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.

Course evaluation HPSE, MEN 120

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-03-17 - 2009-03-27
Antal svar: 30
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 63%
Kontaktperson: Klas Andersson»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers

Your own effort and qualifications

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

30 svarande

At most 15 hours»2 6%
About 20 hours»12 40%
About 25 hours»12 40%
At least 30 hours»4 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

- i forgot» (About 20 hours)
- Much more the last 2 weeks» (About 20 hours)
- Most of the time was spent troubleshooting the plant models. little time spent reviewing class material or reading the text» (About 25 hours)
- Learning Ebsilon obviously took lots of time, but I think it was worth it. It did seem to take on a life of its own, and removed some focus away from learning all the other interesting details covered in the course.» (At least 30 hours)

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

30 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»3 10%
75%»16 53%
100%»11 36%

Genomsnitt: 4.26

- think so» (75%)
- I found it to be informative » (75%)
- I miss one lecture» (100%)
- Bra och intressanta föreläsningar. Tycker dock inte att det avspeglade sig i tentan.» (100%)

3. Do you consider that you hade sufficient knowledge to read this course?

30 svarande

Yes, absolutely»26 86%
In part, but I struggled in places»4 13%
No»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.13

- Nearly absolutely.» (Yes, absolutely)

Course goals

4. How understandable are the course goals?

30 svarande

I have not seen/read the course goals»7 23%
The goals are difficult to understand»1 3%
The goals give some guidance, but could be more clear»11 36%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to»11 36%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- Very vague course goals... Hence the disappointment with the theory part of the exam. We did not know what to study on. We didn"t know the details of gasification and alternative combustion processes was a main part of this course...» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- Med tanke på teoridelen på tentan tycker jag att målen delvis borde skrivas om/förtydligas.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be more clear)
- I missed the first couple lectures so it is difficult for me to comment» (The goals give some guidance, but could be more clear)
- kurs-pm är bra. instruktioner för projektet är få och dåliga/obetydliga. en bra genomgång med tydliga riktlinjer så att man tidigt får en översikt. nu kändes det som att man stundtals fick tjata på övningsledarna för att veta vad som skulle göras.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be more clear)
- i learnt from the course, i am happy , but information about software zero, it would be great if some basic notes or guideline provided in the start of course with examples, this was lacking in other courses in chalmers also, 3 pages given r useless » (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to)

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

26 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasnoable»26 100%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- It might make sense to state directly that one intent is to become competent in the use of Ebsilon.» (Yes, the goals seem reasnoable)

teaching methods

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

30 svarande

small extent»0 0%
some extent»9 30%
large extent»14 46%
great extent»7 23%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- For my average learning but not for the exam» (large extent)
- I found the lectures to be engaging and stimulating for questions.» (large extent)
- Jan kjerstads lektion kändes som gammal skåpmat liksom lite av gästföreläsningarna. Lars från vattenfall var fantastiskt bra.» (large extent)

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

30 svarande

small extent»1 3%
some extent»8 26%
large extent»16 53%
great extent»5 16%

Genomsnitt: 2.83

- A lot of errors in the book and since the errata list was incomplete ( eg "incorrect value of h7")a lot of time was spent on trying to understand how to do the calculations. » (small extent)
- Good for calculation exercises» (some extent)
- Very good book and even better that we could borrow it from you.» (large extent)
- I found the test to be very direct and factual...condensed. Enough to understand surface details of a power plant» (large extent)
- jätteschyst att få låna boken!» (large extent)

8. Did you find powerpoint presentations to be helpful?

30 svarande

small extent»0 0%
some extent»10 33%
large extent»17 56%
great extent»3 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.76

- Some were better some worse, quite broad span.» (some extent)
- The powerpoint slides appeared to be of great important for the exam....» (some extent)
- They were useful during the lectures but difficult to use when studying for the exam as there were so many. It was also very helpful when I had the lecture notes with me during the class to add comments.» (large extent)
- power point presentations are ok, but one should restrict the "allowed" number of pages. 60-90 slides are NOT ok.» (large extent)

9. What was your overall impression of the lectures?

30 svarande

Excellent»4 13%
Good»25 83%
Moderate»1 3%
Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.9

