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.

MPRSS: RRY045 Numerical Methods in Radio and Space Science Sp3, 08/09

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-03-17 - 2009-04-03
Antal svar: 5
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Arto Heikkilä»
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.

5 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»1 20%
Around 20 hours/week»3 60%
Around 25 hours/week»0 0%
Around 30 hours/week»1 20%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.2

- 2x4h week (lectures + exercises) 4.5 full days for the home exam» (At most 15 hours/week)
- I had personal interest in wavelets and tracking using Kalman filter so I spend some time reading about them. for the first part of the course I also spend some time getting familiar with MATLAB and MATLAB programming.» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

5 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»2 40%
100%»3 60%

Genomsnitt: 4.6

- skipped the thursday exercises during part 1/3» (75%)
- I attended all classes. » (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?

5 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»1 20%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»4 80%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- the goal of the last two parts were vague and maybe alessandro could be more on the side of application as he did it in last session in the beginning to draw the attentions more right from the beginning!!!» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- Actually they match pretty much.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- valid for all three parts» (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.

5 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»5 100%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- it was quite noce to get into MATLAB and I enjoyed» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Although I did not have astronomy background, I could understand almost all of the course. » (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- valid for all three parts (sidenote for part 1: whatever happened to sorting?)» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

4 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»2 50%
Yes, definitely»2 50%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- The examination type was terrible and unfair and could be held during each teacher lecture period instead of all at the end, because we learned something doing these projects more than attending the course itself.» (?)
- for parts 2 and 3, yes for part 1, some of the stated goals weren"t part of the exam (which is fine, since a lot of different things were covered in part 1 and it cannot *all* be assessed [e.g. differential equations, Monte Carlo methods, ...])» (To some extent)
- About the exam I should mention that I think if every part of the course had its exam at the last session of that part it would be more convenient. Instead of a overall exam at the end. » (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

5 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»0 0%
Large extent»4 80%
Great extent»1 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- the kalman filter part was not presented well, just bunch of series of utter none sense equations!!! and also the wavelet part was presented not good for those who are new to the concept of FFT. I learned it because of my own effort not the lectures I attended» (Large extent)
- Alseeandros teaching helped me as lot. Cathy"s teaching was quite good. Rudigers lectures was to small help for me. Too mush mathematical derivation.» (Large extent)
- all parts were well taught» (Large extent)
- I think the teaching was great especially Alessandro put so much heart and effort into the teaching and it was so much hard not to learn in his class. » (Great extent)

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

5 svarande

Small extent»2 40%
Some extent»2 40%
Large extent»1 20%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.8

- I think the course book was not attractive enough to draw at least my attention despite I had the book. I used internet based sources instead like Stanford open course ware and some webpages related to the materials» (Small extent)
- I did not use the course book.» (Small extent)
- part1: good book (especially for reference), but of course overkill for the course contents, i found the PDF lecture notes much more useful for the contents covered part2: the PDF lecture notes could have been a bit more elaborate (some more explanations instead of just bullet points) - right now they merely augment the lecture but do not provide enough guidelines if one didn"t attend part3: good notes, augment the lecture very well, but again would be problematic if people didn"t attend the classes (in general: i think that attending the classes for part 2 and 3 is very important to "get it", for part 1 it is OK to miss out a bit)» (Some extent)
- I did not really have time to read the Numerical Recipe. But Caty"s note was a good abstract of the important part of the book. In Kalman filter I think we needed more practical book which says some thing about how to implement Kalman filter. And in Wavelet Alessandro"s note was the gist of the wavelet concept and was so precious. » (Large extent)

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

5 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»4 80%
Very well»1 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- One should not expect a magical outcome from 7 week course so not a clear thing can be said» (Rather well)
- I think we should had some mandatory hand in assignment too. » (Rather well)
- see above for comments on hand-outs/course literature web page for part 1 was very good, old exams and examples, and code administration also good, although e-mail should have been used to make students aware of the fact that they"ll have to schedule the oral exam / get the exam question for part 2/3 in person (if you did send a mail, ignore this, i probably already deleted it again)» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

5 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»2 40%
Rather good»0 0%
Very good»3 60%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- I think because of the bombardment of information we received we didn"t come to the question at all because of not digesting the materials well» (Rather poor)
- All of the three teachers were generous in that. » (Very good)
- same for all parts» (Very good)

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

5 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»3 60%
Very well»2 40%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- in the exam week actually we worked together and sound nice.» (Rather well)

11. How was the course workload?

5 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»4 80%
High»1 20%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- I think just the exam week was too much of the workload. » (Adequate)
- normal workload (low-ish) during the lecture period, compensated by an time-consuming take home exam and a adequate oral exam ... so adequate in the grand scheme of things (i"ve had much worse)» (Adequate)
- all parts were necessary to know I think but not in 7 weeks as every body knows» (High)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

5 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»2 40%
High»1 20%
Too high»2 40%

Genomsnitt: 4

- quite a subjective (depends on choice of courses, personal annoyance threshold, work-next-to-uni siutation, and what one is used to) question, so i"ll go with adequate as that"s how I felt it in the grand scheme of things - i"ve had worse in relation to ECTS given, adequate describes it well» (Adequate)
- The other course of mine was the main reason for that.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

5 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»0 0%
Good»4 80%
Excellent»1 20%

Genomsnitt: 4.2

- part 1 - good overview of numerical techniques part 2 - basic concepts explained well, but it seems a bit too compressed (subjective again I guess) (normally, it"s nice to have a short sort-of "recap" the next lecture, but since this was only very brief, there was no "next lecture") part 3: well taught, handouts, exercises and lecturing went well - but does require people to attend classes» (Good)
- The only flaw of the course was its examination week which can be corrected by splitting up the exam as I mentioned before. » (Excellent)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Cathy"s part were totally nice but I wish it was lengthier. »
- Apart from exam any thing else. »
- The exercise classes were great.»
- the course, i think it"s a very good overview over numerical methods and gives some ideas how one can tackle numerical problems later on. also, during the lecture period, it"s somewhat laid back, depending on the choice of other courses/work that makes this period relaxed - students love that! :)»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- the second part"s teacher or the material should be changed »
- Splitting up the exam.»
- The examination, especially Cathy"s part. Her home exam was difficult to understand. Difficult to know what we were supposed to answer. The examination was too extensive. Cathy"s part should be a project in the middle of the study period instead. Now all the work was concentrated to the last week, when we have much to do in our other courses as well. »
- part 2: more elaborate PDF notes on Kalman filtering / Baysian inference (especially considering that the part feels a bit "crammed" right now) general: use email to tell people to be presnet in person to register for oral / pick up part2/3 exam Better: Make p2 / p3 available online (although I tink p2 might actually have been). Maybe also internet based sign-ups for the oral, but I don"t know how feasible this is.»

16. Additional comments

- I should really thank all the teachers in this course I had a great time in Radio and Space Science department last quarter. »
- At Alessandros part a home exam worked well but for the others a project work is much better. I learned a lot during home exam but it was too late too learn all this.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från