ENKÄTER
 

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

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.

Nanoscience MCC026, MPNAN, HT2008, MCC026

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2008-12-10 - 2009-01-23
Antal svar: 12
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 57%
Kontaktperson: Sheila Galt»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Teknisk fysik 300 hp

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.

12 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»3 25%
Around 20 hours/week»3 25%
Around 25 hours/week»4 33%
Around 30 hours/week»2 16%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.41

- Most time was spent on the homework assignments» (Around 25 hours/week)
- on average.... less than 25 in the beginning more in the end» (Around 25 hours/week)

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

12 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»4 33%
100%»8 66%

Genomsnitt: 4.66

- I missed only one lecture.» (100%)
- all lectures except for one» (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.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

12 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»0 0%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»6 50%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»6 50%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- Mr. Kubatkin did a very good job!» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- I liked the approach with a wide field of different parts of nanoscience, getting a grip of most and having the possibility to choose which ones to focus more on.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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.

12 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»10 83%
No, the goals are set too high»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 2.16

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

12 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»7 58%
Yes, definitely»5 41%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.41

- Although it could be better, since we only needed to have the idea of each field in nanotechnology some questions could be more general in that field rather. Question should not need a deep understanding, or formulas of the specific field.» (Yes, definitely)

6. What is your opinion about the form of examination, in particular essay, quiz questions, homework problems?

- It is good ! keep it up !»
- good mix»
- I liked that the examination contained of all of these. It is a good way to learn more, and especially focus on what you think is the most interesting.»
- Quiz questions is a good way of training I think, but they (except for those on Tomas lectures) came out late and were not too many. Maybe it should be stated that everyone has one day or something to complete the questions?»
- Homework was good but not so efficient. Some of them was so hard and some of them was easy. »
- Some homeworks require more time than others. Quizz questions are a good idea.»
- That need to be elaborated additionally»
- essays and presentation were very usefull»
- I think that, concerning the presentation of the nano letters work, could be useful if a group act as an "opponent" for another: simply reading the report and asking a some questions during the presentation»
- not quite good since it can check our understanding but what we remember or able to pick from the note.»
- It will be better to have some new questions those are not included in homework problems.»

Teaching and course administration

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

12 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»5 41%
Large extent»5 41%
Great extent»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

- Some of the lecturers was very good on explaining their field of works, but others was not so good.» (Large extent)
- One can have an idea about the theme, but not to be very specialized.» (Large extent)
- By large extent i don"t exactly mean that i learnt a lot, but rather that i got to know about many different topics and digged more in very few of them as time allowed it.» (Large extent)
- The lectures were very good and interesting.» (Great extent)

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

11 svarande

Small extent»1 9%
Some extent»5 45%
Large extent»5 45%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.36

- No course literature» (?)
- I think that the lecture notes is a good way to learn but it would be better if we could get them before the lecture, allowing us to prepare and also write comments on them while not spending time to try to keep up with sketching graphs etc. It would be nice if they were available say 24h before class.» (Some extent)
- Most of the materials was in presentation mode. most of them was not self explanatory and if one missed something in the class notes, it was very difficult to follow them.» (Some extent)
- some of the material was quite poor, only pictures or article references make it difficult to grasp the point. » (Some extent)
- No !!» (Large extent)

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

11 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»1 9%
Rather well»8 72%
Very well»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.09

- Mostly ok, but it took some time before notes and quizzes got up.» (Rather well)
- The lecture update on webpage was very poor.» (Rather well)
- I think there is a big problem when the lecturers don"t upload the handouts on time.» (Rather well)
- Easy to get the information» (Very well)

10. How well was the information needed for the course presented? (Please explain if you did not like a particular thing.)

- Very bad. Needed more and clearer information earlier.»
- Easy design of the page... Very good Tomas!»
- I think it was clear.»
- Information on how to prepare the essay, and how it should be presented was not clear. Same with quizzes, there is no clear description for the quiz format in webpage.»
- it was clearer as it came to an end, but we lacked more precise information on the exam, the grading, and that some students indeed had to prepare 2 presentations instead of one as we all thought.»
- Some of Professors make up and empty slides.»
- Most information needed in the course can be found on the homepage of the course.»

