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.

Engineering Geology, VGE022

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2008-11-07 - 2008-11-14
Antal svar: 35
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 64%
Kontaktperson: Christian Butron»
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.

34 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»5 14%
Around 20 hours/week»9 26%
Around 25 hours/week»12 35%
Around 30 hours/week»6 17%
At least 35 hours/week»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.73

- this means i spent around 40h/week total including the parallell course in modelling.» (Around 25 hours/week)
- A lot in the beginning but very nice with coffe and bulle on long days!» (Around 25 hours/week)
- It felt like very much time scheduled» (Around 30 hours/week)
- Many lectures and a big project with tasks that were not well-defined from the beginning made the work load big. » (Around 30 hours/week)
- Good with not to many hours of lectures during the later weeks. This makes it easier to find time to study for the exam and to work with project.» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

34 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»2 5%
75%»9 26%
100%»23 67%

Genomsnitt: 4.61

- More than 75%, but not 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. How understandable are the course goals?

34 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»2 5%
The goals are difficult to understand»1 2%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»14 41%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»17 50%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

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.

32 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»5 15%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»26 81%
No, the goals are set too high»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 1.87

- A very large part of the course is same as the "teknisk geologi V1". More effort could be spent on actually lerning calculations of for example rock bolts or grouting, since no more courses covering these topics will be given.» (No, the goals are set too low)
- A bit too much repetiotion and focus on the swedish conditions!» (No, the goals are set too low)
- I did not remember much before the course started, but there were enough repetition in the begining, so you were quite soon into geology again.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- It felt like there was a lot of short introductions to different aspects of engineering geology from the two courses that have been put in to one. Feels like no one hs been willing to take their part of the two old courses away, wich means there is very little time for each subjet. I think you should try to skip some aspects and go deeper into the ones you choose to teach.» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

34 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»21 61%
Yes, definitely»13 38%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.38

- Most of it, but not the first question on the exam» (To some extent)
- I would have liked to learn more practical things, I think a lot of things were repetition from teknisk geologi and should not have taken so much time. » (To some extent)
- I was suprised that a question about chemistry came on the exame. The question was not so hard but I dont feelt that it is something that we have learned.» (To some extent)
- The exam was no big surprise, with questions that were expected. Good!» (Yes, definitely)
- To much "specific questions" on the exam. » (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

35 svarande

Small extent»1 2%
Some extent»11 31%
Large extent»23 65%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.62

- Varying a lot. The geophysics-part was completely wothless. » (Some extent)
- In the beginning I think it was just repition from the course in the first year which is good but maybe you could focus a bit more on the new things.» (Some extent)
- If the lecture only consists of one power point (pp) presentation after an other its bound to get incredibly boring, maybe something to think about for all, not just this coarse» (Some extent)
- Very uneven quality on the lectures.» (Large extent)

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

35 svarande

Small extent»10 28%
Some extent»15 42%
Large extent»8 22%
Great extent»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.05

- I did not read in the book, so perhaps a better guidance what to read could be good.» (Small extent)
- Earth is totaly useless. I think the course is better without it.» (Small extent)
- There was no course literature. Had been very good if someone made a compendium with the parts that deal with the course!» (Small extent)
- The litterature is only covering a small part of the course, for the other parts we are supposed to use lectures and handouts, but these are very summaric. All teachers should write a text of their topic, say 15 pages. Now we had no text at all about grouting and geophysics.» (Small extent)
- The main literature (book) was more or less useless.» (Small extent)
- I did not see any clear course litterature on the part geophysics.» (Some extent)
- The american book was not good, it was too much about geology and to little about technology. The slides did not provide so much information. You should make a course compendium where you gather at least 10 pages of information about each subject, eg grouting, frozen ground etc. Or else, give proposal of other good litterature in swedish. » (Some extent)
- Learned most from old exames.» (Some extent)
- The book (earth) explained things wery well but with many words so it was quite much to read. Maybe you could be more specific about which chapters are good to read.» (Some extent)
- I dont think i read one presentation of the lecture notes that was subscribed on the net whats up with the pp. Its better to draw the problem on the board, then you can take notes during the class and thereby learn more from it. » (Some extent)
- The geophysics literature could have been better. Were there any? Other course literature ok.» (Large extent)

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

35 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»1 2%
Rather well»20 57%
Very well»14 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.37

- It would be better if all slides and exercises were on the homepage before the lectures. And make some cathegories, it will be easier to find the exercises if they are gathered in the same folder. » (Rather badly)
- Put out handouts earlier on the homepage, almost no one has a printer at home so the evening before is to late.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

35 svarande

Very poor»1 2%
Rather poor»1 2%
Rather good»14 40%
Very good»18 51%
I did not seek help»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3.48

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

35 svarande

Very poorly»2 5%
Rather poorly»2 5%
Rather well»15 42%
Very well»16 45%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- Many of the exchange students just copy paste from the internet. And they attend only when they feel for it, almost never in my case. It´,s really hard to work like this with a group project. I know that the teachers are aware of this so I really think you should do something about it. » (Very poorly)
- We had very much problem with some exchange student cause the dont do anything and just copy text directly from books, webpages. I feel that some of them dont have the same experience as we do and they would never have been accepted to our program from the beginning. This is not valid for all exchange student but sadly quite many.» (Very poorly)
- The exchange students are sometimes a bit lazy...it is like a "let"s do that tomorrow-mentalty" sometimes. However, in the end the projekt work turned out pretty good. But that is because the swedes worked much harder...» (Rather poorly)
- Some of the english speaking students had poor previous knowledge about the subject and did not contribute to the project, the work load could therefore not be evenly distributed (the swedish speaking had to do 80 % of the work)» (Rather poorly)
- Many of the non-european foreign student are completely unable to take initiatives, and are always late. » (Rather well)
- The group is more important than the assignment when it comes to this kinds of project. A bad group(member) can really destroy all possibilities to a good result.» (Very well)
- I was lucky to get in a very good group.» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

