|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENKÄTER | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visa resultatHär 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.
Project in Applied Mechanics, TME130Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2009-05-20 - 2009-09-15 Antal svar: 18 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 40% Kontaktperson: Tomas Grönstedt» Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers
Your own effort1. 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.18 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.61 - ... but can"t say it was well spent. » (Around 25 hours/week) 2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?18 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.38 - my specialization"s lectures» (75%) Goals and goal fulfilmentThe 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?18 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.5 - THe goals was chenged due to the problems with the software. One good project became two projects, one bad project on the global wing and one correlation project with unused results.» (The goals are difficult to understand) 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.14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.07 - With experience i would say that the bar war set a bit too high. Why do a correlation test for a material model on a difficult geometry instead of just for example a square piece?» (No, the goals are set too high) Teaching and course administration5. How to you rate the "Design Task 1 + Design Task 2"18 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.72 - I think it was good to get some basic idea of project and the theoritical things behind it. it was good idea.» (Good) 6. How do you rate the final presentation and opposition event?- Very good!»- Since you decided to dismiss the opposition, I think that there should have been more questions to the ones in the team that didn"t do the presentation. But all together, I think it is good to have a oral presentation in english.» - Good, its always good to practice presentations. Interesting to see that other groups had different results. » - Good to have presentation.» - Maybe all the groups should have been listening for all other groups» - Good presentations. Good that there was a time limit.» - I think everyone did it well. » - The group before us was really good! I have noted some new things for me as a fluid member.» - "opposition" » - Fairly good but unfortunately too many simplifications of the problem was made.» - Quite okay. » - There was no real opposition but the presenations were ok, 20 min seemed to be a reasonable amount of time.» - good» - good» 7. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?17 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.58 - Material available almost always to late. Example, CAD-geometry, material parameters.» (Very badly) 8. How do you rate the structure and overall design of the project course- So and so...»- Poor. If you decide to have the same course next year I have some suggestions: present the different specializations in lecture week 7 in the third period, so that the groups are divided before the course starts. Then have all the introductional lectures in the first week and skip the design tasks. You might also think about not having the planning report, but if you do as above it might be a good idea still. If not, it is just ridiculous to do a planning report that makes a plan for three weeks! Make sure that you use a material which the FEA-guys are able to simulate because it is much more interesting to get a relly good correlation between FEA and EMA. And finally, try to find something where there is more interaction between all specializations, because this year the fluid part was barely involved in the project. It was more of a hand-in course for them since they only needed to deliver some parts to the FEA-guys, and there was almost no co-operation between fluid and the other two parts.» - It was ok but teachers good at ANSYS were missing.» - Bad» - To much time on the design tasks. Shorten that part.» - It was good» - The mail fault in the cours was the decition of using ANSYS workbench. It was too simple and basic and if someone had bothered testing it before choosing it it would have shown. ANSYS classic could have been used from the beginning. The connection between EMA and solid was week unfortunately. It didn"t feel like one project but two. It would hav been good to have a solid guy to ask about ansys problems from the beginning» - this course has no planning and compeletely irregular. also another course was not easy (turbulence modeling) and infact i did not have enough time for study that course so if u can make the things more clear it can be better.» - I haven"t had any concrete expectations. Just wanted to learn ANSYS. The idea about cooperation between group is good but during this project we were working mainly individually » - POORLY. » - The intentions were good but better understanding of the problem and the possibilities to solve it using Ansys would have been better.» - It could have been a great course, But Since everything went wrong with the test specimen in EMA and Ansys it became quite poor. Without a teacher in Ansys this program was useless in the beginning. Without the material parameters and the correct geometry the correlation study (EMA) was impossible to succeed. » - It was hard to understand what exactly we were supposed to do from the beginning so the first 3 weeks were quite ineffective.» - good» - very badly planned course. the time was not nearly enough. » 9. If part of it - how do you rate the teaching relating to the fluids specialization4 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2 - Lei was wonderful he did a gerat job I really thankful for his great efford and help. no matter when u go he always helped us. thank u Lei.» (Good) 10. If part of it - how do you rate the teaching relating to the solids specialization11 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.09 - I don"t know too much about this specialization...» (?) 11. If part of it - how do you rate the teaching relating to the EMA specialization9 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.11 - like last time...» (?) 