Study climate

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

12 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»1 8%
Rather good»4 33%
Very good»7 58%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- It really depends on who was the lecturer. » (Rather good)
- Mr. Kubatkin (and the other lecturers) were easy to get in contact with. Moreover, they were willing to help us. » (Very good)
- Even though all the lecturers are busy people I never had problems asking for a minute or two about something. Impressive.» (Very good)
- Most of the lecturers are open to discussion.» (Very good)
- All the professors were very welcomng and reliable» (Very good)

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

12 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»1 8%
Rather well»4 33%
Very well»7 58%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

13. How was the course workload?

12 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»11 91%
High»1 8%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.08

- Doing the HW assignments actually took quite some time so in the end I think it was reasonable.» (Adequate)

14. How was the total workload this study period?

12 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»7 58%
High»5 41%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.41

Summarizing questions

15. What is your general impression of the course?

12 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 8%
Adequate»2 16%
Good»7 58%
Excellent»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

- The course must be integrated with common methods, goals, etc. Now it seems more as a course for Engeneering guys.» (Fair)
- It gave me a good orientation about the field and especially what people at MC2 do. I like the idea with lecturers that lecture in their own field.» (Good)
- But could be better.» (Good)
- Because you can get an idea of many nanoscience topics.» (Good)
- organizational problems and teaching content can be improved, but the course has major utility in a nanoscience and technology program.» (Good)
- I couldn"t think of a better way to get insight onto the surface of so many fields of Nanoscience» (Excellent)

16. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Everything»
- Expert lectures from the different fields.»
- Quizzes, homeworks.»
- The idea of this course is good.»
- subjects presented presentation and essays »
- No idea.»

17. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- information flow. QT homework.»
- Perhaps, the exam was a little long. »
- Maybe get the quizzes up more, but I understand that it is very time consuming.»
- Seek full participation of the lecturers.»
- The design of the course and policy of cooperating with lecturers. All groups of students that are invited for the course, should have background that allows to understand the course. »
- the lectures content (amount wise) is not well proportioned between all the topics»
- No idea.»

18. Additional comments

- Very good course Sergey. »
- I liked very much the course, yet I think that too much attention is drawn to the topics related with Physics, rather than the ones related with Chemistry and Biology. Although Zoran Konkoli made a great job during his presentations, I found that shamefully Owe Orwar and Krister Holmberg were not fully involved, specially Orwar. I know that most of the students don"t like the idea of having Chemistry or Biology and prefer Quantum Transportation, Molecular Electronics, Carbon nanotubes, etc, which indeed is good to know and I appreciate Sergey"s and Thomas"s lectures, but the course should be done for a full understanding of the route that all the topics have. The overview of the Nanoscale Science is lost when certain lectures seem to be more important than others, and I guess this may only be fixed if the lecturers go to talk about their topic pretending to sell it and not only as an obligation.»
- The course is positioned as introductory for wide range of students with various background. However, the invited lecturers did not provide the same level of teaching. The course was unbalanced. For introductory course, there was lectures with too advanced concepts and little connection to the course goals. That included advanced math, but number of lectures was too small to understand, for other lecturers it took too many lectures to introduce the very basic concepts (1 lecture would be enough). Please note that is not my opinion due to my background. It seemed that lecturers did not adopt their lectures to the course and used materials from their advanced courses or presentations. I am not happy with quality of presented materials. But what else to expect if lecturer is only invited for couple of lectures.»
- very interesting course»
- The home assignment of submitting quiz questions seems not very suitable, since it just propels us make some stupid or wrong quiz problems. Moreover, we did not receive the feedback from the lectures.»

*** Specific questions about each lecture ***

For each of the 10 lecture topics, the same 4 questions are posed here.

Lecture 1. Quantum transport at nanoscale

19. a. Level of difficulty was:

11 svarande

too easy»0 0%
easy»0 0%
reasonable»3 27%
difficult»6 54%
too difficult»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.9

- No need to go to advanced math on the first lecture of introductory course. Lecturer should prepare special simplified slides rather than using slides from other courses like Molecular Electronics, etc. » (difficult)

20. b. Quality of lecture and material was:

12 svarande

too poor»0 0%
fairly poor»1 8%
reasonable»2 16%
good»9 75%
excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- To introduce, one doesn"t need go to math immediately. I think, models and phenomena should be introduced first. No need to derive formulaes, if essencial is not intuitive. » (fairly poor)

21. c. How relevant was the lecture for the choice of master thesis project?

