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.

Vibration Control 2008, TME145

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-01-16 - 2009-02-04
Antal svar: 17
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 53%
Kontaktperson: Viktor Berbyuk»

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.

17 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»10 58%
Around 20 hours/week»5 29%
Around 25 hours/week»1 5%
Around 30 hours/week»1 5%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.58

- Hard to remember.» (At most 15 hours/week)

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

17 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»1 5%
50%»0 0%
75%»6 35%
100%»10 58%

Genomsnitt: 4.47

- The teaching» (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?

17 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»5 29%
The goals are difficult to understand»3 17%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»7 41%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»2 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.35

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.

13 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»3 23%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»10 76%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.76

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

15 svarande

No, not at all»3 20%
To some extent»10 66%
Yes, definitely»1 6%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2

- There where almost nothing about optimal vibration control. 4 of the questions were rigid body-questions » (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

17 svarande

Small extent»5 29%
Some extent»6 35%
Large extent»5 29%
Great extent»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.11

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

17 svarande

Small extent»5 29%
Some extent»6 35%
Large extent»5 29%
Great extent»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.11

- It should be good if there was a course book instead of all notes and powerpoint slides» (Small extent)
- I would like to have more relevant, practical, exercises» (Some extent)
- Already knew most of the course material from previous Applied Mechanics courses. Victor"s lecture notes would really benefit from a proofreading. The English was often hard to understand, there were many long sentences and strange formulations, as well as other mistakes. But if corrected, the lecture notes would be very good indeed.» (Some extent)

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

15 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»1 6%
Rather well»8 53%
Very well»6 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

Study climate

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

16 svarande

Very poor»1 6%
Rather poor»2 12%
Rather good»5 31%
Very good»6 37%
I did not seek help»2 12%

Genomsnitt: 3.37

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

17 svarande

Very poorly»1 5%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»6 35%
Very well»9 52%
I did not seek cooperation»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

- ... as always» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

17 svarande

Too low»2 11%
Low»4 23%
Adequate»10 58%
High»1 5%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.58

- Much of the course material had been covered in previous Dynamics courses.» (Low)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

17 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 5%
Adequate»10 58%
High»5 29%
Too high»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- - I had 3 courses... » (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

16 svarande

Poor»3 18%
Fair»6 37%
Adequate»3 18%
Good»4 25%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- It was really hard knowing what to expect of the exam beforehand. We did not have ANY problems examples in addition to the five optimization examples.» (Poor)
- Well... Noting really new in this course except the optimization part. » (Poor)
- Most of the course material was repetition of old knowledge for us from Applied Mechanics. The only new stuff was bang-bang control and Lagrange"s multiplier (plus variational calculus and LABView for some of us).» (Fair)
- Very nice to learn some optimization, but that was about all that was new (Applied Mechanics-student).» (Fair)
- Det var en bra kurs som sammanfattade kunnskaper från mina föregående studier.» (Good)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- the Labs»
- The Lab-sessions»
- The lab projects were interesting.»
- Lagranges multiplies, Bang-bang control, Variational calculus (those who hadn"t used it before certainly benefited from it)»
- The guest lecture»
- the title of the course»
- Critical review...»
- paper review»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- more excercises a little higher workload»
- The structure of th lectures. Clearer goals for each lecture.»
- Labview structure»
- Considering the contents of the lectures and the "additional exercises for written exam" I got the impression that variational calculus was the most important part of the course. But the written exam didn"t match this assumption at all. That was a bit surprising.»
- Lessen the amount of repetition (of newton mechanics, equations of motion, Lagranges eq.) Many of the lectures gave the impression of being a guest lecture from a professor talking about his research. It was very hard to know what from these lectures really was part of the course.»
- More practical, relevant, examples»
- The students need to have problems to work through before the exam that reflect what they are expected to know before the exam! Even though the examiner explicitly stated "this is not a course in stability", stability criteriums played a big role in the exam. Lagrange equations and solving EOM is repetition from previous courses and should not have a big part in VC.»
- More control less mechanics. Drop the Labview introduction since it was just a lot of advertising from NI. Waste of time.»
- Since it was my last study period at Chalmers, I appreciated the softer tempo that was the result of large parts of the course being already known to me from previous Dynamics-courses, but I don"t know if that is the intent of the course plan.»
- A course book! The course has to be more focoused at optimal control instead of rigid body. More exercise problems. »

16. Additional comments

- I would prefer morning lectures since other teachers tend to have afternoon work»
- Prior to the exam, it was very hard to know what to expect. It turned out that something like the first 4 out of 5 exam problems could have been taken straight out of exams in either of the Applied Mechanics-courses Rigid Body Dynamics or Fundamental/Applied Structural Mechanics. The exam seemed to be on the whole Dynamics-track of Applied Mechanics rather than on Vibration Control. I don"t know what the plan was but that is how it seemed to me. I can"t decide whether this is a good or bad thing, however. I didn"t mind it though.»
- The paper review was quite good, but what is supposed to do get max points out of it must be more clear. How was it possible to get 10 points by npt doing the whole review, just parts of it?»

Kursutvärderingssystem från