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.

Finite Element Simulation in Design, TME125

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-01-08 - 2009-03-08
Antal svar: 39
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Thomas Abrahamsson»
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.

39 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»5 12%
Around 20 hours/week»19 48%
Around 25 hours/week»10 25%
Around 30 hours/week»2 5%
At least 35 hours/week»3 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.46

- The computer assignments required much time, and I had a bit too little time over for the theory part of the course.» (Around 25 hours/week)

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

39 svarande

0%»3 7%
25%»1 2%
50%»8 20%
75%»12 30%
100%»15 38%

Genomsnitt: 3.89

- Had another class at the same time as the exercise lectures.» (75%)
- The teaching during the exercises were pretty bad. You must try to explain more why to do a certain thing rather than just tell what to do.» (75%)
- At times I found it annoying to listen to a little more than whats in the book (although i have not bought the book) and be bored.» (75%)
- To slow speed on the lectures, It feels like sleeping time to listen on it.» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus given by the Course Poster gave the course goals in terms of learning outcomes to be acquired by the student during the course.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

39 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»2 5%
The goals are difficult to understand»1 2%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»22 56%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»14 35%

Genomsnitt: 3.23

- they could describe what you actually learn, memorizing the order of what to clic after what in a procedure that is not required to be understood, just follow it and it will be fine..» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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.

37 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»35 94%
No, the goals are set too high»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.05

- Considering the amount of work it takes to just pass the course.» (No, the goals are set too high)

5. Did the examination (assignments + written exam) assess whether you have reached the goals?

37 svarande

No, not at all»4 10%
To some extent»18 48%
Yes, definitely»14 37%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.32

- Assignment 3 was 10 % learning about FEM and 90 % about searching for errors. I and many that I have talked to was very frustrated over the assignment. The Que-line was always over two hour so you got no help. The examination was a joke. Thomas said on the first day and several other times too that about one question would be like the home questions and three from the exercise on the exam. This was not the distribution on the exam which made me very disappointed. Compared to last years exam was this exam 100 times much harder and much more calculation.» (No, not at all)
- I understand that the goal is to give some theory basics and a lot of application. the assignments have not been (I think) rasonable means of "teaching" application, they were merely a procedure to follow, the exam testet the theory basics, yes, but was useless considering the applicability of this (little) knowledge.» (No, not at all)
- The written exam was good but the assignments did not examine anything more than my patience with the irritating software. A shame since the idea was good but failed due to the software.» (To some extent)
- The name of the course is "FEM in DESIGN"!! So the name is misleading or chosen unluckily "cause the problems which are to solve during the written exams don"t have anything to do with FEM application directly. They fit to "FEM-basics" or elsewhere.» (To some extent)
- an other software would be a good thing since more could be learned if less time had to be spent troubleshooting!» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

38 svarande

Small extent»10 26%
Some extent»16 42%
Large extent»10 26%
Great extent»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.1

- The lessons didn"t seem to be on the same level as the exam.» (Small extent)
- Didn"t attend» (Small extent)
- More teacher is needed for the assignment. People that know FEMAP!!!» (Some extent)
- I found the lectures to be well planned and easy to follow, must clarify that I already have taken a course in FEM under Peter Möller which gave a thorough understanding of the fundamentals. To criticize the course I found the calculus-lectures to be rather confusing due to many errors made by the lecturer.. Since the subject is difficult, with large matrixes and many variables it makes it confusing if there are errors here and there. You dont know if you dont understand or if there is an error on the blackboard.. » (Some extent)
- Too little help during the assignments and the exercises did not provide complete solutions...It would be good to show the complete solution to at least one problem of each type.» (Some extent)
- The lectures were ok, I apreciate that the notation of the lectures was equal to the notation in the book (though I do not like it) but were rather pointless, since all of us can read. The Tutorial was much better and helped preparing for the exam.» (Some extent)