- It´,s a excellent course and I´,ve learned a lot. It was fun to use ebsilon too. Except for the exam. I was really disapointed since it was not what I thought was important. » (Excellent)
- Informative and worth attending.» (Good)

10. What was your overall impression of the case study?

30 svarande

Excellent»4 13%
Good»20 66%
Moderate»4 13%
Poor»2 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.13

- A good way to learn a lot. » (Excellent)
- It was pretty intense, lots of detailed learning, and broad overview type learning too, but with so much to do, there was less time for the broad view. Although I"m not sure how this might work since we used all the alotted time, but maybe a due date of 4-5 days earlier would allow more review time in preparation for the exam.» (Excellent)
- Lite dåligt med instruktioner för hur mycket som skulle inkluderas i rapporten och i den muntliga redovisningen. Rapporten borde gett bonuspoäng till tentan.» (Good)
- i learnt from the course, i am happy , but information about software zero, it would be great if some basic notes or guideline provided in the start of course with examples, this was lacking in other courses in chalmers also, 3 pages given r useless » (Good)
- Too much work to do. And I"m still struggling in it.» (Good)
- Maybe it should be more important for the final grade. Sometimes it was not very clear what we were expected to do» (Good)
- Går att styra upp och göra tydligare. Trots ett digert underlag föreligger fortfarande stora oklarheter, i synnerhet för rapportskrivningen. Alldeles för få handledare på handledningstillfällena. Fungerar inte att bara ha en till två personer när vi är så många. Tips: Ju tydligare tes, desto mindre hjälp torde krävas. OBS De handledare som är där gör ett jättebra jobb!» (Good)
- Could have been more guidance on hiw one is suppose to do a casse study properly from a professional point of view» (Good)
- It was much job that wasnt" relevant for the course.» (Good)
- Again, i missed the first exercise lecture, but I did not fully understand the purpose of the case study. By the end I interpreted the project as if our group was a consultant company and conducting an analysis to make a recommendation to a client who is interested in investing in a power plant.» (Good)
- I think it is useless to model another coal fired power plant after nordjylandsverket. Instead, it could be nice to model other kinds of power plants, ie geothermal power plants.» (Moderate)
- Simuleringarna var lärorika och roliga.Instruktioner var ok. Riktlinjer måste vara tydligare!!! » (Moderate)
- The learning goal of the case have to be clearer. I have no idea what I was supposed to learn exept modelling in Ebsilon (which was exellent experience by the way!).» (Poor)

11. What did you think of the study visit at Nordjyllandverket?

27 svarande

Very interesting»8 29%
Fairly interesting»9 33%
Not interesting»10 37%

Genomsnitt: 2.07

- Did not vistit» (?)
- I was sick. » (?)
- To bad we couldn´,t hear what he said. Next year you might consider taking the late ferry back. » (Very interesting)
- Time is too short.» (Very interesting)
- But was ruined by bad planning.» (Very interesting)
- But we had only 50 minutes on site. Not good at all. If the time was limited i would rather have gone to a nearby swedish power plant or to the chalmers plant.» (Very interesting)
- It was great to visit such a facility, but as it was rushed and difficult to communicate with the tour guide I found I was unable to really take advantage of the opportunity. Also, I think that it was a bit early in the term. I think I had not fully grasped the details of a coal-fired CHP plant and was a bit unprepared.» (Very interesting)
- More time is needed at the visit.» (Very interesting)
- Could be improved with headsets to hear the tour guide.» (Very interesting)
- I would rather go to some place closer and get a good look at the plant instead. Now it was just rushing through the plant and you could not hear what the man said. It felt like a waste of time and money.» (Fairly interesting)
- but not enough time!!» (Fairly interesting)
- If I could have heard what he said....very interesting!» (Fairly interesting)
- Lucky I had eyes to see, but I could not hear a thing!» (Fairly interesting)
- För lite tid. Svårt att höra» (Not interesting)
- waste of time & money. more time needed in plant to see and in small groups with instructors and refreshment » (Not interesting)
- It could have been interesting if we had stayed longer and with a better guide.» (Not interesting)
- A long journey for a short visit» (Not interesting)
- We could not hear anything of the guide"s speach» (Not interesting)
- 12 timmars restid för 1 timmes studiebesök är inte okej! det borde finnas liknande teknik att se på som ligger närmare gbg. genomgång på färjan hade varit bra.» (Not interesting)

