
- The exam did not reflect what I thought was the goal of the course» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- "discuss possibilities and limitations of mechatronics and to reflect on its impact on humans and on society such as sustainability, user-friendliness and efficiency." This was not touched upon during the course. » (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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

25 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		0		0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		25		100%
No, the goals are set too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2

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

No, not at all»		17		62%
To some extent»		9		33%
Yes, definitely»		1		3%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.4

- Exam was 40% fault detection and 40% describing functions, ~3 lectures covers 80% of the exam.» (No, not at all)
- Half of the exam was what we learned the last week. If an exam should be like that the course should have been a one week course.» (No, not at all)
- The exam tested a vary small portion of what was discussed during the course» (No, not at all)
- The exam was basically 80% material from the last two weeks and that material was not at all covered well by the teacher.» (No, not at all)
- I thought I was well prepared for the exam, yet it felt impossibly difficult and incomparable to the previous exams and the example exam. This seems a little unfair. The complexity of the actual exam problems were, when compared to what we had been exposed to during the course, utterly ridiculous...how on earth we could prepare for that I have no idea. It is, without a doubt, the worst and most unfair exam I have ever encountered. » (No, not at all)
- The exam did only test if you could be fast on the calculator.» (No, not at all)
- Almost only the two last weeks was examined and the questions about describing function was way harder then the ones on the exericise. I don"t think we were given the possibility to be exposed for exerices like that. Also the exercises on fault detection was very easy and some more demanding exercises would be good.» (No, not at all)
- I felt that the examination was really off the mark. The content of the first half of the course was handle as though it were trivia. The material of the second half, primarily on the describing function, was more of a messy and complex mathematical calculation set than an elegant problem which properly evaluated understanding of the topic.» (No, not at all)
- The exam contained content that was very different from previous years, including the once that was not suppose to. There were no material about the first 20/50p of the exam, not at exercises nor book or handed out materal. 4/50p was about a friction mentioned briefly at best.» (No, not at all)
- 20 points was from the last two lectures. nothing on dc motors. noting on sensors. » (To some extent)
- The exam contained to many points that tested us on the last 2 lectures.» (To some extent)
- The first part of the course felt like a waste of time. I wasn"t able to solve a single exercise and even if I would have, it wouldn"t help me in the exam since it was highly focused on the last part.» (To some extent)
- The exam was good BUT way to hard for the simple tasks taught during the course. For the describing function method we practiced on the simplest of problems and when we came to the exam we where supposed to put it into a much more advanced system. A bit of a gap between the level of teaching and what we are supposed to know...» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		13		41%
Some extent»		14		45%
Large extent»		4		12%
Great extent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.7

- It was very unclear what we were supposed to learn and what depth. For example we learned how to use lagrange function but shortly after we were told that we would not have it on the exam at all, and we never used lagrange functions after that week or two we studied it. So why have it on the course??? The exercise sessions were good though.» (Small extent)
- Very small extend, the lectures slides are by them selves unreadable, the only literature that made sense was the one provided about Fault Detection and Gear/Motor one.» (Small extent)
- The lectures felt like summaries of the topic. I came away with the impression that I hadn"t actually learned anything new. The entire first half of the course was run through far too quickly to have been useful. He could have given us a handout and said, "Read this" and saved us all a few weeks time.» (Small extent)
- badly written lecture notes, difficult to understand them when you want to read them afterward» (Some extent)
- The lecture notes were quite hard to read (animation problems) and understand after the lecture if you haven"t made your own notes.» (Some extent)
- Got some insigth into a couple of useful programs. » (Some extent)
- The lectures with only powerpoints is hard to follow when examples and proofs is provided. Would be better to use the board for this. » (Some extent)
- There were lectures» (Some extent)
- I thought the lectures and exercise sessions were good. Although, what"s the point of only having half the exercise session for teaching? It"s as if Paulo thinks that we don"t do any work by ourselves. The classroom was virtually empty for the first hour.» (Large extent)

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

Small extent»		15		48%
Some extent»		14		45%
Large extent»		2		6%
Great extent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.58

