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.

Modern Manufacturing Processes, MPR033

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2008-10-29 - 2008-11-12
Antal svar: 45
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 56%
Kontaktperson: Gustav Holmqvist»
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.

45 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»15 33%
Around 20 hours/week»15 33%
Around 25 hours/week»12 26%
Around 30 hours/week»2 4%
At least 35 hours/week»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.08

- Producct development student, could almost not attend any lectures. Only project work + labs» (At most 15 hours/week)
- 20 hours a week is full time so there shuld be a lower grade than 15 hours a week, 35 hours a week is rediciluos high.» (At most 15 hours/week)
- OK, but some frustrations due to lectures collided with other course.» (Around 20 hours/week)

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

45 svarande

0%»1 2%
25%»6 13%
50%»2 4%
75%»20 44%
100%»16 35%

Genomsnitt: 3.97

- 2-3 lectures + labs» (25%)
- The low attendence was due to a collision in the schedule with another course (almost 100% collision)» (25%)
- Since almost all lectures collided. (mostly master cordinator of MPPDE´,s fault).» (25%)
- >75%» (75%)
- I tried to participate as many lecture as I could, but I was seek for 1 week.» (75%)

3. Did you find that your own background knowledge was appropriate for the course*

45 svarande

The course started on a too advanced level»0 0%
The course started on a slightly too advanced level»1 2%
OK»43 95%
The course started on a too low level»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3

- I had almost no background in that field but the course was well designed even for "beginners"» (OK)
- Since studying product development it was good that some freedom in the project existed, and that the lectures were kind of general.» (OK)

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.

4. How understandable are the course goals?

45 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»5 11%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»11 24%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»29 64%

Genomsnitt: 3.42 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- There was reading instructions with notes on what was important to know but this did not match with what was told on the lectures» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- Could say something about how persons with different background have use of it.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

5. 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.

42 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 2%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»40 95%
No, the goals are set too high»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- There is a considerable difference if we want to specialize in manufacturing technology or in another field. But i think the goals were adequate for a compulsory course.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

45 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»24 53%
Yes, definitely»19 42%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»2 4%

Genomsnitt: 2.51 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- very focused questions when the course was that broad.» (To some extent)
- I think a large part of final grade should goes for the project work.» (To some extent)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.65

Teaching and course administration

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

Grade mainly the lectures by Gustav Holmqvist and by Ulf Honsberg (together).

45 svarande

Small extent»3 6%
Some extent»10 22%
Large extent»27 60%
Great extent»5 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.75 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Due to lack of presence» (Small extent)
- since lectures collided, the lecture slides were to most help.» (Some extent)
- The slides have been very useful» (Some extent)
- Lecture material (slides & presentation) where often much better presentations of the material than the folders articles. » (Great extent)
- Gustav"s sincere attention to the student probable problem was admirable.Same time an earnest attempt to incorporate more modern commercial mfg process in lecture were strong enough for making a student confident.» (Great extent)

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

45 svarande

Small extent»5 11%
Some extent»13 28%
Large extent»22 48%
Great extent»5 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.6 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- mostly the lectures were helpful. I hate reading lots of theoritical materials.» (Some extent)
- Good for deeper reading for the project and the labs, but didn"t use it at all for the exam.» (Some extent)
- It could be more relative to lecture slide( not every chapter).» (Large extent)
- Almost only that source» (Great extent)

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

45 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»2 4%
Rather well»18 40%
Very well»25 55%

Genomsnitt: 3.51 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- 1)The lab group sign up and lab group activation on the course site can be confused, activation should be dropped. 2)Often times people do not know their fellow lab mates thus group assignments when people just leave after a lab are difficult if all you have is a name on the website. 3) Better feedback (perhaps on website) on lab corrections or approval. I still don"t know if the lab is approved or there are any problems since another group member was going to had in the rewritten answers.» (Rather badly)
- organizing groups could have been better!!» (Rather badly)
- Slow correction of labs though.» (Rather well)
- The registration for groups and labbs was a bit confusing.» (Rather well)
- all very good except the lecture on surface topography which is difficult to print out. but we understand the source is difficult to modify.» (Rather well)
- Good work with the homepage, reading instructions etc.» (Very well)
- Good to have the handouts in adnvance. » (Very well)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.95

Study climate

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

45 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»12 26%
Very good»28 62%
I did not seek help»5 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.84 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- often you just do it on your own without of asking.» (Rather good)

