|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENKÄTER | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visa resultatHär 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.
Project in applied mechanics, TME130Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2008-05-27 - 2008-06-15 Antal svar: 20 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 50% Kontaktperson: Tomas Grönstedt» Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers
Your own effort and qualifications1. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.4 - Many lectures were early in the course, when I was away from town. The schedule came very late. Many lectures were moved with short notice.» (50%) 2. Do you consider that you hade sufficient knowledge to read this course?19 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.47 - I was responsible for the EMA. Obviously I didn"t have sufficient knowledge of EMA before the course but I did have all the knowledge necessary to learn the EMA-theory during the course.» (Yes, absolutely) Goals and goal fulfilment3. How understandable are the course goals?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.35 - The goals of the course often seemed unclear. It often seemed that the work we done was only to do work but not to learn anything from it.» (The goals are difficult to understand) 4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?13 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.15 - I cannot answer the question since I didn"t understood the goals.» (?) teaching methods5. How do you rate the "Design Task"?16 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2 - The scale is lacking, some extent of what?» (?) 6. How do you rate the "Improved Design Contest" event?- I think it worked well.»- It was a joke,,,It should be the best consept that should win, not the easiest for you to produce. That wasn"t the criteria given in PM» - a good deadline but then it seems to be impossible to change our mind for the final presentation. » - It was a good idea to have design contest» - Large extent.» - It should have been made clearer that it was a design idea for a full-scale chimney that was the ultimate objective, I think (and thus that a design disrupting vortex shedding is the only viable solution). It also seemed that the EMA- and the FEM- part of the project was unneccesary for the final design, nothing more than a fluid simulations were really needed to find a working concept.» - For many, it was obvoius that you chose the project that was easiest to do more experiments on, rather than the best project. And still you did not test the critical parts of the winning concept (i.e. the moving parts). However, it was good with two presentations so more group memebers could to a presentation, and that we didn"t have to do the same presentations twice.» - Excellent, though the winning team should have been another one» - The criterions for the competition were a little bit difuse. I don"t by the concept: "It"s like it is in real life projects".» - Worked very well» - It was not clear what we were supposed to show at that step: only some ideas or some clues in order to prove the applicability of them. But I think that can be considered as a result of unclear descriptions in course PM and also the teachers not being so informative.» - Good» - Same as above, poor...» 7. How do you rate the final presentation and opposition event?- This also worked well. »- I think the groups did well!» - some groups didn"t try to do further developpement but kept their files from the Improved Design Contest, and that"s a same, especially when they couldn"t run simulation, just because it should be done in 3D. Then their argumentation was just "we can"t simulate this, but trust us, we Really believe this is working". why not, but it"s not really scientific. Then, we didn"t really have the time to prepare questions, and most of them were just about the form of the report (stuff about contribution, legend of pictures..). This is maybe also because i think only 1 group member read the report, and so he couldn"t know everything , then we weren"t questionned about things which were, according to me, obviously questionnable. » - Good» - Large extent. But the time after the improved design contest was to short.» - Those events were very interesting.» - It was good, better than the design part since more students had more knowledge and could ask better questions. Difficult to understand what the opposistion would be like though (ask relevant questions, comment on fig texts, give positive feedback etc), no info in course memo!» - good» - The oppositions where unnecessary, if you are supposed to be graded on your opposition, you should be able to hold an opposition without being limitied to what questions the other opponent already asked. And if one are to prepare for the opposition together with the other opponent, more time is needed, not just one day, and it should be official beforehand who is going to oppose against who.» - Worked very well» - Not only the students but also the teachers looked and were definitely tired. As a result it remained as the last attempt to just FINISH everything!» - God» - It was good. Maybe a little bit too short time to do the opposition since it was two groups that did it, but overall good.» 8. To what extent has the course literature been of help for your learning?19 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.63 - I learned the most things by dicussing with group memebers.» (small extent) 9. How well did the course administration and homepage work?19 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.47 - We received no info after the presentations about when the grades would be ready.» (Good) Teaching staff and guest lecturers10. Please rate Gunnar Johanssons contributions to the course16 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.93 - I was in the FEM group, thus I have not had anything to do with him. Seems good though...» (?) 11. Please rate Mats Anders contributions to the course15 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.2 - As i was in the fluid specialisation i did not interact with him. Thus i would not like to comment on this» (?) 12. Please rate Tomas Grönstedts contributions to the course15 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.6 - I have no idea, never talked to him.» (?) 13. Please rate Xu Lei"s contributions to the course10 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.6 - I have no idea, never talked to him.» (?) 14. Please rate Thomas Abrahamssons contributions to the course10 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.7 - i was in the fluid part» (?) 15. Please rate the "Göran Alpsten guest lecture"14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.28 - Do not have enough impression» (?) 16. Please rate the "Per Heinz guest lecture"- It was ok. Don"t remember much.»