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.

Structural systems, VBB122 2008

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2008-10-28 - 2008-11-17
Antal svar: 39
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 60%
Kontaktperson: Björn Engström»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Väg- och vattenbyggnad 300 hp

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 per week over the entire study period.

39 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»0 0%
Around 20 hours/week»15 38%
Around 25 hours/week»14 35%
Around 30 hours/week»8 20%
At least 35 hours/week»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.92

- The group assignment took alot of time, but maybe didnt give so much back in knowledge.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- Very hard to estimate, i bit less than half of the entire time for both courses.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- very asymetric distribution of the load of work in this course!» (Around 20 hours/week)
- Mycket tid som gick åt till sådant som inte resulterat i något material. "Vankande fram och tillbaka"» (Around 25 hours/week)

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

39 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»1 2%
50%»5 12%
75%»20 51%
100%»13 33%

Genomsnitt: 4.15

- between 75% and 100%.» (75%)

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. To what extent have you reached the following goal?

The student should be able to:
- describe the realisation process of buildings concerning conceptualisation, design, construction, and the operation period including inspection, maintenance, structural assessment, repair, strengthening and demolishing.

39 svarande

0-20%»0 0%
20-40%»1 2%
40-60%»10 25%
60-80%»18 46%
80-100%»10 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.94

- The course provides a proper knowledge of conceptual design process,however, The course should provide more knowledge of common details and construction methods in Sweden for foreign students,since these things differ from country to country, and International students were a little bit confused about this fact.» (40-60%)
- Less for maintenance and demolishing than for the rest.» (60-80%)

4. To what extent have you reached the following goal?

The student should be able to
- describe typical requirements on buildings with regard to needed safety, performance, durability and efficient use of resources.

39 svarande

0-20%»0 0%
20-40%»2 5%
40-60%»8 20%
60-80%»17 43%
80-100%»12 30%

Genomsnitt: 4

- Maybe a little more on efficient use of resources could be useful» (60-80%)

5. To what extent have you reached the following goal?

The student should be able to:
- describe how typical buldings are composed of structural systems and systems for climate protection and in-door comfort.

39 svarande

0-20%»0 0%
20-40%»1 2%
40-60%»11 28%
60-80%»14 35%
80-100%»13 33%

Genomsnitt: 4

- Almost no in-door comfort at all. We only got information about general types of structural systems, almost no information about which kind of system that are common for different kinds of buildings. For instance, what differs an office building from an industrial building in material selections and loads etcetera.» (40-60%)
- Climate protection and in-door comfort not that high. Know since previous courses.» (60-80%)
- I don"t think we talked a lot about systems for climate protection and in-door comfort.» (80-100%)

6. To what extent have you reached the following goal?

The student should be able to:
- use a systematic approach to solve open problems in conceptual design, including analysis of risks and uncertainties and service life considerations.

38 svarande

0-20%»1 2%
20-40%»1 2%
40-60%»6 15%
60-80%»16 42%
80-100%»14 36%

Genomsnitt: 4.07

- Have learnet the systematic approach, but definitely not how to take risk analysys and service life considerations into account in a good way. I miss information how to deal with this in a more practical way, like in the group assignment.» (40-60%)
- I don"t belive the approach we learned were of much use for us in the project. The idea with the matrixes and grading criterions was just time consuming and gave no better solution for a final alternative then a simple discussion would have. The reason: We don"t have enough experience!!! EVERY GROUP just mixed with the grading numbers until they got a result they wanted, and it was the same in the bachelors work last year. The grading wasn"t based on knowledge, it was based on nothing. That is called just guessing and to what use is that?» (80-100%)

7. To what extent have you reached the following goal?

The student should be able to:
- describe the mechancial behaviour of typical structural systems for buildings concerning actions, load transfer and stabilisation , and need for movements,

39 svarande

0-20%»0 0%
20-40%»1 2%
40-60%»7 17%
60-80%»18 46%
80-100%»13 33%

Genomsnitt: 4.1

- There were not enough lectures regarding load transfer within the different structural systems, maybe it is possible to emphasize more and more on this essential criterion, at least for a structural engineer.» (40-60%)
- Need for movements, I dont know about well.» (60-80%)
- Good lectures, good knowledge.» (80-100%)

8. To what extent have you reached the following goal?

The student should be able to:
- determine design load combinations for critical sections of structural systems.