12. How well did the course administration and homepage work?

30 svarande

Excellent»7 23%
Good»19 63%
Moderate»4 13%
Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.9

- Maybee a bit messy homepage.» (Good)
- I never had any problems with it.» (Good)
- Divide the files into maps, lectruse, cuse study, litterature etc. » (Good)
- Går att bli betydligt bättre. Kom ut med PP-bilderna i tid och använd kurshemsidan som informationskanal. Man skall ej behöva vara på föreläsningar som ej är obligatoriska för att få relevant information. Exempel: Man skall inte behöva höra sig runt bland kompisar för att veta var man skall vara på presentationen till exempel. Skriv vilka förutsättningar som gäller för tentan innan, går ju inte att hitta på sånt (50/50) när man får tentan i handen!!!» (Moderate)

Teaching staff and guest lecturers

13. Please rate Filip Johnssons lecture

29 svarande

Excellent»2 6%
Good»15 51%
Moderate»11 37%
Poor»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 2.37

- The presentation seemed a bit disorganized but generally informative» (Good)
- Nothing new.» (Moderate)
- Needs to be more enthusiastic and really focus on the parts that may be interesting for the student, not just standing there mumbeling.» (Moderate)

14. Please rate Klas Anderssons lectures

30 svarande

Excellent»13 43%
Good»16 53%
Moderate»1 3%
Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.6

- Good at explaining. A lot of comparisons with the reality. » (Excellent)
- Klas is one of the best lecturers I have had at Chalmers. Keeping it to a good mix of examples, powerpoint and talking. Keep it up Klas and don´,t get "mossig".» (Excellent)
- Very clear and easy to follow. » (Excellent)
- material was generally presented with clarity and lectures stimulated discussion/questions» (Good)

15. Please rate Jan Kjaerstads lectures

28 svarande

Excellent»2 7%
Good»13 46%
Moderate»9 32%
Poor»4 14%

Genomsnitt: 2.53

- Not present» (?)
- Large amounts of information in a short period of time. Maybe went to fast to allow opportunities for discussion» (Good)
- A lot of old stuff. Since Sustainable Energy Futures is mandatory for MPSES students. » (Moderate)
- A bit to much powerpoint slides with diagrams. Needs to cut down to the MOST important information.» (Moderate)

16. Please rate the guest lectures by Lars Strömberg

29 svarande

Excellent»15 51%
Good»12 41%
Moderate»2 6%
Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.55

- Very interesting lectures.» (Excellent)
- I can´,t find words, excellent will have to do.» (Excellent)
- Intressant och mycket lättlyssnat!» (Excellent)
- Very stimulating and gave good overview of Vattenfall» (Good)

17. Please rate the guest lecture by Pål Efsing (nuclear)

26 svarande

Excellent»7 26%
Good»15 57%
Moderate»4 15%
Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.88

- Missed that one» (?)
- Äntligen lite info om kärnkraft. Kul att få veta att man är "efterlängtad" inom det området också, fast man inte är kärnfysiker.» (Excellent)
- Much of the material was review from Sustainable Energy Futures but it was interesting to have the perspective of a highly pro-nuclear engineer.» (Good)

18. Please rate Nicklas Simonssons Guest lecture

26 svarande

Excellent»4 15%
Good»16 61%
Moderate»6 23%
Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.07

- Bra att få "riktig" info att programmet man använder faktiskt används ute i den verkliga världen.» (Excellent)
- Fun to see that Vattenfall use Ebsilon» (Good)
- Gave a good lecture of the practical and commercial use of Ebsilon and other software packages.» (Good)

