Visa resultat

Joining Technology 2009, MMK210

Your own effort

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

18 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		4		22%
Around 20 hours/week»		9		50%
Around 25 hours/week»		4		22%
Around 30 hours/week»		1		5%
At least 35 hours/week»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.11

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

18 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		2		11%
50%»		1		5%
75%»		5		27%
100%»		10		55%

Genomsnitt: 4.27

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		1		5%
The goals are difficult to understand»		0		0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		5		27%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		12		66%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

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

17 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		0		0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		17		100%
No, the goals are set too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2

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

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		5		29%
Yes, definitely»		9		52%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		3		17%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

- Last question was unnecessary complicated in terms of having to understand the welded structure.» (To some extent)
- By the fact that we work a lot with the cousre through labs etc the exam should not go deeper in knowledge. Perfect as today!» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		1		5%
Some extent»		3		17%
Large extent»		10		58%
Great extent»		3		17%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

- I must praise Johans and Lars-Eriks lectures, they contributed to a very high degree to my learning» (Great extent)

7. Please judge the lectures and content on Welding techniques

18 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		2		11%
Good»		14		77%
Very good»		2		11%
Did not participate»		0

Genomsnitt: 3

- It was hard to get structured noted from the lectures.» (Fair)
- the content was good but the way it was presented with only slides was a bit boring. suggestion, bring equipment to lectures and maybe use the blackboard more.» (Good)
- Very good contents, interesting and "alright" powerpoints.» (Good)
- The book is not very deep. It often states that this is how it is but fails to explin WHY that is.» (Good)
- Not easy to get information back if we missed a lecture, too many "extra-things" which are not on the slides.» (Good)

8. Please judge the lectures and content on Physical metallurgy

18 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		3		17%
Good»		8		47%
Very good»		6		35%
Did not participate»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.17

- A higher paste for the lecturing.» (Good)
- I would have liked a powerpoint based lecture style or at least a lecture style less dependent on notes. However as that was decided by the class this is not a criticism on the lecturer.» (Good)
- Here I got structured notes! Loved it! However, information at day one about what pages to read before each lecture would have been appreciated.» (Very good)
- The type of lecture with writing on the Black board was very good, the clear structure Johan had on the writing made it easy to follow. » (Very good)

9. In the beginning of the course, you were able to affect the rest of the lectures on physical metallurgy by voting for either "black board" or "Powerpoint". Please indicate your preference.

Black board teaching»		9		50%
Powerpoint teaching»		9		50%
No preference»		0		0%
Did not participate»		0

Genomsnitt: 1.5

- Good method where you have time to think and discuss. The notes were ecxecellent!» (Black board teaching)
- Could be combined with overhead pictures or some slides showing important plots. » (Black board teaching)
- This is very good. I am not a fan of powerpoint. In black board teaching all the importent parts are in, good help for me to wright by my hand. a very good help. the powerpoint has a tendency to be very many slides and not given the students the time to look on the slides it is , according to me, a why to just show slides in a very fast way.» (Black board teaching)
- More explanation of what is written in the book.» (Powerpoint teaching)
- I got very bored by the black board teaching, could not concentrate and then I stopped going to the lectures.» (Powerpoint teaching)

10. Please judge the lectures and content on Fatigue design

18 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		3		20%
Good»		11		73%
Very good»		1		6%
Did not participate»		3

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- Seemed very rushed. I have not taken any fatige or mechanical courses before and would like a more close explenation of this part. Mabye with 4 more hours.» (Fair)
- Good with examples, that was needed, but the lectures were quite confusing, all of the class didn"t take the course "fatigue design" so we didn"t have the basics, could have been explained a bit more.» (Fair)
- Short part. The lectures were good but the material was bad. More problems with solutions. The SSHB handout was hard to read in some places. It feels like this part should be larger or smaller, either cover the field in more detail with more time or less with lower demands on learning outcome.» (Fair)
- Hard to keep consentration all the time» (Good)
- All of the three lectures was good. But you can tell that two of them are working at chalmers they where the best lectures.» (Good)
- I missed the second and most important lecture. I wish there were more handed-out material and examples that could help me in my studies.» (Did not participate)
- The material that was put on the course home page was difficult to make use of when trying to understand the fatigue questions on the exam» (Did not participate)

