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.

Computer aided modelling advanced course (lp1), MPP020

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2008-10-20 - 2008-10-31
Antal svar: 22
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 62%
Kontaktperson: Oskar Rexfelt»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers

Your own effort

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

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

22 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»0 0%
Around 20 hours/week»4 18%
Around 25 hours/week»9 40%
Around 30 hours/week»6 27%
At least 35 hours/week»3 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

- so timeconsuming» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

22 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»5 22%
100%»17 77%

Genomsnitt: 4.77

- the lectures were so boring and it was quite common to see some people are missing in each lecture» (75%)
- Almost all at least.» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

22 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»6 27%
The goals are difficult to understand»1 4%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»8 36%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»7 31%

Genomsnitt: 2.72

- There are some goals that have not been adressed at all in the course. E.G. these: - Knowledge about relationships between modeling, engineering, process engineering and model and prototype manufacturing. ‐, Knowledge in data transfer between CAD ‐, systems.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

18 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 5%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»14 77%
No, the goals are set too high»3 16%

Genomsnitt: 2.11

- these goals have not been fulfilled: Knowledge about relationships between modelling, engineering, process engineering and model and prototype manufacturing. - Knowledge in data transfer between CAD - systems.» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

19 svarande

No, not at all»1 5%
To some extent»7 36%
Yes, definitely»9 47%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.63

Teaching and course administration

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

22 svarande

Small extent»1 4%
Some extent»6 27%
Large extent»7 31%
Great extent»8 36%

Genomsnitt: 3

- I have not been in need of that much help, but when i have had questions, Håkan has answered them.» (Some extent)
- It gives you an overview, but you have to work with the assignemts in order to learn anything. The course is very "trial and error"» (Some extent)

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

21 svarande

Small extent»4 19%
Some extent»6 28%
Large extent»7 33%
Great extent»4 19%

Genomsnitt: 2.52

- had no material» (?)
- The instructions given as handouts are not at all clear. You have to attend classes and see what Håkan does to fully understand what to do.» (Small extent)
- there were certain exercises to do following the handouts.» (Some extent)
- Sometimes, the english in the hand-outs is so bad it gets hard to understand, especially for students with no swedish knowledge.» (Large extent)

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

22 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»2 9%
Rather well»12 54%
Very well»8 36%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

- The files that are handed out should be named in a consistent way.» (Rather well)
- Not everything is featured in the handouts.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

22 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»2 9%
Rather good»13 59%
Very good»7 31%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.22

- except when the guy from volvo was there.» (Rather poor)
- very good in the computer room where we had lectures, very bad in the other room.» (Rather good)
- Sometimes many people need help at the same time. » (Rather good)

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

22 svarande

Very poorly»1 4%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»7 31%
Very well»14 63%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

11. How was the course workload?

22 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»5 22%
High»8 36%
Too high»9 40%

Genomsnitt: 4.18

- There wasn"t time to do all exercises even if i"d spend all time I had outside lectures and on this course only!» (High)
- The teacher seems to expect that the student work weekends as well, since he puts deadlines on sunday evening. Especially the first project was tough, during the last week we spent ca 9 h a day in front of the computer (including the weekend).» (Too high)
- there were some group projects which were heavy but reasonable but some extra individual projects,which seem quite unnecessary in subject, made it very stressful» (Too high)
- Didn"t know that we should hand in the technical surfaces in the exam week. » (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

22 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»5 22%
High»10 45%
Too high»7 31%

Genomsnitt: 4.09

- this course itself was very time consuming and plus the other project course,the sum was a bit stressful» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

22 svarande

Poor»1 4%
Fair»2 9%
Adequate»6 27%
Good»10 45%
Excellent»3 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

- boring,not motivating, too much workload,too much deadlines to catch» (Poor)
- I have learned a lot because I didn"t follow the initial modeling steps. I enjoy doing this sort of thing and perhaps I knew too much in the beginning to be content with what the first part of the course offered.» (Fair)
- It"s not methodical enough.» (Adequate)
- Good and amusing excercises. » (Good)
- More interaction between experienced workers on the field within the project, not just two times per /hole the project time» (Good)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Advanced surface part! This is the only part in the course where you see the strength of the software and realizes this is how it can be used as a professional tool, thus get motivated to use it. Sketching, animation and photorealistic rendering just seemed silly the way we used it, not motivating the students with such poor outcome. Would have been better to focus on one e.g. sketching or hardware shading and do it for real, maybe comparing to other software, see examples from professionals i.e. Why animation and photorealism in AliasStudio? Other software is way better doing that!!! We even have Maya on the very same computers!»
- The many hours with teacher presence.»
- Advanced surfacing was a good exercise»
- Håkan being as helpful as he is.»
- the animation project was the only fun project in this course which seem quite interesting to be preserved»
- The advanced surfacing part was the part i learned the most from.»
- Good excercises. »
- at the beginning of this course, the first project is definitly useful.»
- more key-deadlines. Not only mid and final presentation, but maybe 3 or 4 presentations of work. »
- interaction with experienced workers on the field»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Better hand outs! They text explanation was of such poor quality, and the english is terrible. Better explanation of why we do the different tasks. A lot of students couldn"t connect their effort to a "real life" situation.»
- Better hand-outs, that can be followed without having to ask for help on ever second page. Th car project is too big. A car is on of the most complax products there is, maybe something simpler should be chosen. »
- there should be time to do animation in class, and there should be more information on tecnical surfacing, it came as a sufprise that it should be handed in during exam week.»
- Sometimes Håkan had a little too long presentations.»
- first, the "technical surfacing" individual project which is really unnecessary second, the course must be considered as elective since it"s not necessarily the aim of all students to become a modeler who sits in front of computer all the time»
- I think Håkan should explain in a better way why he does certain things, not just that he does them. He says "and then you have this tool" and uses it, instead of explaining what the advantages are and how the tool is supposed to be used to produce good results. I also think there should be more modeling theory, perhaps group discussions on how certain objects should be modeled. Or just some examples of different modeling strategies applied to different objects. Since Aliasstudio has rather poor rendering capabilities I think it would be better to have the rendering part of the course in Maya, since it is already installed on the computers, has good compatibility with Aliasstudio and can produce a lot better images. Sure, it is a new interface to get used to, but if we get good instructions on the rendering part of the program I think it is manageable. And the results could actually be photo realistic. It shouldn"t be that hard to make a setup in Maya that works for product visualization. If this is considered a bad option, at least Håkan can sharpen his rendering skills by perhaps taking a look at this: http://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/dvds/dbr01.html »
- Less workload. In the excercise-papers, it would have been good if it always said, in the beginning, what is supposed to be achieved with the excercise. Sometimes I just do what it says in the paper and don"t reflect upon WHY I"m doing it. Then my understanding of what is wrong and so on is reduced. »
- judged by grades instead of pass or fail.»
- Make sure not to run as many computare courses at the same time. The last exersise could be done earlyer in the course. Maybe as individual tasks runing alongside with the reast of the assignments.»
- Try to make the course goal clearer from the begining.»
- mores accuracy consultations. »

16. Additional comments

- Overall my impression of the course is good.»
- the lectures could be offered in a more interesting shape and in a more professional environment »
- I think it has been a fun and interesting course, but I feel things could have been done in a better way to focus more on understanding while doing rather than just doing. Perhaps model something simpler than a car but do it in a proper way or at least have more modeling theory.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från