19. Please rate the tutoring during the case study

29 svarande

Excellent»7 24%
Good»15 51%
Moderate»7 24%
Poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Ibland tror man att hela kursen är totalt sponsrad av Vattenfall. Det finns många andra intressanta företag inom energivärlden, kunde vara kul att få någon annan föreläsning av något annat företag än alla med vattenfall. » (Good)
- Very different level between the tutors, they diden´,t have the same information which in some cases was very annoying. One said something was good and on the next lecture someone else told us it was completely wrong.» (Good)
- Sometimes more people were needed.» (Good)
- There seemed to be some inconsistency between the tutors but in general they were helpful to complete the tasks.» (Good)
- Had to wate too long to get help.» (Moderate)
- Den handledning vi fått har varit bra, men alldeles för få att hjälpa till. » (Moderate)
- Varied Ebsilon skills between the totors. Very helpful outside lecture times.» (Moderate)

Study climate

20. What did you think about the work load in the case study?

30 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»8 26%
High»15 50%
Too high»7 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.96

- Since it was Approved/Not Approved, no bouns point and we didn´,t have a clue about the learning goals we put in the least possible effort to focus on KVM071.» (Adequate)
- I think it could have more value in the final result» (High)
- I synnerhet i slutet.» (High)
- Because of model troubleshooting I found it to be quite heavy, but I feel that the gain justifies the work load.» (High)
- I would almost say too high, but stretching is a good way to learn more.» (High)
- You ask for to much when its just a pass/not pass task. Considering the time it took i dont think an exam is needed. Would, as said earlier, want more teaching on how a case study is suppose to be done.» (Too high)
- Efterarbetet tar alldeles för mycket tid, överhuvudtaget har själva rapportskrivandet tagit för mycket tid. Nästa gång, ge ut en teknisk rapport så man har något att gå på. the writing manual talar inte om HUR man skall skriva en teknisk rapport så som ni understrykler att det skall vara, den säger bara att en teknisk rapport skall vara säljande. JAg hade hellre modellerat mer!:)» (Too high)

21. What did you think about the overall work load in the course?

29 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»14 48%
High»12 41%
Too high»3 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.62

- Since the Case study took up most of the time the same comments apply.» (?)
- but exam just three days after case study due date made work load for exam to high , » (Adequate)
- I found that the work load was not really well balanced (i.e. to much work at the end)» (High)
- Since there wasn´,t any questions on the exam concerning the case study it was like learning two courses in one. » (High)
- A bit to high, with al the work i dont think an exam is needed» (High)

22. How was the work load this study period?

29 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»2 6%
Adequate»8 27%
High»14 48%
Too High»5 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.75

- I only took one course. » (Low)
- The other course I took was quite light so the term was manageable» (Adequate)
- Due to KVM071 which was not out of this world.» (Too High)
- Allt skall göras i slutet i alla kurser. försök samordna mer så inte alla slutinlämningar hamnar i LV 7.» (Too High)

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

30 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»2 6%
Rather good»12 40%
Very Good»15 50%
I did not seek help»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- Tudelad fråga. Komma upp och fråga på icke lektionstid: Mycket bra. Bra svar och hjälpsamma. På lektionstid: Bra svar och hjälpsamma, men svårt att få hjälp (för få personer).» (Rather good)
- fredrik norman har varit väldigt hjälpsam» (Rather good)
- Not enough time during lecture time! (case study)» (Rather good)
- no problem» (Very Good)
- I never felt any hesitation to ask questions.» (Very Good)

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

30 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»6 20%
Very good»24 80%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- no problem» (Very good)
- There was three in our group, so this made organizing and delegating a bit more difficult but in general it was good.» (Very good)

Summarizing questions

25. What is your overall impression of the course?

30 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»4 13%
Good»18 60%
Excellent»8 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

- Tyckte inte boken var bra, mycket fel och lite dåliga förklaringar.» (Fair)
- I think that the exam was a disaster and the theory on it did not represent what the course was about. We should have revised some kind of recomendations concerning the theory in beforehand. » (Good)
- The case study was the big downside (and the layout on the exam). Clearer learning goals on the case study and expanding the countris so that in a half class no group have the same. Bring in USA, Brazil, China, India, Russia, Canada, Lithuania etc.» (Good)
- Intressant område och bra föreläsningar och kul att den samkörs med Elmeroths kurs. Ger olika djup, bra och intressant.» (Good)
- for me ok , as far as if it is advance level, maybe i have done some course that"s y i have feeling like that» (Excellent)
- The study case was very interesting.» (Excellent)
- One of the best courses i taken on Chalmers, but i the exam... you already know.» (Excellent)
- I feel I am reasonably knowledgeable in the area of fossil fuel based power plant technology and design and I am comfortable using Ebsilon» (Excellent)
- Verkligen bra kurs!» (Excellent)

