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.

Waves and Coastal Structures, BMT030

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-06-01 - 2009-06-15
Antal svar: 13
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 54%
Kontaktperson: Lars Bergdahl»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers
Klass: Övriga

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.

13 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»2 15%
Around 20 hours/week»5 38%
Around 25 hours/week»5 38%
Around 30 hours/week»1 7%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.38

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

13 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»1 7%
50%»1 7%
75%»6 46%
100%»5 38%

Genomsnitt: 4.15

- I think it was a bit more, round 80%» (75%)
- Maybe 90%» (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?

13 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»1 7%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»6 46%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»6 46%

Genomsnitt: 3.3

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.

12 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»11 91%
No, the goals are set too high»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.08

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

13 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»6 46%
Yes, definitely»7 53%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.53

- I think the examination method was not good! because, we as engineers are supposed to learn the concepts and use them in practical cases, not just memorize some equations. Of course the exam could have a "no aid" part which includes asking about concepts. But one of the main goals (and also our main course project) was about wave analysis and design of coastal structures such as breakwaters, which needs understanding the waves theory as a basis.So I think the exam could be more consist of some problems that make us to use what we have understood from the course and of course this can be in the second part of the exam with allowing students to have their books and handouts as aids. Otherwise just trying to memorize some concepts and equations for the exam will not help and is not a good assessment for this course.» (To some extent)
- it definitely assessed the goals from the teaching class, but not really from the project» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

13 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»4 30%
Large extent»6 46%
Great extent»3 23%

Genomsnitt: 2.92

- It has been helpful because the book is too much and in lectures was often simplified, which i think was really good» (Large extent)

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

12 svarande

Small extent»3 25%
Some extent»3 25%
Large extent»5 41%
Great extent»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- To be honest, Wikiwaves was a big help, the book is so much overloaded with formulas and derivatives, that I hated looking into it and it wasn"t much help at all. the power point prints and the course material online was really a help to a large extent.» (Small extent)
- The Course book is to difficult» (Some extent)

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

12 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»1 8%
Rather well»4 33%
Very well»7 58%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

Study climate

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

12 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»4 33%
Very good»8 66%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- Sometimes I felt more confused after asking a question than before» (Rather good)

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

12 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»2 16%
Very well»10 83%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

- We did a project, two of us where from Sweden, one was not, we had some lanugage troubles because the exchange student was not to good speaking english.» (Rather well)

11. How was the course workload?

12 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»10 83%
High»1 8%
Too high»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

- But still OK workload» (High)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

12 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»7 58%
High»4 33%
Too high»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

12 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 16%
Adequate»1 8%
Good»7 58%
Excellent»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.75

- Interesting project. Har course book.» (Adequate)
- Good project» (Good)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Almost everything»
- I think this course should remain in this program and maybe some other similar courses or even the advanced ones should be added, because as we are studying "Geo and Water" we have to have courses in both areas. In water part, except water quality courses (drinking & waste),there is no any other hydraulic related courses in our program which I think is a weakness for the department. »
- The project»
- The project and the (type of) exam. Good to have 50/50% gradeing between exam and project.»
- The last big assignment»
- The project.»
- the course literature and the project and assignments »
- The prodject and the labb was very intresting. Learning how to build a harbour. »
- the project in general, which was very interesting»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The web page should be better»
- Maybe too theoretical sometimes»
- The study questions should be deliverd eralier, perhaps some each week which corresponds to thats weeks learning outcome. That way the students can make better connections with the lectures and also put adequate questions when the information is fresh.»
- Maybe instead of a theory exam, a bigger assignment including bothe calculations and theory, and no exam?»
- The book.»
- there should be more focus on calculations an wave effects on different offshore structures»
- Maybe a little less of "difficult eqv" instead more focus on explaing things with word or picture. like the study questions. »
- Clearer goals for group work.»
- the Swan information could be a bit better, thanks to matthieu we could solve a lot of problems the handbook and we couldn"t solve also the 4 swan Excercises before were different from the stuff needed in the project (but still were ok to get to know the programme) Also, it wasn"t really clear at the beginning of the project, what we have to do in detail, so maybe this might be better explained before.»

16. Additional comments

- Relevant course for MPGeo»
- An interesting course!»
- This was intresting»
- The course was very interesting and Lars and Matthieu good teachrs and a good help. I really disliked the book, it was horrible. Butin General a really good course!»

Kursutvärderingssystem från