39 svarande

0-20%»0 0%
20-40%»2 5%
40-60%»7 17%
60-80%»13 33%
80-100%»17 43%

Genomsnitt: 4.15

- If the loading of a structure is not more important than conceptual design and analyzing the risks, it has equal importance with them, so I think dedicating only one week to loading and load combination is not enough for a structural engineer. It shows itself more when you think about International students who has different methods for loading in their own countries, and one week is a short time to adapt this new system.» (40-60%)
- I know the basics and how it"s done. But not in the way presented during this course. I found the distributed material for the dugga hard to understand. The exercises were made by 10 different people, all of them making it in different ways. » (40-60%)
- Nice with a dugga. Maybe easiest part to deal with from the teachers point of view. » (80-100%)
- Good lectures, good knowledge.» (80-100%)

9. To what extent have you reached the following goal?

The student should be able to:
- perform preliminary design and preliminary sizing of structural systems.

39 svarande

0-20%»0 0%
20-40%»2 5%
40-60%»6 15%
60-80%»19 48%
80-100%»12 30%

Genomsnitt: 4.05

- No information about differences about different kind of buildings.» (40-60%)
- Would be nice to do a preliminary sizing of timber, steel and concrete. Not only on the winning alternative in the project. » (60-80%)
- Repetition from earlier courses..» (80-100%)

10. How understandable are the course goals?

39 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»0 0%
The goals are difficult to understand»2 5%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»15 38%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»22 56%

Genomsnitt: 3.51

- I think it"s hard do estimate to what extent I have reached the goals. Yes, I can for example describe the mechanical behaviour of structural systems, but the question is how good? And compared to what? What references should you use when evaluation the goals?» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

11. 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.

39 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»2 5%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»32 82%
No, the goals are set too high»5 12%

Genomsnitt: 2.07

- For example I think "including analysis of risks and uncertainties and service life considerations." is to high goal» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

The examination consists of the individual "dugga" on actions and load combiantions, and project work with oral presentation and a slide show with written notes.

38 svarande

No, not at all»3 7%
To some extent»21 55%
Yes, definitely»13 34%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.31

- The grade is more important for International students, however, some students do not very care about the grades, so in some cases they are not enough motivated to improve the quality of the project and they are satisfied by passing the course. There fore, maybe it is better to dedicate more proportion to written exam rather than the projects for individuals who want to get better grades.» (?)
- Repititive assigments and home works will be a good option» (No, not at all)
- I think there where to litle work with the so called dugga. And I think it should be called exam-part1 instead!» (No, not at all)
- Strucural assessment are not dealt with in project work for example. The slideshow with notes don´,t give the total picture of the work done I think.» (To some extent)
- I believe that a "real report" would be good to hand in instead of the "power point report". I think that our work could be described better and it would also show the extend of our efffort in a better way» (To some extent)
- Dugga: Yes Project Work: No» (To some extent)
- Much of the content of the course is not covered in the examination. It"s very hard to cover all goals fully in this kind of examination. This is also why many students have choosen not to attend to many lectures, there is no examination that covers some of the content.» (To some extent)
- The project work was a bit tricky, since some groups had to do the architectural design to. Since then, the work took a lot of more time for some groups.» (To some extent)
- Having an oral presentation doesn"t show anything about how the individuals in the group have reached the goals. There are always people who dosen"t contribute as much as they should to the project, and it sucks that people like that are able to get good grades because of someone else compensating for there lack of devotion. » (To some extent)
- It felt a bit difficult to show everything you have learned at the same time as making a good oral presentation. Perhaps a small written report would be better than notes on the slide show with regard to this.» (To some extent)
- You can not tell if everyone in the project groups have reached the goals, but I don"t see it as a problem. It"s up to each individual» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

39 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»14 35%
Large extent»18 46%
Great extent»7 17%

Genomsnitt: 2.82

- To general help, more individual consultation would be good» (Some extent)
- How to do prelimany sizing was good, hands on dealt with. We had no book!» (Large extent)
- The teaching has been great. I really enjoyed the guest lectureres as well. » (Great extent)

14. To what extent has the contact with your external supervisor been of help for your learing?

39 svarande

Small extent»3 7%
Some extent»16 41%
Large extent»12 30%
Great extent»8 20%

Genomsnitt: 2.64

- Could have been of better use» (Some extent)
- I liked it to have a supervisor to ask questions and to get to come out and see how they work, but I can"t say that it helped us to a large extent though. » (Some extent)
- We didn"t get much help from our supervisor. He seemed afraid of giving us to much information which led to him not telling anything.» (Some extent)
- Could have been furthered developed. I got the idea that the supervisors didn"t fully understand what was our task. » (Large extent)
- Good to meet the company» (Great extent)
- I have learn more practilcal things in detail. I feel better prepared for my working life.» (Great extent)

15. To what extent has the course material and links on the course home page been of help for your learning?

39 svarande

Small extent»3 7%
Some extent»12 30%
Large extent»16 41%
Great extent»8 20%

Genomsnitt: 2.74

- I didn´,t know about the links on the course homepage.» (Small extent)
- Explanations of different materials and structural systems, very good» (Large extent)
- There is a lack of English information through the links, and sometimes it is hard to find some standards which are needed in the project, and they are in Swedish only. » (Large extent)

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

38 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»1 2%
Rather well»15 39%
Very well»22 57%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

- Would be easier to prepare and actually learn from the lectures if the notes are put up in beforehand, at least 1 day in advance. » (?)
- Everything out in time, extensive material» (Very well)
- Very good information, and no problem to understand what we were expected to do.» (Very well)

Study climate

17. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help from your external supervisor?