11. How did you experience the Matlab assignment?

Poor»		1		5%
Fair»		4		23%
Good»		7		41%
Very good»		5		29%

Genomsnitt: 2.94

- Sorry to say so, but it didn"t give me very much, it felt very theoretical.» (Poor)
- I think it was repeating itself too much. You could have reduced the number of graphs you needed to produce and still compare the same things. It took a lot of time to edit all the pictures and that was very boring...» (Fair)
- Would preferably be later in the course, and more clear on what should be covered in the report for better grades. » (Good)
- Good that one week was completely devoted to this. (Even though the reason being that all lecturers were away skiing perhaps was not the best reason for doing so)» (Very good)

12. How did you experience the Welding Technology lab session?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		2		11%
Good»		8		44%
Very good»		8		44%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- It took very long time and gave little in return. Perhaps good for those who have never tried before. We did not in practice laborate as much with the parameters as it seems like we should pretend to have done in the writen report.» (Fair)
- Liked the practical part but failed to see the great advantage of trying to make a labreport out of a lab that was so obviously just there to give us some practical welding experience. And why was this report done individually and not in pairs or teams?» (Fair)
- A bit confusing information otherwise interesting» (Good)
- Too short/too many people» (Good)
- One problem was however that the lab instructions were not on the homepage before the lab session and thus it was difficult to know what was important to write down.» (Good)

13. How did you experience the Welding Metallography lab session?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		1		5%
Good»		12		66%
Very good»		5		27%

Genomsnitt: 3.22

- Alright lab, but focusing on just microstructures didn"t feel very exciting, maybe it shouldn"t be, I don"t know!» (Good)
- Just 1 misunderstanding with the teacher: we were supposed to do 1 report/person, but she wanted 1 report/group, and to do a report with 2 or 3 people in 1 week is quite complicated as we can have other courses.» (Good)
- Very interesting to actually see the sub-zones! Higher magnification would have been interesting. » (Very good)
- This lab was very educating. Writing the report was a great help in understanding the subject. Could perhaps give some points towards the final examination in the same way as the MATLAB assignment.» (Very good)

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

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		3		16%
Large extent»		11		61%
Great extent»		4		22%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- The e-book was good, the paperbook I didn"t like at all, felt like it was a lot of wrong and misleading information, I never trusted it!» (Some extent)
- The e-book was good. The other book was written in a very boring way and not so god structured.» (Some extent)
- The Metallography book(the blue one) is quite heavy to read, and sometimes it is quite hard to understand what they are saying and the consuquences of the information.» (Large extent)
- Easterling was very good and helped to a great extent but the others (welding techniques and handouts) were quite bad.» (Large extent)

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

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		1		5%
Rather well»		13		72%
Very well»		4		22%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

- The reading instructions could be added earlier» (Rather well)

16. How did you experience the study visit to ESAB?

Should be cancelled»		0		0%
OK»		1		6%
Interesting»		13		86%
It gave me competely new insights - very interesting!»		1		6%
Did not participate»		3

Genomsnitt: 3

- Gave little in return in comparison to the time it consumed.» (OK)
- Could have been beter if it had been more prepared from their side. Looked like there was some kind of mix-up with times or something but still quite good.» (Interesting)

17. How did you experience the study visit to Volvo Pilot Plant?

Should be cancelled»		2		14%
OK»		2		14%
Interesting»		8		57%
It gave me competely new insights - very interesting!»		2		14%
Did not participate»		4

Genomsnitt: 2.71

- After seeing ESAB, Volvo could be cancelled. Perhaps someone could come to Chalmers and give a lecture there instead.» (Should be cancelled)
- I think everybody wanted to see the production, was not possible this time» (OK)
- Especially the lectures!» (Interesting)
- Could have been better if there had been som welding demonstrations but I know that that is usually the case so no big complaints.» (Interesting)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		1		5%
Rather good»		4		22%
Very good»		10		55%
I did not seek help»		3		16%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		0		0%
Rather well»		4		22%
Very well»		14		77%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.77

20. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		15		83%
High»		3		16%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

- But still alright, it was an interesting subject, I spent little more time on this course than my other course in this period» (High)

21. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		9		50%
High»		7		38%
Too high»		2		11%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

- I did 3 courses.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

22. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Adequate»		2		11%
Good»		12		66%
Excellent»		4		22%

Genomsnitt: 4.11

- Don"t call it joining technology if you only speak of welding. There are many other means of joining materials such as screws, glue and clips. I was (and still am) interested in how to join materials such as ceramics and plastics.» (Adequate)
- Good content, interesting topics. But more explanation of the consequences from the different microstructures.» (Good)

23. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

24. What should definitely be changed to next year?

25. Additional comments