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 metals 2008, MMK231

Status: Avslutad
Öppen 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

very good»9 34%
good»10 38%
less good»7 26%

Genomsnitt: 1.92

- I have been studying Machinery» (very good)
- even too good, the course did feel alot like courses I"ve already passed.» (very good)
- Have read machin engineering before this course.» (good)
- In my earlier program we did not study metals. I think some more info about steel and its phases.» (less good)

Your own effort

2. 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

At most 15 hours/week»4 15%
Around 20 hours/week»14 53%
Around 25 hours/week»5 19%
Around 30 hours/week»2 7%
At least 35 hours/week»1 3%

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)
- Too many hours to do the "Heat treatment"-paper just to clerify what the question was.» (Around 25 hours/week)

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

26 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»1 3%
50%»0 0%
75%»6 23%
100%»19 73%

Genomsnitt: 4.65

- For me it is importent to attend.» (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.

4. How understandable are the course goals?

26 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»2 7%
The goals are difficult to understand»1 3%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»15 57%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»8 30%

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

No, the goals are set too low»2 8%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»21 84%
No, the goals are set too high»2 8%

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

No, not at all»1 4%
To some extent»10 40%
Yes, definitely»13 52%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 4%

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)
- May be i think the exam was a llttle bit easy since 45% got the grade 5. » (To some extent)
- I have not pass the exam, I will pass it on january» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)

Teaching and course administration

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

26 svarande

Small extent»1 3%
Some extent»12 46%
Large extent»10 38%
Great extent»3 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.57

- the practical class was very useful» (Some extent)
- Lars had so much to do so it was a bit straggly to understand the lessons. There should also be a prepering lesson before Heat treatment part of the course. Because most of the people in the class had no experiance of metallic stuctures like martensite, ferrite. The good part of this was that Lars had a summary from last lesson and at the end of the lesson.I think the "Volvo"-lesson gave a lot and also the lab with Sephir were very interesting. He could explain part very good.» (Some extent)
- I do hope this question includes both the doctors and the doctors to be. The doctors to be where very good. I had hope for more practical lessons with them. » (Large extent)
- The compulsory tutorials and the JMatpro where very godd for the leraning» (Large extent)

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

26 svarande

Small extent»4 15%
Some extent»10 38%
Large extent»9 34%
Great extent»3 11%

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)
- Reading guidelines would be a good aid when reading the e-books, they contain a lot of advanced information that is outside the frame of the course.» (Some extent)
- Would really have liked to have a book in the course!» (Some extent)
- Due to practical problems we had no access to the e-books. Thanks to the library that solved this problem.» (Some extent)
- Din"t have time to read the electronic slides, just studied slides and worked with assignments.» (Large extent)
- Without callister I would not have pased this course» (Large extent)

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

26 svarande

Very badly»1 3%
Rather badly»3 11%
Rather well»15 57%
Very well»7 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.07

- They were not in time and it was difficult to find what handouts that should be to each lesson. » (Rather badly)
- pretty messy, especially the late cancelled lectures and the lecture sides. I know that Lars tried to fix the problem with the picutres but there was also a problem to know what slides that belonged to which lecture.» (Rather badly)
- everything was in the course webpage» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

26 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»9 34%
Very good»14 53%
I did not seek help»3 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.76

- Lars always answer our questions, but not always so we understand it better. » (Rather good)
- Very helpful and friendly lecturer.» (Very good)
- JMatPro supervisor was especially good at explaining principles in very easy and clear way. » (Very good)
- Teachers and exercise leaders turned out to be very helpful every time I got questions.» (Very good)

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

26 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»2 7%
Rather well»9 34%
Very well»15 57%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- Our class is very nice and helpful» (Very well)
- Though it was quite hard to understand both questions and project work, it has worked well with the classmates.» (Very well)
- It was the first course together but I do think my fellow students are great.» (Very well)

12. How was the course workload?

26 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»4 15%
Adequate»15 57%
High»6 23%
Too high»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 3.15

- Presumably very different depending on background but for me low.» (Low)
- At first it seemed too low, but then afterwards the load increased. » (Adequate)
- Almost too high! On the otherhand - I learned very much from the very time consuming "heat treatment" excercises and projet work.» (High)
- A lot of time where spend of sitting just to understand the questions and what to do. It was too much with project, exercise and also "Heat treatment, labs and examine. It was a bit straggly to have labs before the telling lecture (many in the groups). Nothing got 100% made.» (Too high)

13. How was the total workload this study period?

25 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»4 16%
Adequate»11 44%
High»7 28%
Too high»3 12%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

- Mainly due to this course» (High)
- Both courses had a lot of exercises, labs and both had projects. My suggestion is to have engineering ceramics and engineering metals together at the same period, to have a better understanding and then Material Selection and Material Failure at the same period.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

14. What is your general impression of the course?

25 svarande

Poor»1 4%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»9 36%
Good»12 48%
Excellent»3 12%

Genomsnitt: 3.64

- i thougt it would be andvanced level but it felt like repetition from previous courses. » (Poor)
- There were hardly no time to study for the examine because it was too many other parts in this course.» (Adequate)
- I liked the course as it gave the general overview of the possible heat treatments and other hardening mechanisms. » (Good)
- Interesting, but maybe a bit too much different information in one course, I think it was very wise to exclude the coating chapter, would definitely be too much!» (Good)
- There could have been more new content. Coming from mechanical engineering at chalmers there was rather much content that I was already familiar with.» (Good)

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.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från