|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENKÄTER | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visa resultatHär 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 metals 2008, MMK231Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2008-11-20 - 2008-12-05 Antal svar: 26 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?% Kontaktperson: Lars Nyborg» Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Maskiningenjör 180 hp
1. How did your background knowledge fit with the course?26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.92 - I have been studying Machinery» (very good) Your own effort2. 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.26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.3 - E-books were a new experience. Due to lack of computers in Chalmers I was not able to study as much as I wanted.» (Around 20 hours/week) 3. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.65 - For me it is importent to attend.» (100%) Goals and goal fulfilmentThe 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?26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.11 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.25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2 - The course was manageable, but I had to work hard to get over a "threshold" of knowledge that I lacked from my background in physics (=no methalurgy)» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable) 6. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.56 - It was hard to do the examine when mostly of the class had some questions. It shows that it was some parts that were wrong at examine. Then it´,s hard to do right and also understand the questions. Examine should be check before entering the students.» (To some extent) Teaching and course administration7. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.57 - the practical class was very useful» (Some extent) 8. To what extent has the the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.42 - Had to find facts in other books because knovel didn´,t work that well. I like a real book instead of electronic book that doesn´,t work.» (Small extent) 9. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.07 - They were not in time and it was difficult to find what handouts that should be to each lesson.
» (Rather badly) Study climate10. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.76 - Lars always answer our questions, but not always so we understand it better. » (Rather good) 11. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.5 - Our class is very nice and helpful» (Very well) 12. How was the course workload?26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.15 - Presumably very different depending on background but for me low.» (Low) 13. How was the total workload this study period?25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.36 - Mainly due to this course» (High) Summarizing questions14. What is your general impression of the course?25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.64 - i thougt it would be andvanced level but it felt like repetition from previous courses. » (Poor) 15. What should definitely be preserved to next year?- case study»- Heat treatment excercises and project work.» - The project work, the practical class and JMatPro.» - JMatPro» - The case study which was very interesting» - predecided groups for both the courses could give better results as there was a clash with being in different groups for different courses» - practical class and problem solving» - The "Volvo" lesson was good. Continue with summary from the last lesson and at the end of the lesson! Get a better overwiew than. » - Some of the lectures were good» - the book (i.e. the litterature)» - Lecture of diagrams (all of them).» - Better organisation could help student to focus on studies. » - More practical lessons, with opportunity to ask for explanations, the things that you did not understand during the lecture. This lessons do not have to be under the supervision of Lars.» - Group project.» 16. Additional comments- Continue with summary from the last lesson and at the end of the lesson! Get a better overwiew than.»- I"ve already followed a course on metals last year, and I really learned and understand more things in 2 months than in 1 semester last year.» - It was hard to have the two courses Engineering Metal and Material characterization and failure analysis at the same time. The two courses where very similar. Please handouts some day before at least two days ahead. Due to practical problem, like lack of computer and printers, this course was very hard to follow. E-books was a new experience for me and my summary is that they steal a lot of time from the study, a old fashion book you by in the store and that will take you 15 minutes. Every single chapter in the e-book takes 15minutes to open and print. I am so sorry to say but the feeling with Lars is that he is stressed. He has a good interest in the students but it does not feel like we are the main topic. The lecture is in a stressed way. » - I thougth that the class room where i little to small, since there sometimes where people that did"nt get a own desk.» - The way the groups for the projects are created could be reworked. As this is the first course in the program perhaps it could be randomised.» 17. How did you appreciate the practical class on JMatPro?- the sir who taught us Jmatpro is definitly a great teacher. He described everything very clearly. And his english is very understandable.»- To easy could be more deep» - excellent resource» - Very good, both the teacher and the explained content.» - Very good» - Very good, really liked that» - JMatPro was the class where I have learnt the more this quarter. It really helps to understand the lectures and you can ask question easily as it is in small groups.» - it was very helpful to present the practical aspects of the course» - was good, but could have been done earlier to help understanding» - This was the best part of the course! The teacher were very structurized and pedagogic.» - It was great, excellent time to ask questions, but if you ask me, skip the follow-up we had with the whole class.» - very good» - Quite sad that the license is really expensive. But it was interesting to know the existence of this king of software, and it was a sort a additionnal exercice to understand better and applicate what we have seen during the course.» - Good to go through important understandings for course» - It was very good. Explained very much, Sepehr is a teacher to be, very good. And the practical class with him was very good.» - It was very good!!» - Very good to have the possibility to discuss the problems in small groups. As the last part was almost the same as the first perhaps it could be eliminated and the time could instead be used to discuss something else from the course that the participants finds hard.» 18. How did you evaluate the practical class on heat treatment of steel?- Hard but learning (the questions could be rewritten )»- useful and practical» - It was very time consuming, but we learned loads. PLEASE, fix the english translation, its very poor!! Litterary hours were spent figuring out, arguing what was actually asked for. Very unnecessary, please fix it!!» - Very good» - The questions were badly translated from Swedish to English, so it was quite hard to understand, what were wanted. Could be better and the layout was also poor, at first the linking between text and pictures was really hard to understand, which structure picture to look. The content was ok, quite practical.» - This was also very helpfull because you can ask question and try to find the answers on your own» - it was extremely helpful in understanding heat treatment» - we have to work with SEM more than 2 hours,» - very useful» - Change Heat treatment-excersice to good english and have a preparing lesson about structures e.g ferrite, perlite, martensite before this part.» - Well I didn"t like the hypereutectiod exercise too much, even when I had finished a question I could feel, I"d never had guessed it was this that they asked for, some questions definitely should be reformulated and more hints. Once you understood what the question was about it was a good exercise!» - very good» - As the practical class on JMatPro, it was a good way to applicate the content of the course.» - Very good but difficult since no background. Good extra support from fellow adviser.» - The English in the practical class assignment was poor. When you understand what the question was it was good. The examination of this class was a joke. We where so many students and so few teachers to check our questions. During the practical classes the assistants helped us with every question we had in a nice way, I would like to name Johanna as a very good teacher.» - Good» - I find it interesting that the classes are compulsory when you have to report your findings at the end anyway. Make it optional to go to the classes (except for the last one).» - the problem with the heat treatment questions was that it was hard to understand the questions many times and they didn"t feel that though throw or adjusted to the content of the course.»
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34%