- I dont feel that i got anything from the book. The exercises that were there didn"t have solutions and our teacher refused to hand out solutions or at least hints on how to solve the problems.» (Small extent)
- The availability of the lecture notes was good. The book was also good but it would be nice if Paulo could have some references to it, what chapters that are good to read since its a 600 p book.» (Small extent)
- Read all relataed chapters in the beginning (the textbook), and I think the text were to deep and it didn"t help me before the exam. The fault detection text was good but maybe i little to long (would need more deept in the lectures to make it relevant). Describing function text was really good!» (Small extent)
- Didn"t use the book at all. You didn"t need the book for the lectures and since the exercises didn"t include answers there where no use for those either.» (Small extent)
- We only used the first few pages of the book. » (Small extent)
- Without answers it is very difficult to get feedback, hence knowing if you have understood the course correctly. » (Small extent)
- i read mechatronic systems but did not find that it was helpful to solve the exercises.» (Some extent)
- The lecture notes were good but the course book wasn"t used at all by me.» (Some extent)
- The text book was not required but the slides were good.» (Some extent)
- The lab PM and computer exercises was very unclear.» (Some extent)

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

Very badly»		14		45%
Rather badly»		7		22%
Rather well»		7		22%
Very well»		3		9%

Genomsnitt: 1.96

- After hours of trying we finaly got to know, via other students, that it is not possible to solve the problem as was stated in lab pm. This happened several times. » (Very badly)
- The handout for the lab assignment was a joke. In the first version it stated that you should do a model of the plant in MSL (even a picture of how it should look), this was not true. A few hours of work for nothing! Why was the MSL even on the webpage? The handout on fault detection had a question which referred to a compendium that didn"t exist. The first questions referred to a Matlab function that didn"t work. But this wasn"t explained until the lesson when you should do the assignment. » (Very badly)
- The handout assignments was the worst ive come across during my time at Chalmers. It felt like Paulo just had copied and pasted randomly from assignments from previous years. The lab assignment was very boring and definitely not inspiring and it didn´,t connect to the other things in the course.» (Very badly)
- It was the worst administrated course I have attended during all my years as a student. » (Very badly)
- The organization did not work at all. Feels like the lab-pm was not read by the exmaminer before students complained about it. It did not feel serious. The exercise on fault detection was on the same day as the report should be handed in which does not feel well planned. » (Very badly)
- Administration was not good. Faulty versions of PM"s (the MSL toolbox for example) and late uploads etc. Not good.» (Very badly)
- The lab pdf was really bad: No clear description of the purpose or the task. Missing information, old excercises mixed with new, guidelines that did not apply this year etc. » (Very badly)
- Lecture notes were sometimes uploaded late (but understand because the lecturer is new for this year).» (Rather badly)
- Please please check the materials you hand out before you publish it. The lab PM had so many fault that where revealed during week 2. T» (Rather badly)
- There seemed to be no communication between the lecturer and the TA responsible for the lab assignments. The Dymola licensing issue cost us about three weeks worth of computer lab time, and we ended up abandoning it entirely. Too problematic given our tight time constraints with the facilities.» (Rather badly)
- Few updates» (Rather badly)
- the second computer exercise were really bad. The instructions on the PM were bad and we only had 2 hours with a teacher. Also, the laboration were extremely badly administrated. The whole class worked about 4 weeks to get the computer programs to work.» (Rather well)
- The course administration worked well. But the Fault detection one was really ill readable and it seemed very rushed. The lectures for the fault detection happened AFTER the computer exercise and even after that lecture it still made little sense. » (Very well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		3		9%
Rather poor»		10		32%
Rather good»		11		35%
Very good»		2		6%
I did not seek help»		5		16%

Genomsnitt: 2.87

- Since there was only one TA it was almost impossible to get help if you didn"t write your name on the list during the first 10 minutes. There has to be one more TA! » (Very poor)
- What good are problem sets without solutions available? Why have an exercise session if the TA isn"t solving any exercises? » (Very poor)
- Only one TA, she helped as much as she could, examinator not as helpful» (Rather poor)
- Even the first student representative meeting seemed to have no effect, even though they clearly stated the overall mind of the students.» (Rather poor)
- The exercises with Jonas was the good part in the course. The idea with one hour own calulations works quit well but it is a little short time. It is hard when solutions to the exercies is not provided at ping pong since you don"t want to go to the instition each time you need help. This implies that in many cases the exercise remains unsolved. At the computer exercises there was not a chance to get the help needed since all help concerned getting the program work. With 20 groups and all in need of help there is not enough with only one teacher. » (Rather poor)
- Very hard to get help during computer exercises.» (Rather poor)
- Asked for help once but did only get the answer that the questioned was badly formulated, and the answer not relevant» (Rather poor)
- The TA were not always avalable during consulting hours.» (Rather good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		0		0%
Rather well»		10		33%
Very well»		20		66%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- Everybody was of same mind in the course.» (Very well)
- Other students explained the assignments better than the theachers.» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		2		6%
Adequate»		20		68%
High»		5		17%
Too high»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.24