26. What improvements can be made to next year?

- En tenta som mer avspeglar vad man gått igenom på kursen. Teoridelen var skum. »
- The study trip to Nordjyllandsverket could be better arranged. The exam was very different from the content of the lectures »
- The visit to Nordjyllandvaerket should be longer (2 days) or cancelled because I found that travelling during 6hours to see a power plant during 45min is almost useless (moreover, it was not possible to hear the guide) There should be at least one lecture or one real practicing exercise for ebsilon (to focus on all the usefull units for the case study) Concerning the examination, the level should more reflect the lectures level (but you have already noticed that)»
- The exam. Strange and irrelevant theoretical questions that was too time consuming.»
- A better introduction to Ebsilon before we start the projects. Some introduction to how the program works would be good and I think that this would save a lot of time for both the students and the teachers.»
- An exam with more relevant questions which reflects the course material better»
- no idea, may be new books , i want to keep it»
- Fler handledare! Kommunicera med studenterna så de vet vad som förväntas av dem! Använd kurshemsidan som kommunikationscentral.»
- Less work load, no study visit or modify it, modify exam (really 50-50 theory-calculations instead of 56-44).»
- Exam, study visit - time on site - and case study teaching on haw to study a country/regon in detail. I would realy like to be good at that. Would have liked to know more about distric heating. And the exam.»
- A better study visit, smaller case or more relevant. Make a better exam!»
- Clarification on the purpose the Case study so that aim and approach can be more easily identified»
- Include more "sustainable" power plants : hydro, geothermal steam power plants, why not even solar power plants ?»
- WRITE A GOOD EXAM. The theory questions were not clearly defined at all. The whole class "missed" the aim of this course, since everyone was extremely surprised about the theory part.»
- -Ställ inte tentafrågor på enkilda slides!!!! Om man inte varit på föreläsningen skall kunskapen kunna inhämtas från kursmaterial. - Förutsätt inte att saker och ting är självklara, förklara eller berätta. Det går inte att komma ifrån att det är miss i kommunikationen från er angående tentan.»
- tentan! för svår teoridel»
- Some way to encourage problem solving practice as we go along. I did lots on the weekend before the exam, and learned quite a bit in that experience. In that time, I also found details (at least one) that seemed in opposition to the posted errata. A problem solving forum might make sense to have to improve this situation, maybe 2-3 times in the course. Maybe make it optional, but the intent would be to assign 3-4 problems per session, and have at least 2 course tutors do these also, comparing their results with each other, arriving at consensus, then reviewing with class during the problem solving forum. This would build a base of reference problems that should be error free.»
- The Nordjyllandverket tour.»
- The exam. The theory part was to hard and the calculations were to easy. »

27. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Projektet.»
- Case studyn i Epsilon, den var givande.»
- The case study.»
- The case study is really interesting.»
- The case study and the study visit.»
- Guest lectures»
- Guest lectures by Lars Strömberg»
- course»
- The study visit and the case study»
- Lars Strömberg and Klas Andersson!»
- Study case»
- Case:et, försök dock att inte ha inlämning alltför sent. Påverkar studierna till tentan, i synnerhet då tidig tenta föreligger. Bra att använda Ebsilon samt ta in de olika gästföreläsarna. Ger ett friskt inslag i vardagen.»
- Guest lectures»
- Klas andersson, and Lars Strömberg, Ebsilon - very good to use a program used by the industry and rare. Thank you for a great course. »
- -Field trip -group presentations -guest lecturors»
- Case study was good, perhaps should be graded.»
- Modelleringen och studiebesök på Nordjyllandsverket, fast med hörlurar. Case study också men med mindre fokus på rapport, även om det är bra med rapport.»
- Everything, but maybe with the exception of one of Jan"s lectures. If his material was condensed for lecture presentation into one session, but the complete material was provide for reference, it could be a better balance.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från