Visa resultat

Hybrid vehicles and control 2009, TME095

Your own effort

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

34 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		10		29%
Around 20 hours/week»		13		38%
Around 25 hours/week»		7		20%
Around 30 hours/week»		3		8%
At least 35 hours/week»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 2.17

- Assignments took alot of time especially towards the end.» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

34 svarande

0%»		1		2%
25%»		3		8%
50%»		5		14%
75%»		16		47%
100%»		9		26%

Genomsnitt: 3.85

- 100% excersice» (50%)
- Not the initial simulink lectures» (75%)
- But some of the lecturers in the end seemed a bit unnecessary. » (100%)
- Since there were no final exam, I believe that some students skipped a lot of lectures, especially the control lectures.» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		5		14%
The goals are difficult to understand»		2		5%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		20		58%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		7		20%

Genomsnitt: 2.85

- Where were they?» (I have not seen/read the goals)
- They were made during the course.» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- The report was more important than the actuall simulation in matlab.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- The goals needs to be more specified.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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

30 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		6		20%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		23		76%
No, the goals are set too high»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 1.83

- The course level was not appropriate (not master level, a lecturer seriously asked if the students know what a derivation is ...) The tasks and the assignments are formulated very "fluffy", which is not better even though it was on purpose. If this is intended, the criterias and the way of grading have to be obvious and clear.» (No, the goals are set too low)
- The assignment 2 needs too much simulink programming knowledge unfortunately.» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

No, not at all»		1		3%
To some extent»		18		56%
Yes, definitely»		12		37%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.4

- I am not sure.» (To some extent)
- Yes, the exam covered the course well.» (Yes, definitely)
- It was an interesting way of examiantion and the only bad thing was that we didn"t get grades for the midterm.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		4		11%
Some extent»		13		38%
Large extent»		16		47%
Great extent»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 2.41

- The assignment working classes were very important for help with ass 2. The lectures are always hard to have a "red thread" through them all when there is so many different teachers who only know their own subject.» (Some extent)
- More teaching in how to create these different powertrains such as parallel hybrid and maybe some example of how it could be build up.» (Some extent)
- Most of my gained information is from the lectures. » (Large extent)

7. What did you think about the different lecturers/teachers?

- Bo Egardt is a good lecturer but his lessons about fundamental reglerteknik is not applicable to the assignment. His lectures would be much more useful if he taught us about practical programming of simulink instead.»
- Jonas Fredriksson should have been more available at the assignments lectures since he was the best teacher in QSS and seemed to know much about it. Sven: No offence, but you and Daniel didn"t help very much on the assignments, you should hold in the presentations instead, thats where you are best!»

Sven Andersson
34 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Poor»		0		0%
OK»		5		14%
Good»		17		50%
Excellent»		12		35%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 4.2

Jonas Fredriksson
34 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Poor»		0		0%
OK»		9		39%
Good»		9		39%
Excellent»		5		21%
No opinion»		11

Genomsnitt: 3.82

Bo Egardt
34 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Poor»		1		3%
OK»		11		37%
Good»		9		31%
Excellent»		8		27%
No opinion»		5

Genomsnitt: 3.82

Magnus Evertsson
34 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Poor»		1		4%
OK»		8		34%
Good»		8		34%
Excellent»		6		26%
No opinion»		11

Genomsnitt: 3.82

Torbjörn Thiringer
33 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Poor»		1		4%
OK»		6		26%
Good»		10		43%
Excellent»		6		26%
No opinion»		10

Genomsnitt: 3.91

Jens Groot
34 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Poor»		3		12%
OK»		10		40%
Good»		6		24%
Excellent»		6		24%
No opinion»		9

Genomsnitt: 3.6

Daniel Härensten
33 svarande

Very poor»		1		3%
Poor»		3		11%
OK»		6		23%
Good»		9		34%
Excellent»		7		26%
No opinion»		7