12. How do you rate the efforts of the guest lecturers (Per Heinz, Göran Ronsten)- Good»- Per Heinz-quite poor, not interesting enough. Göran Ronsten- really good!» - did not attend» - Good» - The ice-man was very good, he could have had more time :)» - It could be more better than what we heard!!!» - it is ok» - Good» - Göran was very interesting too listen too. With Per we could almost go directly into the computer lab instead of having the lecture.» - The Per Heinz lecture had already been done in period 1. So nothing new there. Göran Ronsten was quite good. » - I appreciated the lecture of Göran Ronsten, it was interesting and gave a lot of insight to the background of the project. Per Heinz"s lecture could have been better, there was too much detailed information so it was hard to get an overview of what he tried to communicate. » - very good» - ok. interesting.» 13. How do you rate the project planning lecture (Malin Kjellberg)- Well, not that good or interesting..»- Unnecessary since we had a project that lasted for 3 weeks, it felt over ambitious to have a lecture about how to plan a large project.» - did not attend» - Good» - Quite basic things, but probably useful, as maybe someone hasn"t heart the things before» - very well. I liked it.» - I was absent on this part.» - Good, she doesn"t follow here own advice. » - It was ok. Ive heard it before but probably good for those who hadnt.» - Good. Quite funny that she showed how to work in a project and that the teacher of this course seems to have made quite a lot of the errors that she told us to avoid. » - Unfortunately couldn"t go.» - ok» - ok but too long and nothing new. this time could have been used alot better» Study climate14. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?18 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.55 - There was no problem in asking - tho, why ask when you can"t get answers??? » (Very poor) 15. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?18 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.05 - Most of the exchange students don"t work... » (Very poorly) 16. How was the course workload?18 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4 - To much time spent on "try and error" because of no guidance in Ansys.» (High) 17. How was the total workload this study period?18 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.94 - The project took almost all the time.» (High) Summarizing questions18. What is your general impression of the course?18 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.22 - See question 8.» (Poor) 19. What should definitely be preserved to next year?- The specializations. I think it was interesting to do the EMA.»- Presentation and report handin before examinations in other corses. » - The three specializations.» - the procedure is good basic things like design task and also planning report and final report.» - Maybe three parts of project? - shorter introduction, and before final presentation some part: what should be in presentation, what are the expectations, some partial results, what was going wrong generally and can be a source of errors..- it can be one week before presentation to have time for corrections» - The goals? » - Everything (the intentions were good) but more knowledge on the problems that will arise on beforehand considering short time of the project. Maybe the problem was to complex.» - The course should be preserved as it is but much better planed. » - The course had potential, it was an interesting subject but unfortunately there was too many parts of the course that went wrong. A suggestion would be to focus on a few parts of the course and give more attention to them. As mentioned earlier much more attention should have been given to learn the software that was going to be used.» - the line up of fluid-solid-ema working together» 20. What should changed to next year/where do you see opportunity for improvement?- Be sure that we get the support we need and maybe choose a problem that you, the teachers, know at least something about how to solve.»- In case you missed it at question 8: If you decide to have the same course next year I have some suggestions: present the different specializations in lecture week 7 in the third period, so that the groups are divided before the course starts. Then have all the introductional lectures in the first week and skip the design tasks. You might also think about not having the planning report, but if you do as above it might be a good idea still. If not, it is just ridiculous to do a planning report that makes a plan for three weeks! Make sure that you use a material which the FEA-guys are able to simulate because it is much more interesting to get a relly good correlation between FEA and EMA. And finally, try to find something where there is more interaction between all specializations, because this year the fluid part was barely involved in the project. It was more of a hand-in course for them since they only needed to deliver some parts to the FEA-guys, and there was almost no co-operation between fluid and the other two parts.» - Reduce the designtasks to save time for the project. Start project earlier. Let the project groups select what software they want to use for the computations.» - Better knowledge of the computer programs.» - Choose a project of less complexity or make sure there will be better help opportunities in the software to be used.» - More help from Ansys provided and give the materials for students earlier» - Better planning of the project and assessment of the time needed to finish it. Bring in people with competence of the software sooner in the project.» - I think it need a better planning of what we gonna do in project. if everything become more clear it can be better and also not changing the goals and outcome during the work» - like last answer» - Everything... perhaps not the goals.» - The things that went wrong this time has to be fixed until next time. » - clearer goals» - skip ansys workbench (amateur software) do research on what softwares to be used better planning of the course in general max 1-2 weeks of introduction and planning» 21. Additional comments- Really think the project through yourself ahead of the course next time.»- Give som different projects the students can chose between. That would give more motivation.» - Planning is important.» - Wouldn"t recommend this course for the next years students - but then its mandatory so I guess they will endure it! and then maybe not.. » - Good luck with nest years course!» - Good cors, we did not get the solution feed. which vas dificult for menny not used to PBL.(Problem based learning)»
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5%