Aktuella utvärderingar

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.

Project in applied mechanics, TME130

Status: Avslutad
Öppen 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 qualifications

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

20 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»2 10%
75%»8 40%
100%»10 50%

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%)
- I didn"t attedn all the fluid lectures since I"m a "solids guy".» (75%)
- there were too few lectures» (75%)
- I think that the last lectures by sinisja and the other guy in fluid around a cylinder were too late and not very interesting for me in the solid part of the project.» (75%)
- Missade några då jag inte viste om att det var lektion» (75%)
- ...except some guest lectures.» (100%)
- Some of the lectures should have been erlier» (100%)

2. Do you consider that you hade sufficient knowledge to read this course?

19 svarande

Yes, absolutely»10 52%
In part, but I struggled in places»9 47%
No»0 0%

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)
- I had some dfficulties in experimental fluid data analysis as i had not take the turbulence theory course and did not have much idea about calculation of the enegry spectrum.» (In part, but I struggled in places)
- Perhaps some more basic ABAQUS introduction needed.» (In part, but I struggled in places)
- A very large part of the course was about strucural dynamics, which I hadn"t taken.» (In part, but I struggled in places)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

20 svarande

I have not seen/read the course goals»6 30%
The goals are difficult to understand»3 15%
The goals give some guidance, but could be more clear»9 45%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to»2 10%

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)
- Very difficult to understand if the goal was to learn to work in a project and group dynamics, or to learn to use commercial software and come up with a result. It was very difficult to understand if we were suppose do improve the model chimney or do improvments that could be realized. Many contradictive demands!» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- But sadly they changed every week» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to)

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

13 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasnoable»11 84%
No, the goals are set too high»2 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.15

- I cannot answer the question since I didn"t understood the goals.» (?)
- The goals were set in a way that at the end they seemed irrelevant considering the results acquired.» (?)

teaching methods

5. How do you rate the "Design Task"?

16 svarande

small extent»3 18%
some extent»10 62%
large extent»3 18%
great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- The scale is lacking, some extent of what?» (?)
- Do not understand the question.» (?)
- what is meant by extent?? I think it was a part of the course that could be less important. It would have been more interesting to use that time to do better calculations or models. » (small extent)
- I dont know what you mean with this questino...» (some extent)
- I am taking the solids track. The fluid questions were impossible to know how to answer. We had to ask the fluid students, so having to answer so advanced fluid mechanics questions seemed a bit pointless.» (some extent)
- It was good to get a general knowledge about the project, but I did not understand much when I did it.» (some extent)
- To mutch workload on this part. Would been better to start the project right away.» (some extent)
- Solution should be provided after finishing the task.Due to didactic reasons.» (large extent)

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

small extent»10 52%
some extent»6 31%
large extent»3 15%
great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.63

- I learned the most things by dicussing with group memebers.» (small extent)
- There was barely any.» (small extent)
- We have bin given som literature if we asked about it, but it wasent relevant to a chimney.» (small extent)
- Did we have any?» (small extent)
- (EMA) Thomas" lecture notes was all that was needed » (small extent)
- Mostly did ABAQUS simulations, did not know much theroy about structural dynamics, and did not have time to learn. The online help for abaqus is not very good if you havn"t used the software before.» (small extent)
- the big Zdravkovich book wasn"t so interesting the paper on aerodynamic means for fighting shedding was much more useful» (some extent)
- Was in the EMA part. Didn"t have much knowledge before about that.» (large extent)

9. How well did the course administration and homepage work?

19 svarande

Excellent»1 5%
Good»12 63%
Moderate»2 10%
Poor»4 21%

Genomsnitt: 2.47

- We received no info after the presentations about when the grades would be ready.» (Good)
- probably a better synchrozniation of the information given to students is needed» (Good)
- The homepage was excellent, but the administration in terms of the time schedule for deadlines etc was poor.» (Good)
- With so many changes through the course, and questions on the memo, I cannot say that the administration has been ok.» (Poor)
- bland de sämre jag upplevt» (Poor)

Teaching staff and guest lecturers

10. Please rate Gunnar Johanssons contributions to the course

16 svarande

Excellent»4 25%
Good»9 56%
Moderate»3 18%
Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.93

- I was in the FEM group, thus I have not had anything to do with him. Seems good though...» (?)
- I have no idea, never talked to him.» (?)
- I was a part of the fluid group.» (Good)
- He was maybe highly involved in the fluid part, but I didn"t see him contribute much.» (Moderate)

11. Please rate Mats Anders contributions to the course

15 svarande

Excellent»3 20%
Good»7 46%
Moderate»4 26%
Poor»1 6%

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» (?)
- very well accessible» (Excellent)
- I tried to help us with Abaqus, but was"t vey experienced. He was very helpful and skilled with general mechanics questions. » (Good)
- Mats is very helpful and have been a good support for most part. Some more help in Abaqus would be goog.» (Good)
- Answered many questions on the course, but did not know everyting you asked about the memo. Did not give much (enough) help with ABAQUS. » (Good)
- Not enough impression though» (Good)
- no idea, i was in the fluid part. » (Moderate)
- Good in the beginning of the project. Hard for me to evaluate the rest since i didn"t have him.» (Moderate)

12. Please rate Tomas Grönstedts contributions to the course

15 svarande

Excellent»0 0%
Good»6 40%
Moderate»9 60%
Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

- I have no idea, never talked to him.» (?)
- I sometimes got the feeling that you wanted to load us up with work, only to load us up with work. Not necessarily to learn anything from it. The impression was good though. This might be because there are two fluid teachers and therefore much more workload on the fluid guys. You should also think about that the fluid guys were not all studying fluid dynamics while the solid guys where almost all in their speciality. That increases the workload on the guys that are in the fluids track.» (Good)
- Teaching and help were excellent but a better organization is needed» (Good)