39 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»3 7%
Rather good»12 30%
Very good»22 56%
I did not seek help»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.58

- We had the opportunity to ask questions but it didn"t help us much because he was to restrained.» (Rather poor)
- Easy to find suitable meeting time, fast respons on e-mail» (Very good)
- Not more than the meetings» (I did not seek help)
- We had very little contact with the supervisor between the meetings. But the meetings were good.» (I did not seek help)

18. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help from the teachers?

39 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rahter poor»2 5%
Rather good»13 33%
Very good»23 58%
I did not seek help»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3.58

- I tried to get help from two teachers but were quite unhappy afterwards when it didn"t seem that they wanted to help. If they were busy maybe it"s better to say so and ask to return. » (Rahter poor)
- Not always time to answer questions, maybe specified consultant time is a good solution» (Rather good)

19. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked in the project team?

39 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»5 12%
Rather well»22 56%
Very well»12 30%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.17

- Very poor leadership from the self-assessed leader.» (Rather poorly)
- It was difficult since we have different backgrounds and experiences. » (Rather poorly)
- Hard in the beginning, but the problems were solved during the course» (Rather well)
- It was a good cooperation between 4 of us. One didn"t contribute with much.» (Rather well)

20. How much of your available time for studies in this study period did you spend on this course?

It is assumed that 50% of the time is used for Structural systems and 50% for Material performance.

39 svarande

less than 20%»0 0%
20-40%»7 17%
about 50%»15 38%
60-80%»16 41%
more than 80%»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- The project work took a lot of time from material performance lectures» (60-80%)
- I didnt attend Material Performance, I attended Applied Manufacturing Technology instead» (60-80%)

21. How was the course workload?

39 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»2 5%
Adequate»23 58%
High»11 28%
Too high»3 7%

Genomsnitt: 3.38

- but not uniformed distributed» (Adequate)
- Some parts in the beginning of the project took pretty long time and it was hard to find a limit on how much we where supposed to do. » (High)
- The project took a lot of time.» (High)
- Very high at the end, but that"s due to bad planning» (Too high)

22. How was the total workload this study period?

39 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»15 38%
High»17 43%
Too high»7 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.79

- but not uniformed distributed» (Adequate)
- Over the whole period adequate. Over the three last weeks: too high. Mostly due to a high concentration of labs, assignments, study trips, projects... Some of theese could be earlier in the period.» (Adequate)
- Mostly depending on too many parts that had to be finnished at the same time in Material Performance» (High)
- Thanks to the MP-course» (Too high)
- Much compulsary hand-ins, time wasn"t enough» (Too high)
- The workload was high mainly because MP was a complete mess, which i think increased the stress level for the students.» (Too high)

23. To what extent were there connections between the two courses in this study period?

36 svarande

Very small extent»2 5%
Rather small extent»15 41%
Rather high extent»18 50%
Very high extent»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- I think it was intended to have some kind of connection, but the project work in MP didn"t influence the work in SS at all. The project in MP could have been done on any building.» (Rather small extent)
- Maybe the last two lessons of Material Performance it was connected to Structural Systems.» (Rather small extent)
- Mostly the project work» (Rather high extent)

Summarizing questions

24. What is your general impression of the course?

39 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»4 10%
Adequate»7 17%
Good»23 58%
Excellent»5 12%

Genomsnitt: 3.74

- The biggest problem is that it is very undefined what you should do. That is ok if you have time and a good cooperation in the group. Now we have short time and many new students. My advice: Take away the most undefined tasks in the projet work and define more clearly what should be done in the remaining parts.» (Fair)
- Not a structural engineer, more connection to the building performance design track would be appreaciated» (Fair)
- Some was repetition, some parts felt unuseful as explained above, and anyone could pass, even those who didn"t do shit. I don"t know why you have chosen this approach for the course with the group work. There must be some general idea of which structural systmens that are best suited for specific situations. TEACH US THAT INSTEAD OF US JUST GUESSING!» (Fair)
- The course content was good but the outcome of the project work affects my attitude greatly to the negative.» (Adequate)
- A understood that one part of the course was to learn how to approach an open problem. But sometimes it just got to defusing and you just didn"t do anything because you didn"t know the limits.» (Adequate)