12 svarande

irrelevant»1 8%
slightly relevant»0 0%
reasonably relevant»6 50%
quite relevant»5 41%
very relevant»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

- Difficult field to discover in only two lectures» (reasonably relevant)
- Just prepare dedicated slides.» (reasonably relevant)

22. d. I would like to have more of this.

11 svarande

no, not at all»1 9%
no»4 36%
maybe»2 18%
yes»4 36%
yes definitely»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

Lecture 2. Imaging at the nanoscale

23. a. Level of difficulty was:

11 svarande

too easy»0 0%
easy»2 18%
reasonable»7 63%
difficult»2 18%
too difficult»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3

24. b. Quality of lecture and material was:

12 svarande

too poor»0 0%
fairly poor»0 0%
reasonable»3 25%
good»6 50%
excellent»3 25%

Genomsnitt: 4

25. c. How relevant was the lecture for the choice of master thesis project?

12 svarande

irrelevant»0 0%
slightly relevant»3 25%
reasonably relevant»8 66%
quite relevant»1 8%
very relevant»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.83

26. d. I would like to have more of this.

12 svarande

no, not at all»0 0%
no»3 25%
maybe»5 41%
yes»4 33%
yes definitely»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.08

Lecture 3. Nano Optics

27. a. Level of difficulty was:

11 svarande

too easy»0 0%
easy»2 18%
reasonable»6 54%
difficult»3 27%
too difficult»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.09

28. b. Quality of lecture and material was:

12 svarande

too poor»0 0%
fairly poor»0 0%
reasonable»2 16%
good»9 75%
excellent»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.91

29. c. How relevant was the lecture for the choice of master thesis project?

12 svarande

irrelevant»0 0%
slightly relevant»2 16%
reasonably relevant»3 25%
quite relevant»6 50%
very relevant»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

30. d. I would like to have more of this.

12 svarande

no, not at all»0 0%
no»2 16%
maybe»5 41%
yes»4 33%
yes definitely»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

Lecture 4. Small scales in biology, information processes in the living cell

31. a. Level of difficulty was:

11 svarande

too easy»1 9%
easy»2 18%
reasonable»7 63%
difficult»1 9%
too difficult»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.72

32. b. Quality of lecture and material was:

12 svarande

too poor»0 0%
fairly poor»2 16%
reasonable»0 0%
good»6 50%
excellent»4 33%

Genomsnitt: 4

- i have no previous backgroun in biology but the teacher was very good in getting to the point» (excellent)

33. c. How relevant was the lecture for the choice of master thesis project?

12 svarande

irrelevant»1 8%
slightly relevant»2 16%
reasonably relevant»4 33%
quite relevant»4 33%
very relevant»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

34. d. I would like to have more of this.

12 svarande

no, not at all»0 0%
no»2 16%
maybe»3 25%
yes»4 33%
yes definitely»3 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

Lecture 5. Soft matter nanofluidic devices

35. a. Level of difficulty was:

10 svarande

too easy»0 0%
easy»1 10%
reasonable»6 60%
difficult»3 30%
too difficult»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

36. b. Quality of lecture and material was:

11 svarande

too poor»0 0%
fairly poor»2 18%
reasonable»2 18%
good»5 45%
excellent»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

- I think Owe should spend more time explaining the concepts.» (fairly poor)
- i would appreciated looking once more at the presentation, since it contains more info than the website » (reasonable)
- Material is not included in the answer since there was no material» (good)

37. c. How relevant was the lecture for the choice of master thesis project?

11 svarande

irrelevant»2 18%
slightly relevant»2 18%
reasonably relevant»0 0%
quite relevant»6 54%
very relevant»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

38. d. I would like to have more of this.

11 svarande

no, not at all»0 0%
no»1 9%
maybe»5 45%
yes»4 36%
yes definitely»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

- I liked the topic, but I didn"t like Owe"s attitude.» (yes)

Lecture 6. Dynamic Liquid Film Formation-Spreading and Mixing of Thin Biomolecular Films on Surfaces

39. a. Level of difficulty was:

10 svarande

too easy»0 0%
easy»1 10%
reasonable»8 80%
difficult»1 10%
too difficult»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3

40. b. Quality of lecture and material was:

11 svarande

too poor»0 0%
fairly poor»1 9%
reasonable»3 27%
good»5 45%
excellent»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- I think Owe should spend more time explaining the concepts.» (fairly poor)

41. c. How relevant was the lecture for the choice of master thesis project?