Genomsnitt: 3.69

8. What did you think about the assignments?*

- Assignment No. 1 was way too easy compared to assignment No. 2»
- The first one was a little bit too easy»
- »
- Alot about the course was about ass 2. Very good assignment, you learn alot but it must not be so hard just to get the powertrain program working!»
- The criterias for grading were not clear and I had the feeling that the grading is more "intuitive"»
- but the time it is not enough. »
- Good thoughts about the assignments but the set-up could have been better.Since our knowledge in QSS were so poor we didn"t learn that much that we wanted. Maybe you should decrease the advanced-level, not at least at the parallel hybrid and give more helping teaching on that. More defined questions in the assignment would be good, for example specify some limits that the vehicle parameters such as engine torque, size of engine, size of el. motor etc. should work at.»
- They took a lot of time that"s the only problem :)»
- The second assignment was very interesting but hard in programming. Maybe more advices or references on Internet or books could have been interesting to get to find true information, or catalogues...»
- Some QSS examples (on the board, simulink files etc.) of how to design the battery management strategies would be great.»
- Ass 1 was maybe a bit too easy, didn"t learn that much. Assignment 2 was very good, but the control strategies could have been a bit clearer.»

Assignment 1*
34 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Poor»		2		5%
OK»		19		55%
Good»		9		26%
Excellent»		4		11%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.44 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Assignment 2*
34 svarande

Very poor»		1		2%
Poor»		5		14%
OK»		5		14%
Good»		16		47%
Excellent»		7		20%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.67 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

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

Small extent»		8		23%
Some extent»		12		35%
Large extent»		12		35%
Great extent»		2		5%

Genomsnitt: 2.23

- Helped some when programming the parallell hybrid in ass2. Otherwise, nothing. Very expensive book.» (Small extent)
- EXPENSIVE! not so good» (Small extent)
- It was definitely possible to pass the course without the book. Either focus more on the content of the book or consider changing the literature. » (Small extent)
- It was more like trial and errror» (Some extent)
- The book is a bit expensive, most of the information needed is gained from the lectures so there might not be necessary to have the book.» (Some extent)
- The book was complicated to understand» (Some extent)
- For QSS it could be clearer» (Large extent)
- Very interesting book.» (Large extent)
- Maybe to make duplicated lecture notes with the essential of every course» (Great extent)

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

Very badly»		1		2%
Rather badly»		2		5%
Rather well»		21		61%
Very well»		10		29%

Genomsnitt: 3.17

- To low information activity on the homepage sometimes. » (Very badly)
- Something was a little bit late» (Rather well)
- excellent and well-organized» (Very well)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.55

Study climate

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

Very poor»		1		2%
Rather poor»		3		8%
Rather good»		12		35%
Very good»		18		52%
I did not seek help»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.38

- Especially swedish students seemed to be preferred by Daniel Härensten. As an exchange student one could not expect to get proper help from him!!» (Very poor)
- Must have more tutors for ass 2!» (Rather poor)
- More competent people to the assignment!» (Rather poor)
- It was ok but had sometimes to wait long time before getting help on the exercise sessions.» (Rather good)
- help was not uupto the mark during the assignment sessions» (Rather good)
- Maybe Daniel had a little bit to stressed time during the assignments hours. » (Rather good)
- There were many questions and few teachers.» (Rather good)
- students and teachers are open-minded, it was a very interesting experience» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		1		2%
Rather well»		9		26%
Very well»		23		67%
I did not seek cooperation»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 3.7

- Everyone tried to help each other of ass 2» (Very well)
- It is more interesting to work with another student than alone» (I did not seek cooperation)

13. How was the course workload?

Too low»		1		2%
Low»		9		26%
Adequate»		18		52%
High»		6		17%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.85

- Only Assigment 2 caused some workload, but more because of a "fluffy" task formulation than for the simulations itself» (Low)
- The work load is lower than a regular Chalmers course.» (Low)
- Rather low first weeks. Very high last two weeks.» (Adequate)

14. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		1		2%
Low»		5		14%
Adequate»		21		61%
High»		4		11%
Too high»		3		8%

Genomsnitt: 3.08

- Formula student...» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

15. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		7		20%
Adequate»		10		29%
Good»		15		44%
Excellent»		2		5%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- With better set-up and more competent teachersa to the assignments this could be a good course!» (Fair)
- Good concept but alot to improve.» (Fair)
- It felt like the lectures were not really useful for the assignments, especially the controls lectures held by Bo Edgart. It would have been much better the students together with Bo actually designed something useful together in Matlab/Simulink. His lectures were to fuzzy and NEVER applicable to what we did in the assignments.» (Fair)
- good and relevant subject» (Good)
- Since this is a big subject to learn during only 8 weeks not much very deeper knowledge was expected. However more information about existing hybrid vechicles on the market would have been nice to learn more about.» (Good)

16. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

17. What should definitely be changed to next year?

18. Additional comments

* obligatoriska frågor