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

39 svarande

Small extent»4 10%
Some extent»9 23%
Large extent»16 41%
Great extent»10 25%

Genomsnitt: 2.82

- It"s ok with me to use books instead of individually-written lecture notes, I refuse though, to buy a book that deliberately uses non SI-Units. The book also did not fit the purpose I think. It could give a wider basis for which the time was much too short to go through, it contains some examples, thats really good, but the appendices are rather useless, instead I had the impression that one has to go skipping through the chapters to find matrices and useful hints when attempting to solve problems by hand.» (Small extent)
- Could be more data tutorials due to the difficulty level of cetain problems during the simulation» (Large extent)
- Great book but answers to more problems would have been very very helpful.» (Great extent)
- Good course book. Understandable and descriptive enough.» (Great extent)
- The course litterature was adequate for the understanding of the course.» (Great extent)

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

39 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»3 7%
Rather well»22 56%
Very well»14 35%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- The course literature was changed and the information on the course homepage wasn"t updated. » (Rather well)

9. How well did the teaching using english work out?

The teachers native language is not english. Did that cause difficulties in understanging the lectures and exercises?

39 svarande

It caused me big problems.»0 0%
Sometimes it caused me problem.»7 17%
It did not cause me problems.»32 82%

Genomsnitt: 2.82 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I cant say that I didnt understand what was said, but when dealing with somewhat a difficult subject there must be some information that was left out due to language issues. » (Sometimes it caused me problem.)
- The language was no problem at all.» (It did not cause me problems.)
- It"s the same for every course, but generally no problem.» (It did not cause me problems.)
- ..not saying it can´,t be improved. » (It did not cause me problems.)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.82

Study climate

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

39 svarande

Very poor»2 5%
Rather poor»6 15%
Rather good»19 48%
Very good»9 23%
I did not seek help»3 7%

Genomsnitt: 3.12

- There must be more assistants during the computer exercises. Sometimes you had to wait for hours before you could get help.» (Very poor)
- This rating doesn"t concern the lecture part but the exercises. I (and fellow students) where disappointed due to the little help, provided using FEMAP, which turned out to be VERY TRICKY for beginners. The Assistent was skilled obviously but shouldn"t answer a few questions very detailed but the other way round! In 120min not more than 10 questions could be solved and thats annoying if you have to wait one hour to get a little question solved!» (Very poor)
- the waiting time during the excersises were to long» (Rather poor)
- Especially during the computer assignments. Too few assistants, and too bad software.» (Rather poor)
- (user-un-friendly software + many students)*few tutors = bad situation» (Rather poor)
- For the assignments while in the computer room» (Rather poor)
- I am only referring to the help during the exercises. It was good help, but the waiting list was too long.» (Rather poor)
- few computer exercise time compared to CAD course» (Rather poor)
- There were only one of the teachers for the assignments that knew FEMAP good enough to be able to answer questions.» (Rather good)
- Good during the lectures but during the computer exercises it would have been helpful whit some more guidence» (Rather good)
- About the assignments: Sometimes the help was not enough. I spent too much time looking for small errors.» (Rather good)
- If the tudors spent less time on each person with rather small problems more could get help (when it offen only is a small correction that are needed) Much time where spent on waiting...» (Rather good)
- The que for getting help at the computer sessions was sometimes too long. » (Rather good)
- Both the teacher and the assistants were always very helpful, even when you came to them out-of-class» (Very good)

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

39 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»1 2%
Rather well»12 30%
Very well»24 61%
I did not seek cooperation»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.69

- Many times this was the only way to get help because of the long waiting time» (Very well)
- I couldn"t find any partner since I came to the lab-exercises 2 sessions late.» (I did not seek cooperation)

12. How was the course workload?

39 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 2%
Adequate»18 46%
High»15 38%
Too high»5 12%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

- But too high for many of my fellow-collegues who have not had FE lectures befor and no experience with any FE software.» (Adequate)
- The assignments were very time-consuming. You could sit for hours without getting anywhere.» (High)
- If the help in FEMAP were better, the workload would be adequate.» (High)
- an other software would be a good thing since more could be learned if less time had to be spent troubleshooting!» (Too high)
- The assignment was heavy due to many small difficulties.» (Too high)
- The assigments took way too much time» (Too high)