- We didn"t really know what to do half of the time. The tasks in the book where not very good and all the hand-ins where quite confusing in what the tasks where.» (Low)
- what we was supposed to learn was very unclear.» (High)
- Very high when put in contrast to how much I learned from it» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		2		6%
Adequate»		13		41%
High»		10		32%
Too high»		6		19%

Genomsnitt: 3.64

- Took an extra course» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		23		74%
Fair»		5		16%
Adequate»		3		9%
Good»		0		0%
Excellent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.35 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- It felt like the course contained to many different fields. And only 2 of these areas were nearly the only thing that was tested on the exam.» (Poor)
- Very bad planning of assignments and lots of incorrect information in PM.» (Poor)
- It was a very strange plan to have the two by far most important parts the last weeks, when it was 80% of the final exam. Afterwards it felt like we had no use for the first parts. I know that Paulo thinks that you should really try hard when solving problems and in principle I agree. BUT, of practical reasons it doesn"t work when the only chance you have to get help is by emailing or go to the TA"s office. It would help a lot if there were solutions or at least answers to the problems. As it were now I only worked on problems during the scheduled time.» (Poor)
- actually the only course ive wished that I didn´,t attend to. » (Poor)
- *The partition on the course topics was really bad. It felt like the whole course was covered during the last two weeks (and then you didn"t get much time to really learn those parts). *Most of the time spent on the lab assignment were trying to fix the problems between Dymola/Simulink» (Poor)
- 1) Very badly planned lecture 2) It was hard to tell the actual "Design" part of the course. 3) Lecture notes aren"t much help, even after attending the lecture. 4) It feels like a huge waste of time to have taken that course instead of something else.» (Poor)
- The lab assignment was poorly handled. At first, the lab-PM was messy and it was very hard to understand what was supposed to be done. The lab-PM contredicted itself and sometimes refered to, for example Figure(??). Secondly, the dymola software didn"t work and wasn"t fixed for a long time. The exam didn"t at all reflect what was taught in the 7 weeks. The 3 last lectures was 80% of the exam. Also, each task on the exam was alot harder than previous years and no exersice ever matched the difficulty level. Paolo should at least had given a heads up about the increase of difficulty.» (Poor)
- It could have been a really good course if it was organized better.» (Poor)
- The exam did not match the course at all! Don"t get me wrong, the exam was very good, the exam was how one could want the course to be... Question 2 from the exam was a perfect example of what I now in hindsight wanted to learn from the course but didn"t. The computer exercises was bad, the gearbox one felt pointless, not the actual idea, but the exercise as it was.» (Poor)
- Very bad. Constantly giving out wrong information. » (Poor)
- You need to figure out what this course is about. For the exam to have so many "If you took the course in 20xx, do these problems, if you took the course in 20yy, do these" indicates that it"s more of a grab-bag of extra topics that don"t really fall into another course that are all just slapped together as an elective. The course feels like it lacks focus. » (Poor)
- It was, by far, the worst course I"ve taken at Chalmers in terms of how it was carried through by the examiner and his "accomplices". Paulo made sure learning became as difficult as it could possibly be by denying the students good exercises to solve on their own as well as wasting their time with his hipster, shallow, Power Point lectures. The fact that it is a semi compulsory course at mpsys brings down the Master Program as a whole. In the end I blame myself, for it was I who chose to take this course, knowing Paulo"s courses are not up to the Chalmers standard I have gotten used to.» (Poor)
- The lab assingnments should be revised.» (Fair)
- That exam and the computer sessions bring the course down a grade.» (Adequate)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

16. Additional comments