25. What is the remaining value of the course in the future

38 svarande

Very small»0 0%
Rather small»8 21%
Rahter high»25 65%
Very high»5 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.92

- We haven´,t looked on a hole structure before, but I think it could hav been done in a better way.» (Rather small)
- Some understanding of structural systems, but nothing on the building performance design part of the program» (Rather small)

26. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The load combination week and the dugga. »
- A broad range of lecture topics»
- Project work»
- External supervisors»
- möten med "supervisors" var väldigt bra. Gärna lite mer information till dessa så dom kan berätta lite mer almänt.»
- More detailed attention to common and also new structural systems with regard to design and maintainance.»
- The final presentation of the projects with the form of competence.»
- studytrips the first week! but later the most students like to work with their project instead!»
- Approximately, everything was useful in this course, and should be remained with some changes in distributing the tome between them.»
- Study trip. Guest lectures. »
- Everything I think.»
- The dugga. »
- project»
- The cooperation with the supervisors was a good element in the course. »
- Different lecturers and guest lectures made it very interesting. Project with professional supervisors. »

27. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- see notes on question 25.»
- Although perhaps unrealistic, smaller groups would probably be better.»
- More about building performance design issues, not only three lectures»
- Students aren"t motivated for lectures when you know that this will never be tested in an examination. The workload of the course could be more evenly distributed by haveing more lectures in the first weeks and less in the end of the course. This will also allow the students to work on the project earlier.»
- Den muntliga examinationen. Sämsta jag varit på. För det första va upplägget på själva redovisningen svår att förstå, våran presentation var skriven som en sorts rapport till läraren och inte som en presentation till klasskompisarna som den kanske borde varit... Dessutom, att sätta 15 min gräns på presentationen och sen ge diplom till en grupp som tog närmare 30 min på sig ger dubbla budskap. Allmänt svag insats av juryn, förstod inte vad dom gjorde där? Dåligt även av läraren att inte vara inläst på rapporten, vilket han tydligt inte var med tanke på frågorna han ställde oss. Kan iofs förstå det med tanke på den korta tiden mellan inlämning och presentation, men det är ändå ni som sätter dessa deadlines. Så för att summera till nästa år: Lägg mer tid på presentationen eller ta bort den helt. I övrigt en bra kurs men svårt att fokusera på den med tanke på att den andra kursen tog mycket tid.»
- Some of the lectures are too general and students at this level are quite familiar with such concepts.It is good to reduce the amount of general concepts and add more details »
- Nothing every is good.»
- To low workload in the begining----> big load in the end of the coars! pleas give them the loads earlyer!»
- The system of grading should be more individual written exam rather than project since the motivation of group members are different so if someone wants to get a high grade should convince others to work harder and it is impossible in some cases. In addition, maybe emphasis on loading should be more than this, and last but not least, some more english information about common materials, details, construction methods, and etc should be prepared for international student to get familiar with atmosphere of structural engineering in sweden. since most websites and books in this case are swedish and some of them are not presented in lectures.»
- More about different kinds of buildings, not only structures in general.»
- Get our grade in time.»
- Clearer exercises for the dugga. Maybe one opportunity to make exercises (räknestuga). »
- Excercises regarding load combinations should be explained more slowly (some excersices where explained too fast because of time constraints and they were not clearly understandable). »
- examination»

28. Additional comments

- I think the ambition of the course is very good. However, due to my own personal experience in my group my general attitude towards the course will remain rather negative.»
- I think that for the presentation someone should definitley stop a group that goes over the time. Sometime you have to learn that you have a time limit. Some goups had spent time on reducing their presentation to be able t fit in the time. So I definitley think that for the next year it should be a thougher time limit.»
- This course is only aimed to the students studying to become structural engineering. The students in building performance design are beeing forgotten. Bad for that track that there are no compulsary courses in that field.»
- The reason to why I choosed 60-80%, and not higher, on how well the goals where fulfilled is that I could have fulfilled them if I just had worked more with it. So I think I got the chance to learn everything»
- There is no consideration of Earthquake loads and design for seismic forces. And earthquake design is too much important»
- the course is really useful but it could be even better if some new and detailed concepts in structural behaviour and design is included. with regards»
- One thing that would be nice is if we could get some comments on our presentations after the seminar. It"s more useful to hear it directly after. Now I don"t know if it"s planned for us to get comments later on, but I hope so anyway. »

Kursutvärderingssystem från