Visa resultat

Engineering Ceramics 2008, KKE012

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

19 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		4		21%
Around 20 hours/week»		11		57%
Around 25 hours/week»		4		21%
Around 30 hours/week»		0		0%
At least 35 hours/week»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- The time we spent at IVF were only 3 hole weaks.» (Around 20 hours/week)

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

19 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		1		5%
75%»		4		21%
100%»		14		73%

Genomsnitt: 4.68

- because of Medical reasons» (50%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		5		26%
The goals are difficult to understand»		2		10%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		4		21%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		8		42%

Genomsnitt: 2.78

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

15 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		1		6%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		12		80%
No, the goals are set too high»		2		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

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

No, not at all»		2		12%
To some extent»		9		56%
Yes, definitely»		3		18%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		2		12%

Genomsnitt: 2.31

- The amount of lecture slides and the book itself were too much. I studied almost all the book and I did my best to achieve the best score(I mean 5), But I think I was not successful. Its not good and reasonable. there is some thing wrong. I"ve spent a lot of time and I"ve known a lot of many things, but still I think I can"t gain the best score.» (No, not at all)
- Surface chemistry and rheology was not really included in the exam. » (To some extent)
- The exam focused on details, whereas the goals where described in terms of general understanding. Also the teachers emphasized general understanding.» (To some extent)
- There were not enough time to answer 22 questions and I think it was not good that we did not got any type of "testexame" to prepare how to manage the real examine.» (To some extent)
- The exam was made by someone that has not being there during the lessons. » (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		1		5%
Some extent»		10		52%
Large extent»		6		31%
Great extent»		2		10%

Genomsnitt: 2.47

- Some lectures were very good (electric properties for example) and others were not as good.» (Some extent)
- Elis" and Sven"s lectures were good. Some of the other lecturers were reading straigth from a paper or mumbling a lot.» (Some extent)
- The lectures gave a good general understanding, but I would have liked a better organization of the details.» (Some extent)
- Some of the teaching was solely based on the book, so it sometimes it would have been sufficient to only read the book.» (Some extent)
- Sorry to say so, but for me the lectures had a quite varied quality, some were quite good others just time consuming.» (Large extent)
- » (Large extent)

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

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		6		31%
Large extent»		10		52%
Great extent»		3		15%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- The book has a very large content and is rather difficult.» (Some extent)
- Some pictures in the book help but it was a lot of crap even thou some pages were written down. » (Some extent)
- Nice of you to let people borrow books, since they are pretty expensive.» (Large extent)
- The book was, according to my opinion, somewhat below average, but I read a lot in it anyway, but it could really have been a more interesting book. Would have liked old exams or practice questions to work with.» (Large extent)

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

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		0		0%
Rather well»		12		63%
Very well»		7		36%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

- The lecure slides could be published earlier» (Rather well)
- Last handouts were not in time. It should be there at least a week before lecture so there is a chance to write them out.» (Rather well)
- Handouts were posted well i advance. It was clear what you should bring to each lesson.» (Very well)
- Big A there, fantastic with all lecture slides before the actual lectures.» (Very well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		3		15%
Rather good»		5		26%
Very good»		9		47%
I did not seek help»		2		10%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

- Very good knowledge had the teachers and we could ask them stupid questions and they could answer.» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		0		0%
Rather well»		5		26%
Very well»		14		73%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

- At the labs were the cooperation very good. But it´,s was not fare when the groups were splited up because some students had already sign before the rest of the class could write labgroups.» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		3		15%
Adequate»		10		52%
High»		5		26%
Too high»		1		5%

Genomsnitt: 3.21

- However going to Mölndal took some extra time.» (Adequate)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		4		21%
Adequate»		10		52%
High»		5		26%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- The other compulsory course for MPAEM had almost no lectures.» (Low)
- I think ceramics an metals should be together at same period.» (High)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		2		10%
Fair»		1		5%
Adequate»		6		31%
Good»		9		47%
Excellent»		1		5%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

- I think, if they try to improve our scores(in some way) it could be very helpful for us. (for example some extra points or something)» (Poor)
- The reason for the poor impression is due to the lectures being few, far apart, in some cases terrible slides (both design and content) and generally the content and things discussed in the didn"t connect well to the labs and the books. I would like to see the lectures containing more the application of the knowledge gained by reading the book. This could be done by solving problems on the white board or having "räknestugor" for the groups that don"t have labs during the afternoon.» (Poor)
- Focus could be clearer. The course goes into great detail in some areas only to be very basic in others for no obvious reasons.» (Adequate)
- The labs were good. Knowledge among the teachers very good, but not the ability to teach (RP was worst, SK best at teaching). The course focused on general understanding - we did not get help to organize the details, and the exam was focused on details.» (Adequate)
- The quality of the course depended on the person lecturing. I don"t doubt their expertise on the subject, but lecturing skills of some of the lecturers were inadequate. 150 slides in 90 minutes is a little bit much to handle.» (Adequate)
- The ranking adequate is due to both bad and good parts in the course. The practical classes were very good, informative and explained a lot. The lessons have very different quality. Some of the teachers where almost good and some really bad. I do think they know there subject but was not good at teaching. It was a very big difference between Swerea IVF and Chalmers and not to the favor of Swerea IVF. » (Adequate)
- However it was very annoying that the teachers would not give out any previous exams. As far as I know it is also against Chalmers rules...» (Good)
- Interesting content. Some good lectures, some bad, hard to say something general.» (Good)
- Labs made us understand more about ceramics, but poor IVF had too many students than they though so labgroups became quite big. A minus was that the summaries at labs were fastly showed and thoose were the best lessonmaterial.» (Good)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

16. Additional comments