Visa resultat

Materials Characterisation and Failure Analysis 2009, MMK081

Your own effort

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

30 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		6		20%
Around 20 hours/week»		14		46%
Around 25 hours/week»		6		20%
Around 30 hours/week»		2		6%
At least 35 hours/week»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- I didn"t present at almost half of sessions because of my another course in Gothenburg university» (At most 15 hours/week)

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

30 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		6		20%
75%»		7		23%
100%»		17		56%

Genomsnitt: 4.36

- A lot of the classes didn"t really give me anything. I could just as well read it by myself, so that"s what I decideded to do. Also the level of the course was so low that I quickly lost interest in it. Less material and more depth would definitely have been more inspiering» (50%)
- I felt that most of the lectures were good and relevant but some of the "guest" lectures were not as relevant.» (75%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		1		3%
The goals are difficult to understand»		1		3%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		11		37%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		16		55%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

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

27 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		2		7%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		24		88%
No, the goals are set too high»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 1.96

- See my comment on question 2. I understand that the level might be adapted so that anyone can take the course, but it"s far from ideal. If someone is lacking knowledge in something, then it"s their responsability to prepare themselves for the course or during the course with the teachers aid. Lowering the level just makes the course uninteresting for those who fulfill the prerequisites. As said before: Less content and higher level would have been appreciated. Finally I can assure you that I"m far from the only one with that opinion, even though some might be to lazy to give good feedback on the course.» (No, the goals are set too low)

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

No, not at all»		2		6%
To some extent»		16		55%
Yes, definitely»		11		37%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.31

- I felt the exam was more detailed than I expected it to be.» (To some extent)
- some questions were general and I didn"t know how much should I write. there was also some unclear terms in questions. (e.g. in fatigue fracture surface it was not clear what kind of alter-bending load did it mean)» (To some extent)
- Some areas takes to big part of the exam compared to the time spent in lectures on the subject» (To some extent)
- Since the course contained lots of information with lillte level on it the exam was actually more about memorizing details rather than understanding. But under the given circumstances I feel that the exam tested the course goals.» (To some extent)
- Good variation of questions that adressed all parts of the course.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		1		3%
Rather well»		19		63%
Very well»		10		33%

- The handouts could be put before the class on the homepage so that we could print it and take note on the slides. » (Rather well)
- Big problems for students from University West to register to the course and get access to all info.» (Rather badly)
- It was a bit messy with the lab groups and handouts for some parts of the course, but apart from that everything worked just fine» (Rather well)

7. To what extent has the lab sessions been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		1		3%
Some extent»		14		48%
Large extent»		10		34%
Great extent»		4		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.58

- There could be more lab. sessions than some lectures, such as metalloraphy, or Failure Analysis Methodology, or Adv. NDT» (Small extent)
- I expected more practical work here, but I guess it was due to too many students.» (Some extent)
- Too short time in some of the lab sessions. Microscopy lab time was sufficient.» (Some extent)
- The lab session given by Kamelia gave a lot, the one about tensile testing was a good repetition and the other two didn"t give as much even though they were ok. » (Some extent)
- The labs was very good. Learned a lot.» (Great extent)

8. Please judge the study visit to Volvo and the lecture by Pål Schmidt

Poor»		1		3%
Fair»		2		6%
Adequate»		7		24%
Good»		13		44%
Excellent»		6		20%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.72 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- the visiting tour around labs was good, but the lecture was poor and boring. I recommend another guy to present the lecture!» (Fair)
- It was a great visit for high school students to get interest in Materials major, it was a good visit for BS students of the first or second year to get familiar with some general aspects of their major or some adv. lab. activities, but it did not have much for some MS students.» (Fair)
- So and so. Good to see what they work with and how, but it didn"t really contribute to any learning» (Adequate)
- Interesting to see how this knowledge is used in reality.» (Good)
- tour through labs was great, lecture was interesting, but partly out of date» (Good)
- The guided tour in their lab was very interesting!» (Good)
- wow.....it was inspiring for me!! heart felt thanks for arrenging this visit Johan. » (Excellent)

9. Please judge the lectures and content presented by Johan Ahlström

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		2		7%
Adequate»		9		32%
Good»		15		53%
Excellent»		2		7%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.6 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- good lectures, but sometimes a bit incomprehensible because of not going into details/just telling what"s shown on certain slides without further explanation» (Adequate)
- More explanation» (Adequate)
- Johan tries to explain the things but i think he has a little bit problem with his english.he often cannot find words to explain things.that"s why it is sometimes difficult to understand what he wants to convey us.» (Adequate)
- Interesting and understandable.» (Good)
- I think presentation was good totally but there was lack of technical reasons/arguments in some cases. (e.g. the fracture toughness test should be explained more)» (Good)
- Sorry, can"t remember details about what was given by who and how» (No opinion)

10. Please judge the lectures and content by the other lecturers (Birger, Uta, Lars and Håkan)

30 svarande

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

Poor»		1		3%
Fair»		6		20%
Adequate»		13		43%
Good»		14		46%
Excellent»		3		10%
No opinion»		2