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

45 svarande

Very poorly»1 2%
Rather poorly»6 13%
Rather well»16 35%
Very well»22 48%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

- some group members did not do anything in report-work.» (Very poorly)
- 10 people, to big group!» (Rather poorly)
- It was good that we from another master and different schedule could work together.» (Very well)

12. How was the course workload?

45 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»4 8%
Adequate»35 77%
High»6 13%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.04

- Had some frustrations about the project.» (Adequate)
- Group assignment took much of my time than reading the folders.» (Adequate)
- But it was dependent on the background and previous depth of process knowledge. » (Adequate)
- Great width of the course.» (High)

13. How was the total workload this study period?

45 svarande

Too low»1 2%
Low»2 4%
Adequate»26 57%
High»15 33%
Too high»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- But could have been better/more time to work if not courses collided.» (Adequate)
- two project works and two large written exams and lab reports, maybe too much...» (High)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.84

Specific parts of the course

14. Laboratory work: To what extent was the labs been of help in yor learning?

45 svarande

To a small extent»2 4%
To some extent»16 35%
To quite large extent»18 40%
To great extent»9 20%

Genomsnitt: 2.75 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The MQL lab was a bit confusing» (To some extent)
- the thrird lab was simular to the one in Tillverkningstekning. Would have been interesting to see something different.» (To some extent)
- except for the metal cutting lab (quite repetitive)» (To quite large extent)
- Good to see some in practice. Could have been more if less work on the project.» (To quite large extent)
- Put some more emphasis on preparatory and follow up questions. Perhaps by somehow now allowing group solutions.» (To quite large extent)
- but just in the lab issues that covered only 3 chapters.» (To quite large extent)
- drawing lab and AWJ where realy good. The different graphs and relationships was a bit advanced in the hard turning lab and didn"t help that much. Maby there should be another focus on the hard turning lab, chip size, cutting depth etc.» (To quite large extent)
- The labs were really interesting and organized very well. It was based fully on observation, practice and spot learning. The exercises in the lab description papers were set very well and it was very much better than writing a lab report which could be sometimes repeatition of the course material.» (To great extent)
- Those lab was really meaningful.But Form ability testing seems to be very simple which could be replaced by more critical process, e.g Laser, Plasma or Hydro-forming.» (To great extent)

15. Group assignement: To what extent did you find the group assignement interesting and meaningful, taking into account also social aspects

45 svarande

Not meaningful»5 11%
Somewhat meaningful»22 48%
Quite meaningful»12 26%
Very meaningful»6 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.42

- only an irritation because of the exchange-students workload wasn"t even close to others...» (Not meaningful)
- I can not see the point of making another small group project work, especially since the outcome of the work obviously didn"t matter nor where graded. Also, in the other course we had a project, so we got training in project work anyways. » (Not meaningful)
- Remember that a division of labor amongst the members will be common thus the amount of information actually learned by one individual can be questioned. Personally I twice rewrote the whole text for the group thus learned more from it than the others.» (Somewhat meaningful)
- When yuo have to do a report without getting any credits for i.e. you can only pass or fail the work sometimes feels meaningless. It would be better if the task was a bit smaller and if it was graded and accounted to the total grade.» (Somewhat meaningful)
- But could have spent more time on labs and less on the report. » (Quite meaningful)
- It is a good thing to impose the groups. I would just have prefered that you mixed exchange-master students.» (Very meaningful)
- The final presentation of group assignments was a good review of the whole course material before the exam. The group members were chosen very well based on different nationalities and academic backgrounds. The only point was that some processes were difficult to be compared with each other or maybe irrelevant. » (Very meaningful)
- it"s allowed student to consider each process very keenly to compare with others. For the first year student it was also an scope to introduce and work with new students from different nationality.» (Very meaningful)

16. Guest lecturers from SKF on hard turning: Grade the lecture:

45 svarande

Not good»1 3%
Acceptable»8 25%
Quite good»17 54%
Excellent»5 16%
Did not attend»14

Genomsnitt: 2.83

- They where using SKF words that made it difficult to follow sometimes» (Quite good)
- They seemed to be really promising, they were very much ready with the answer of any question and also a informative presentation. » (Excellent)
- colliding lectures» (Did not attend)
- Pitty I could not attend, but to me a guest lecturer from industry is always appreciated. I checked the SKF slides though, and it seemed that they had represented something good.» (Did not attend)