11 svarande

irrelevant»0 0%
slightly relevant»2 18%
reasonably relevant»4 36%
quite relevant»5 45%
very relevant»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

42. d. I would like to have more of this.

11 svarande

no, not at all»0 0%
no»1 9%
maybe»7 63%
yes»3 27%
yes definitely»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- I liked the topic, but I didn"t like Owe"s attitude.» (yes)

Lecture 7. Molecular electronics

43. a. Level of difficulty was:

11 svarande

too easy»0 0%
easy»0 0%
reasonable»6 54%
difficult»4 36%
too difficult»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

- The same comments as to Lecture 1.» (difficult)

44. b. Quality of lecture and material was:

12 svarande

too poor»0 0%
fairly poor»1 8%
reasonable»3 25%
good»6 50%
excellent»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.75

- I would like less papers as references and a bit more explanation in the lecture notes.» (reasonable)

45. c. How relevant was the lecture for the choice of master thesis project?

12 svarande

irrelevant»0 0%
slightly relevant»0 0%
reasonably relevant»1 8%
quite relevant»9 75%
very relevant»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 4.08

46. d. I would like to have more of this.

12 svarande

no, not at all»0 0%
no»3 25%
maybe»3 25%
yes»4 33%
yes definitely»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.41

- The amount of material given here should be extended to minimum 4 lectures. The slides must be improved with the course in focus. This is not ME course. Alternatively, decrease details.» (maybe)

Lecture 8. Nanomechanics

47. a. Level of difficulty was:

11 svarande

too easy»0 0%
easy»0 0%
reasonable»8 72%
difficult»3 27%
too difficult»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

48. b. Quality of lecture and material was:

12 svarande

too poor»0 0%
fairly poor»2 16%
reasonable»4 33%
good»4 33%
excellent»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- This topci may be extended with overviews. » (fairly poor)
- I would like less papers as references and a bit more explanation in the lecture notes.» (reasonable)

49. c. How relevant was the lecture for the choice of master thesis project?

12 svarande

irrelevant»0 0%
slightly relevant»2 16%
reasonably relevant»2 16%
quite relevant»7 58%
very relevant»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.58

50. d. I would like to have more of this.

12 svarande

no, not at all»0 0%
no»3 25%
maybe»4 33%
yes»4 33%
yes definitely»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

Lecture 9. Carbon-based nanodevices

51. a. Level of difficulty was:

11 svarande

too easy»0 0%
easy»0 0%
reasonable»6 54%
difficult»4 36%
too difficult»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

- Few examples. Poorly integrated material.» (reasonable)

52. b. Quality of lecture and material was:

12 svarande

too poor»0 0%
fairly poor»2 16%
reasonable»3 25%
good»7 58%
excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.41

- I still did not understand much about the physics behind. I would less NM and more explanation of graphene and cnt. » (fairly poor)

53. c. How relevant was the lecture for the choice of master thesis project?

12 svarande

irrelevant»0 0%
slightly relevant»0 0%
reasonably relevant»4 33%
quite relevant»6 50%
very relevant»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

54. d. I would like to have more of this.

12 svarande

no, not at all»0 0%
no»1 8%
maybe»4 33%
yes»6 50%
yes definitely»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.58

Lecture 10. Imaging live cell

55. a. Level of difficulty was:

12 svarande

too easy»0 0%
easy»6 50%
reasonable»6 50%
difficult»0 0%
too difficult»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- Two lectures would make it better. Just too little time. » (easy)

56. b. Quality of lecture and material was:

12 svarande

too poor»0 0%
fairly poor»0 0%
reasonable»5 41%
good»4 33%
excellent»3 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

57. c. How relevant was the lecture for the choice of master thesis project?

12 svarande

irrelevant»0 0%
slightly relevant»2 16%
reasonably relevant»4 33%
quite relevant»4 33%
very relevant»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

58. d. I would like to have more of this.

12 svarande

no, not at all»0 0%
no»0 0%
maybe»6 50%
yes»4 33%
yes definitely»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

!!! THANK YOU very much for your help in answering all these questions !!!

Kursutvärderingssystem från