- Håkan was to much in to details I think. It was rather tough to understand and too many curves and tables for our level.» (Fair)
- Lars presents more impressively and has better communication with audiences.» (Good)
- lectuers by Håkan needs to be clear with its learning outcomes..... in my view. the others are ok. » (Good)
- The lectures were sometimes abstract considering the fact that students were from different background and the lecturers did not prepare accordingly.» (Adequate)
- Håkans lecture was very interesting but perhaps a little too theoretical. He could have had some more "real life" examples of cases he"s investigated or explained more thoroughly what is the purpose of the FEM-modelling rather than explaining the mathematical model itself.» (Good)
- I could not find Utas powerpoint in the homepage? She only handed out a paperversion of the powerpoint. And the pictures in that paper was too small, it was impossible to see the graphs and text sometimes. » (Adequate)
- Birger: too basic, should be placed in BS. Uta: not enough time. if it is supposed to include all of the information, it should be another course together with the "AES and XPS" part of Lars" lecture. Lars: good Hakan: unless the part about "Probability of DEfect Diagram" it was totaly confusing and actually was not connected to the NDT lecture by Johan, so it couldn"e be consider as a complementary. The part about simulation should be presented as a seperate course to be useful for the students. It could be replaced by a visit to the NDT part of the nuclear industry.» (Fair)
- mostly good background/outline of the material, Uta"s lecture on the other hand was a big contrast, because contrary to the other lectures it was very detailed in only little time -> maybe extend to at least two or three lectures» (Adequate, Good)
- in my opinion Uta and Hakan were not so good in teaching or motivating» (Fair)
- NDT lecture contents should be improved. especially NDE lecture.» (Adequate)
- Except for Lars everyone had problems with english.Uta"s course was too much in too little time.I dont know the practical application of Hakan"s lecture.Oxidation and corrosion should either be completely taught in either Engineering metals course or in Material Characterization and Failure Analysis course.» (Poor)
- Sorry, can"t remember details about what was given by who and how» (No opinion)

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

Small extent»		2		6%
Some extent»		8		27%
Large extent»		16		55%
Great extent»		3		10%

Genomsnitt: 2.68

- study only ppt gives not enough knowledge a book is need for better course» (Small extent)
- too many extravagant things. very difficult to select the appropriate material.» (Small extent)
- Powerpoint slides = very good. ASM = too much information. » (Some extent)
- ASM is good but complicated to use because you need to print a lot or read on the screen.» (Some extent)
- The ASM handbook was really interesting but unfortunately it was too broad to read all the given references. I think it could be more useful to give more precise references and to focus on these.» (Some extent)
- sometimes the bibliography is so huge for instance in metallography, it is difficult to understand what we have to know.» (Large extent)
- the lecture of SEM/EDS was not published on course homepage and a hard copy with a very small font size was given to students. I don"t know why?!! It was really hard to read such a small font!» (Large extent)
- In the beginning I didn"t like the E-books but after a while they grew on me. The problem was rather to focus on the things I needed for the course insted of reading things that interested me beside the course...» (Great extent)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.66

Study climate

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		2		6%
Rather good»		6		20%
Very good»		17		56%
I did not seek help»		5		16%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

- At lectures and by e-mail. It worked well.» (Very good)
- Johan is very patient and kind in this case.» (Very good)
- We should be thankful of Johan for the time he spent after each lecture for the questions.» (Very good)
- The level of the course didn"t really deamnd much help to be given...» (I did not seek help)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		2		6%
Rather well»		15		50%
Very well»		13		43%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

- Big cultural differences. But in some way that is also good knowledge to have.» (Rather poorly)
- with some exceptions it has worked very well, but there has been problems with the groups, probably due to differences in study-culture» (Rather well)
- Depends from group to group. In mine worked well» (Very well)

14. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		3%
Adequate»		11		36%
High»		15		50%
Too high»		3		10%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- Too many reports etc. It would be better to focus on either reporting or case study. Now it was a little of both.» (High)
- The workload is high but it is not negative.» (High)
- ... but since we"re at master"s level, there has to be a challenge.» (High)
- The workload was at a good level but since the groups didn"t work that took away time from the preparations for lectures and reading of course literature » (High)
- Some parts are more difficult while the lecture time is the same» (High)
- Very independant parts with much to read and memorize, but apart from that no problem. » (High)
- have to study alot of extra material.» (Too high)

15. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		3%
Adequate»		12		40%
High»		15		50%
Too high»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- The information to study for the exam for both courses (especially for Mat. Charact.) was too high, and it was better to go deeper through each section in seperate courses. But the workload during the 7week was adequate.» (Adequate)
- same comment as above» (High)

Summarizing questions

16. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		1		3%
Fair»		1		3%
Adequate»		6		20%
Good»		17		58%
Excellent»		4		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.75

- It was an interesting course» (?)
- I was really disappointed. There was lots of very independant material with low level. My suggestion is to thin out the content of the course, highten the level of the remaining content and anchor it in more cases from reality. For example, maybe more focus should be given to the investigating parts and less about things that can easily be looked up in a book without needing prior understanding? Focus on what requires an understanding and skip/shorten the rest because no student will remember a course that is solely based on memorizing things that doesn"t require an understanding. Focus on what is relevant for analyzing failures» (Poor)
- It was a very good and important course for me as I learnt a lot of new things which are applied in most of the industries today.» (Excellent)
- One of my favourite subjects so far.» (Excellent)

17. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

18. What should definitely be changed to next year?

19. Additional comments