13. Please rate Xu Lei"s contributions to the course

10 svarande

Excellent»1 10%
Good»3 30%
Moderate»5 50%
Poor»1 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

- I have no idea, never talked to him.» (?)
- Do not have enough impression» (?)
- I did not meet him/her at all in this course!» (?)
- I"m not sure because I didn"t see him.» (Moderate)
- One lecture and then we"re supposed to know how to work with Fluent and gambit??? How did you think there?» (Moderate)

14. Please rate Thomas Abrahamssons contributions to the course

10 svarande

Excellent»5 50%
Good»3 30%
Moderate»2 20%
Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.7

- i was in the fluid part» (?)
- As i was in the fluid specialisation i did not interact with him. Thus i would not like to comment on this» (?)
- I have no idea, never talked to him.» (?)
- Do not have enough impression» (?)
- Good lectures, contained everything we needed.» (Excellent)
- Very good lectures!» (Excellent)
- good introduction lecture» (Excellent)
- I learned a lot from Thomas at his classes. And I felt that he really wanted us (EMA) to get a good result from the experiments.» (Excellent)
- My impression is that he spent a lot of time with the EMA group.» (Good)

15. Please rate the "Göran Alpsten guest lecture"

14 svarande

Excellent»1 7%
Good»8 57%
Moderate»5 35%
Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.28

- Do not have enough impression» (?)
- It is always very interesting and fascinating to listen to someone who is very good at something.» (Excellent)
- Since the guest lecture was in the begining, it gave us an insight into the problems and the solutions that exist and how the designs are made.» (Good)
- Good, but maybe he could have talked later on in the course when we all knew more about the project. » (Good)
- Interesting» (Good)
- (Moderate)

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 climate

19. What did you think about the overall work load in the course?

20 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»2 10%
High»8 40%
Too high»10 50%

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)
- (EMA) The problems with the correspondence took many days to solve. The Fatigue Design course suffered much, with respect to time allocated.» (Too high)
- I think the workload was very poorly split between fluid and solids. I was doing fluids and one solid guy told me that even if he had been only one doing the solid part(instead of 3) it wouldn"t have been much work. The work the fluid guys had to do was way to much and comparing it to the joke the solid guys had to do is not even fair.» (Too high)
- Too high, because I did not have time for the other course.» (Too high)
- Everybody looke obsessed with this course maybe there should be some limits on what is required! E.g. report no more than ?? pages, not more than ? simulations, etc.» (Too high)
- There were very mutch to do and it tooked to mutch time to obtain a good FE-model.» (Too high)
- extremt hög» (Too high)

20. How was the work load this study period?

20 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»6 30%
High»7 35%
Too High»7 35%

Genomsnitt: 4.05

- High and therefore adequate. The workload distribution was askew however.» (High)
- It was good we could neglect the other course, but that will show in the exam results.» (Too High)
- Too high, because I did not have time for the other course.» (Too High)
- mainly due to the project course though the other one was also demanding» (Too High)
- väldigt hög, stor övervikt på denna kursen.» (Too High)

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

20 svarande

Very poor»1 5%
Rather poor»2 10%
Rather good»4 20%
Very Good»13 65%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

- Very good, since you could always ask questions. Rather poor, since you did not always got any answers...» (Rather good)
- As usual...» (Very Good)
- I could find almost everybody almost anytime, and found help even on Sunday if I remember correctly» (Very Good)
- When the teachers were there they answered my questions.» (Very Good)

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

20 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»1 5%
Rather good»6 30%
Very good»13 65%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- Good teamwork. No major problems.» (Very good)
- We had very good cooperations within the group, and could also ask and help other groups. » (Very good)
- It was the best team ever... Greeeat experience... probably that was the really best thing about the course!» (Very good)

Summarizing questions

23. What is your overall impression of the course?

20 svarande

Poor»5 25%
Fair»8 40%
Good»7 35%
Excellent»0 0%

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)
- Tomas Grönsted told us that the planing report should be 1-2 pages. My group handed in 7 pages and it did not even contain everything you wanted. I would like to see a planing report that contains everything you wanted on 2 pages. 1 page for the gantt graph and 1 page for all the other points Thomas Abrahamson showed us. The teachers need to talk little bit together so we know what we should do. Also doing to long planing report should result in a penalty. If I was the boss in a company and got to long planing report for this I would see that there is nothing for the people to do if they have time for all this. » (Poor)
- In some parts, a very good course, but it is very obvious that it"s the first time. » (Fair)
- It was obvious that alot of effort was made inorder to make this project course good. The opportunities in using new software and get an insight in how real projects were carried out was valueable. However, the grading criterion for this course was really diffuse. How are the work efforts weighted? How is it possible to compare the work made in FEM, EMA and CFD. Since there was no exam, the examination consisted in the reports and the presentations. Then it is unecceptable that these deadlines were moved!! It was therefor impossible make plans for anything when all of a sudden a weekend "dissapeared" because the deadline for the final presentation had been postponed to the following monday. And one cannot argue that the group could have choosen to be done earlier, cause that is not the case. One should then have a disadvantage against the other groups.» (Fair)
- I think the course has the potential to be a good course, but the structure of it must improve, get rid of the design task and make it clear what you want from the students.» (Fair)
- I really liked the project approach. That not verything was figured out from the beginning, instead we had to think ourselves and try to solve problems the best we could.» (Good)
- Very good but to bad planning. To much work load at the end of the course.» (Good)
- (EMA) I liked the course. The EMA-work was very interesting and I really learned a lot, both about EMA and the nature of FEM-models in general.» (Good)

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. »

Kursutvärderingssystem från