17. Guest lecturer on surface topography: Grade the lecture:

45 svarande

Not good»15 39%
Acceptable»16 42%
Quite good»4 10%
Excellent»3 7%
Did not attend»7

Genomsnitt: 1.86

- very boring!» (Not good)
- Unfortunately his voice was difficult to listen to for a whole lecture.» (Acceptable)
- Slide content,as a lecture was really satisfactory.Same time,there was an opportunity to make the presentation more live and fluent.» (Acceptable)
- very good power point but poor presentation. » (Acceptable)
- The lecturer made efforts to make it interesting. The slides were quite long and maybe did not go to the essential.» (Quite good)
- Good examples and slides» (Excellent)
- colliding lectures» (Did not attend)
- Pitty I could not attend this one too and I couldn"t open their slide file with my Acrobat reader which was an old version.» (Did not attend)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.75

Summarizing questions

18. What is your general impression of the course?

45 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»3 6%
Adequate»10 22%
Good»29 64%
Excellent»3 6%

Genomsnitt: 3.71 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- My background was more industrial than mechanical engineering and this course was a very good way to get the basic knowledge on production processes. Even if i don"t directly use this knowledge in the future i believe it is important to have this basic "culture".» (Good)
- Wide course, but quite study intense because of this.» (Good)
- more labs and less project.» (Good)

19. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Cup drawing and AWJ labs»
- The readiing materials and the group assignments.»
- The structure of the course should be preserved»
- The overview of the different processes. The labs. the group assignment»
- company visits»
- AWJ-lab. Intresting knowledge. »
- Course administration»
- I think the course works very well»
- everything can be preserved. especailly the group assignment.»
- more lab. student should be able to access lab all over the course period.»
- the lecture contents and teaching methods»
- summary»
- Labs, lecture slides level,»
- The labs...»
- Labs»
- SKF guest lecture»
- Rich lecture content,specially comprised of recent mfg processes along with realistic process video should definitely be preserved. Group assignment should be continued,if possible with some weight in grade. »
- The AWJ and drawing lab.»
- the videos in lectures showing how actual manufacturing processes work.»

20. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Project should be graded with points instead of fail/pass and be a part of the total grade.»
- no»
- The MQL-lab wasn"t good. Didn"t give much and was really boring. »
- more applicable tips! less questions dealing with memory! Maybe,a quite useful industry visit!»
- MQL-lab»
- MQL lab a lecture about surface topografys»
- If possible, a minimum number of collisions with other courses (at least the compulsory ones)»
- No big question about fine blanking (5p) on the exam»
- surface topology lecturer can be a good one»
- exam problems should more focused on process»
- surface topography»
- Less project.»
- Lab group management in general. »
- There are some articles in the course binder that are extra reading materials. Its better to remove them and reduce the volume of that huge course binder a little. I studied all of it, but for some people such a large volume of papers might be repulsive and they may not go through it at all.»
- Get grades on the project work, or atleast bonous points for the exam or something. This will lead to better reports and a more meaningsfull work!»
- Topography guestlecture»
- Handling of groups»
- Irrelevant reading material from the course binder is merely the wastage of effort and time.Elaboration of lecture content could be placed on Course binder. Labs hour comparing to theory hour is insufficient. More Lab will enrich the course structure. »
- the hard turning lab, change focus.»
- probably better to have smaller groups for the group assignment and lab reports.»

21. Additional comments

- i think that the group assignement should be graded, for the following reasons : - we will be more involved if we receive a grade, the quality will be improved - the grade for the course is only based on learnings and we should incorporate a "doing" part - as engineers, our job will consist in project work with people from different backgrounds and cultures. So let"s prepare for this! »
- Good job Gustav!»
- maybe more "advanced" processes should be added»
- Since many of the masters students didn"t study their bachelors at Chalmers the don"t know about the resources available at the Chalmers library. A lecture in "informationssökning" should be given by Chalmers.»
- I greatly appreciate the effort that the examiner puts into this course. Trying to provide students with all learning materials, perfect lectures, course managements, labs, schedule...etc.»
- Either change the meaning of the project work or take it away, does not contribute in learning the subject the way it is today. »
- AS a very practical course, whose most of the process is industrially used today, two or three industrial visit could made the course more realistic and interesting.»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.71

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.01
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.63

* obligatoriska frågor

Kursutvärderingssystem från