13. How was the balance between lectures and assignments?

38 svarande

Poor balance»9 23%
Balance was acceptable»19 50%
Good balance»10 26%

Genomsnitt: 2.02 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- since bad software» (Poor balance)
- As mentioned before, the lecture usually supports the exercise but in this case they could be treated totally seperately. So the lecure was little help getting familiared with FEMAP applications. » (Poor balance)
- Hard to make connection between theory and practical work. The theory where sometimes also quite "deep". » (Poor balance)
- The two goals: basic theory and basic software-handling were not met (i think) in such a short time. (No blame on anybody for the time allowed for one course but still.) Too littletheory was transmitted to understand even only slightly what is to be done in the assignments and the assignments as such were just a procedure to follow (which was ok, considering that there was so little time)» (Poor balance)
- Dont understand what is meant by balance. » (Balance was acceptable)
- Sometimes the lack of help from the assistents was frustrating during the computer assignments. Also the timeconsuming meshing and correcting of errors in the cad models was also unnecessary extensive. I think it would have made sense for us students to model and mesh some parts to gain an understaning of the process, the rest of the parts could have been provided already meshed. This since after a while we just did the same proceedure over and over again without learning anything new, except to overcome the unpractical interface and the many errors in FEMAP.» (Balance was acceptable)

14. How was the total workload this study period?

39 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»16 41%
High»15 38%
Too high»8 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.79

- This and my other exam were on consecutive afternoons which made it all the more tiresome - bad planning» (High)
- I took three courses this period...» (High)
- The other course was maybe my programs hardest and most time-consuming. So FEM got less time than needed.» (Too high)
- I had a course in Cognitive Ergonomics that was way too big» (Too high)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.02

Summarizing questions

15. What is your general impression of the course?

39 svarande

Poor»2 5%
Fair»7 17%
Adequate»15 38%
Good»13 33%
Excellent»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.15

- should be a practical course» (Poor)
- I mistook the cours for an advanced course, the goals gave no hint to it being a basic cours (at least to me, maybe I did not read them carefully)» (Poor)
- The course did unfortunately not meet my expectations!» (Fair)
- good idea for a course which failed on two points: (1) to few answers to problems (2) crappy software» (Adequate)
- The submitted solutions to the homeproblems were really poor and inadequate...often many steps in the calculation were skipped and often the answers were not submitted...POOR» (Adequate)
- Working with FEMAP is both useful and fun if you know what to do, the lecture was okay but doesn"t fit to the course description.» (Adequate)
- Would want more practical work and instructions. The theory isn´,t anything I could really use and therefore not so important. Would have to have a course in only theory to get the picture. » (Adequate)
- Teacher and the assistants were very helpful and caring. I personally felt comfortable to ask questions and was happy with the help given.» (Good)
- A very interesting and good course, that worked very well, with a good teacher!» (Excellent)
- I enjoyed this course.» (Excellent)

16. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- the litterature was great»
- the course book»
- It was fun assignment "topics"»
- The FEMAP tutorials (first computer assignments) were very detailed and informative.»
- exercises and lab-sessions. »
- The overall structure of the course could be preserved, but with more structured and planned calculus exercises/lectures.»
- assignments»
- The course book and the balance between the assignments and the lectures»
- different deadline time for each assignment.»
- Lab assignments.»
- assignments were useful »
- More on functions in FEM-application. Maybe also how solver/FEM-program interracts. »
- the book as support»
- The pratical tutorial (and more of them)»
- More expalnation of the topics»
- I liked the whole course and it should be kept the way it is!»
- the tutors, they were frindly and a good help usually.»

17. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- more teacheres on the exercises»
- The software. Keeps creating problems out of nowhere.»
- Have another task as assignment 3 and have an exam that mirror the lectures and exercises better!»
- Femap the program sucks! There must be other programs on the market that not require that you to everything from the beginning. Eq changing dimension like you to i CAD programs. The assignments are good but the become like shit when the pragrams sucks. I heard that they had the same problem last year and thats so irritating becase we could had learn a lot more if the pragram had been usable.»
- stop using femap and switch to something more user-friendly which also is more "industry-standard"»
- Often many students where stuck at the same problem in the computer assignments. It took very long time before one got help. More teachers should be present or a walkthrough of the problem that many students encountered should be made.»
- Something HAVE to be done to the model in the third computer assignment. Almost everyone got stuck at the same problem and the teachers couldn"t solve it unless they spent hours trying (which would take too long considering everyone needed the help).»
- Type of assignments. I believe assignments were unduly time-consuming.»
- there should be more attractive lectures, and it was better if lectures contained describing the practical applications behind formulas, rather than just writing down the formulas. »
- software»
- More structured and planned calculus exercises/lectures. The assitents during the computer assignments could use more training in FEMAP, also I think it would be good if they had done the exercise by them selves to understand what was most troublesome in the different assignments. Also it would be timeeffective to have some shared explannations on the blackboard with the most common problems that the students encounter. My experience was that it was a couple of steps that everyone had problems with and the assistents must have answered the same questions several times.»
- Maybe less calculus and more computer assignments. Theory should focus more on what is important to think about when using a computer FEM model. ie element shape, acceptable mesh limits...»
- The exam was a lot more difficult than the exam we got to see. All the questions were recognized from the old one, but all of them had a "twist" which required a higher level of understanding. Not that the level was too high, but make sure next years students see our exam as well!»
- clearer direction for student when we did assignment»
- Less detailed theory. More focus on application.»
- the lectures was same as the book.i mean the were no much benefits of attending in lectures »
- The computer software! Femap was one of the worst programs I"ve ever been working with. I consider myself being quite good at computers but this program was really not user-friendly.»
- better flow and similarities between assignments»
- You could perhaps add some more links between the theoretical part and the practical part.»
- The lectures and the person giving the exercises (Was the most incapable exercise tudor I had during 4 years at chalmers, (did many errors and where where boring to listen to) maybe therefore that there wheren´,t many people on the exercises...»
- Theory and problem parts are more oganised»
- Nothing really»
- The goals of the course. I think it would be better to focus on one of them (the software-handling, I gathered that from talk to Thomas A), make it one large or many small assignments and let the sudents (via problems) learn when it is better to use hex20 elements and when to use shell elements, provide additional literature so that they can look up the background if they like. That little theory is absolutely no help when it comes to understanding what one actually does (starting with a buckling analysis, when we have no idea of non-linear or even linear behaviour??), the time could be better used with either going 100%application OR 100%theory if you ask me.»

18. Do you think the course outcome will help you in your job career?

39 svarande

Not at all»1 2%
To little extent»8 21%
To some extent»25 65%
To large extent»4 10%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- It is important to have had the experience to work with this kind of program» (To some extent)
- since the software used in the course did not seem to be used much in the industry it was a bit of a waste. still good to have taken a more pragmatic fem-course though.» (To some extent)
- I doubt I"ll work with myself, but you never know. It is of course however always good to know how it works in general.» (To some extent)
- Since I dont know what career I will have the previous question was difficult to answer, but I have at least a basic understanding of how to use the FE-method and how a FE-software is working.» (To some extent)
- Its allways good to handle new software, even if I do not think that I will come across this software it makes me more flexible in adjusting to something new or figuring out how thinkgs could workin another software. » (To some extent)

19. Additional comments

- The software FEMAP sometimes works in the most mysterious way. For the assignments it should be clearer what is wanted in the report.»
- Exam was surprisingly difficult, and (much better) solutions should be available to recommended exercises. There should AT LEAST be an answer to all exercises, otherwise it can feel like we"re just guessing if we"re unsure. And once again, really, do something about the third computer assignment.»
- More help/guidance on lab assignments.»
- Om man utlovar tentaresultat den 23 december tycker jag att resultaten skall publiceras då och inte som nu den 8 januari. Även rättningen av uppgifterna kunde gått betydligt fortare om examinatorn hade orkat rätta under kursen gång...»
- This is a course I"ll recommend to other students»
- Nothing»
- Thanks for a good course!»
- It was a useful cours for me to freshen up my basic theory knowledge of FE and introduced me to another software, no loss.»

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 2.42
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.71

Kursutvärderingssystem från