- Very good, knowledgeable. Nice to see the connection between solid and fluid simulations. Very relevant to this course. » - -» - I think it was not of much help to the project course. It gave us a idea about how an FSI problem is solved and the different softwares that are available.» - Did not attent at this lecture.» - Did not give much for the project, but interesting to know more about FSI. » - Was useful» - Moderate» 17. Please rate the "Sinisa Krajnovic guest lecture"- It was funny, my impression was that he said that everyhing the fluid guys did was worthless, but I don"t think he meant it. You left the lecture with a better understanding how complex fluid simulatons are, and knowing that you probably never can trust anything a fluid person calculates.»- Good» - very interesting.» - It was a good lecture to know about the flow physics and numerical modelling of flow. But the lecture was at a very late stage were most of the project work was completed. It would have been better if the lecture was given still earlier.» - Very interessting, but to difficult for the solid specialization .» - Did not attend.» - Very useful lecture! Should have been earlier LES simulations of flow around a cylinder with finite L/D ratio Rulzzz» - Good» - interesting view of research side» - probably interesting for a fluid engineer, not for me. Came too late in the course.» 18. Please rate the "Christoffer Norberg guest lecture"- I didn"t attend.»- He explaned folw around cylinders for Re less than 47. We needen more infomation about flow larger than that.» - it was really nice to be able to talk about our ideas with him.» - The lecture was really gud which gave insight to the problem but even this was very late. But even then we got some guidance about the designs that we had proposed that was quite helpful for he final presention of the design.» - Good» - Did not attent at this lecture.» - Did not attend. » - was interesting too, and the discussion of concepts afterwards was fun and useful» - Good» Study climate19. What did you think about the overall work load in the course?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.4 - Unevenly distributed. Did nothing in the beginong of the course, and the course took all avalible hours during the end. It seemed the fluid and the EMA groups had more work to do (even though we really tried to find more topics to evaluate), thus it is easier for them to get a good grade. Hopefully this is not considered when setting the grades.» (High) 20. How was the work load this study period?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.05 - High and therefore adequate. The workload distribution was askew however.» (High) 21. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.45 - Very good, since you could always ask questions. Rather poor, since you did not always got any answers...» (Rather good) 22. How well has the cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.6 - Good teamwork. No major problems.» (Very good) Summarizing questions23. What is your overall impression of the course?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.1 - I really did not learn much. I think that the Fatigue design should be the compulory course and this course the optional. » (Poor) 24. What improvements can be made to next year?- Maybe an 2h Abaqus introduction class teaching mainly about the steps (becasue I think meshing, BC och such things one can figure out how to do, but stepes and postprocessing were a little trickier).»- Many things, but one thing from the solid part. The session where the experts in Abaqus attended, had been very useful in the beginning of the period of Abaqus work, not in the week of report writing... Now we had to some extent try and error through the whole project...» - Better timing with the deadlines from the start. Even if the analysis was made correctly, there was nothing to gain from the FE model, since the model doesn"t have the same problems as the full scale chimney. (what works on the large chimney has very little do to with what works on the model chimney). This issue seems to have been ignored from this project.» - Someone who knows Abaqus should be avalible for qustions.» - explain more precisely what is expected (planning report, what has to be done between the Design contest and the Final presentation)» - The guest lectures should be at the early stages which would be very helpful. » - Better planning.» - Tone down the "improved design concept" part a little, since that part doesn"t motivate the whole EMA-part and the construction and improvement of a FEM-model, to find an improved design against vortex shedding, all that is really needed are fluid simulations. Or find another way to motivate the mentioned parts.» - Plan the course better. The fluid group only got 1 lecture in fluids and it was in 4th or 5th week. That should be in 1 or 2 week. » - The memo must be easier to understand. We had no idea how we would be graded (e.g. after the planning report, you came up with a number of things that were not in the memo). The goals must be more clear. Better help with ABAQUS. Do not just ask us to keep deadlines, do it yourself. » - -THe course should not be that demanding -should have better structure and organization -there should be an introductory lecture to what is expected and how the course is gonna work -the first task wasn"t that necessary» - Do not change deadlines, instead, have a more realistic time shedule from the beginning. It would also be better if there is actually a problem that needs to be solved. As it was this year, there was really no need to improve the existing chimney. » - Not focus on a contest» - First of all the teachers should have at least a bit more knowledge about what problem they introduce, and they should also update themselves as time goes by in order to be able to answer (at least) usual questions posed by many students! » - Better organisation, especially in communication teacher-students. task-sheet was too open formulated, often we had to discuss, what to understand under a certain sentence. Wind tunnel showtime should be better and further explained. there was not too much learning process.» - The structure, make it more clear what are expected for the reports etc. Remove design task. Do everything that is expected in the course amongst you teachers so that you can answer questions and solve problems when they arise. Bring the abaqus teachers in earlier, maybe Mats can do some Abaqus tutorials before so that someone knows what can be done in that program so that it isn"t just trial and error for the next years students.» 25. What should definitely be preserved to next year?- That the students should think, plan and solve problems themseleves to a large extent.»- The wind tunnle?» - a talking-presentation with an expert» - The exeprimental part was good which can be preserved.» - Improved design contest.» - That we did not choose our groups. Fun with both solid and fluid project. The idea with the course is very very good, but you need to do most things better. » - -team division like now -the genreal idea -most of the lectures» - The first assignemt we were to hand in. It gave an insigt for the solid specialist in the field of fluid and vice versa.» - experiments» - "Design Task" was quite helpful, but I think there should be put more emphasis on it and an earlier feedback is also required!» - design contest, overall project is very interesting» - The different specializations in the groups and the project work. »
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0%