35 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»20 57%
High»13 37%
Too high»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.48

- Very long days in the beginning of the course...» (High)
- The project took a lot of time, but we didn"t had so much time to do it, because there was a lot of lectures!» (High)
- High load, and focused too much on the "introduction to geology"-part» (High)
- There were lots of lectures the first week.. Maybe a good idea, but it was really hard to concentrate at 8 hours of lectures per day!» (High)
- It was very little time to read and study the litterature, because the project took a lot of time. » (High)
- But reasonable, and a lot a to learn in the beginning.» (High)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

34 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»13 38%
High»14 41%
Too high»7 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.82

- It is not fun to have two reports running completely paralell.» (High)
- Together with the other compulsary course, the workload was too high in periods! The presentations and report subissions were too close in time!!» (High)
- It"s hard to have group works in two courses at the same time especially when just half the group is working (see above).» (High)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

35 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 5%
Adequate»10 28%
Good»22 62%
Excellent»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3.62

- Being the last course offered in the entire geology-area of our education it is a major disappointment! If we are offered a new course in rock construction/grouting etc. this course is not that bad.» (Fair)
- The course literature was full of technical,mathematical information but finally (as in exam) only a brief understanding of the topics was asked.So we where confused that when are we going to learn,practice and use these technical and more engineering information!! actually this course could be more analytical and practical than just brief introduction to the concepts. I think as the name of the course is engineering geology, but there was more focus on the pure geology than the engineering part.» (Fair)
- Way too wide-spread and too many different guest teacher. There MUST be litterature guidance to all lectures, from all teachers. Perhaps a compendium is better to have, where all teachers can put what they think is important.» (Adequate)
- I liked the subject, but I did not like the litterature and I would have liked to learned more practical things, such as done calculations on grouting and bolting. It was too much repetition from previous courses. » (Adequate)
- There need to be more courses of this kind on the master programme! We (the students) are not really fond of the focus on water and environmental corses. There is a lack of geo technical courses!» (Good)
- I think that it was to many parts, and we didn"t get any deeper knowledge in ANY part. A lot of different lecturer made it very hard to get a sustained picture of the course! Had been better if there was not so many parts, and a little bit deeper knowlaedge in each!» (Good)
- I have learned a lot during this course, and find the subject very interesting. A lot to do though. The project was very good I think, because it made us test our theoretical knowledge on a real project.» (Good)
- dont understand why we had to go out in the woods to measure strike and dips, did not give anything, it only took time, which we could have used for e.g lerning to evaluate the hemisphere» (Good)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The projekt work and the study visit. Very good arranged and one learned a lot from them.»
- The project was a good way of learning.»
- the excursions»
- The project was good. And the study visits!»
- Study visits»
- The study visits and the IKEA lunch. Interesting railway project.»
- I think the project is quite good for us to understand what we have learnt.»
- The project work and the field trips.»
- houndouts»
- Almost everything»
- I think the project was useful, but the aims should be clearer and the planning should be finished at the start of the project.(not come 1 week before hand in and add more tasks) »
- The project work»
- - treating the course in depth with projects,etc - keen interst of the teachers and supervisors»
- The project»
- the group work and study visits.»
- It was an interesting course so I guess a lot of it?»
- The group assignment.»
- the group assignment»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Better litterature guidance and not make it as wide-spread!»
- Skip the course litterature. The stereoplot/schmidt net exercises must be better.»
- Smaller groups (around 4 people) in the project work. The tutorial meeting should be earlier in the course. »
- some kind of course literature, and not so many different parts. The slides from the lectures are not good enough, it is just "stödord" for the lecturer, and very hard to follow afterwards. All lecturer thougt that their part was the most imoprtant. »
- focus more on the applied stuff: grouting, blasting, bolting etc. Produce some kind of compendium with useful text that cover the topics of the course.»
- Less group members in each group»
- Instructions about what to focus on in the project and presentation. This questionnare should come closer to the exam (earlier!).»
- The literature should bee changed...»
- The structure of course is quite good.Nothing need changed.»
- The literature.»
- 8 houres lecturing for one day »
- as i said earlier take the number of aspects down and spend more time and go deeper into the ones you teach.»
- Better litterature... No rock matrix»
- The project was very much focusing on the geology, maybe focus more on the technology next year?»
- The number of students i each group, too many»
- The overload during the first month should really be avoided.During that time, normally students are novice to the system and everything. So, having a whole day lecture is not only frustrating but also puts bad impressions on the course.»
- Less focus on swedish conditions.»
- Inform the exchange students that´,s not ok to use copy paste in the projects. »
- I don"t know if it should be changed, but it was a big project to do in the course and only get a pass/fail grade for it. »
- I did not understood so much about the geophysics leason.»
- i think there should be time for exercises not just lectures e.g exercises with grouting problems or lerning to evaluate the rose diagram etc. And maybe some of the teachers should attend a english class.»

16. Additional comments

- Over all this was a good course, and we wants more of it!»
- Thank you!»
- The Geophysics confused me.»
- More comment about rose-diagram, stero plot etc...»
- -reference books given are not enough -lecture notes also sacrifice clarity»
- Very nice course!»
- The modelling course same period had a smaller project and was half the grade for the course.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från