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.

2009_HT_FKA081-FIM400, FKA081

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-10-21 - 2009-11-21
Antal svar: 37
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 123%
Kontaktperson: Stellan Östlund»

Code to pick up your is at the bottom of the questionnaire.

Please don"t fill out this questionnaire more than once.

1. To which program do you belong

35 svarande

Ph.D GU»2 5%
Ph.D Chalmers»5 14%
Masters GU»8 22%
Masters Chalmers»17 48%
International Masters GU»1 2%
International Masters Chalmers»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

- Erasmus exchange studies» (?)
- I have taken ""Quantum mechanics"" course to get more knowledge before that I start my Ph.D. programme in Physics.» (?)
- Fundamental» (Masters GU)

2. How useful were the lectures

37 svarande

Not useful»0 0%
Barely useful»3 8%
Neutral»14 37%
Useful»15 40%
Very useful»5 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.59

- Only useful for the homework since Stellan was very disorganized in his disposition.» (Barely useful)
- lectures were gone too fast..and all was going over the head..like jumping» (Barely useful)
- Jag hoppade på kursen vid halvtid, så fick läsa ikapp det mesta själv.» (Barely useful)
- I don"t mind a few misstakes with hbar, factors of 2 e.t.c. But in some lectures there were so many small misstakes that I could not follow the reasoning at all. I think Stellan would gain more understanding by following his notes more carefully. I don"t blame him for making misstakes, but too often I thought there were too many.» (Neutral)
- Never attended any.» (Neutral)
- The presentation were a bit too unstructured and the habit of erasing and manipulating equations instead of writing out the manipulated equation separately led to difficulties understanding what was going on (and especially to copy it down properly on paper).» (Neutral)
- Sometimes little to unstructred» (Neutral)
- the lectures are good for the sort of people that have studied QM for a while before the course» (Neutral)
- Did not attend lectures.» (Neutral)
- Too fast, sometimes messy. Treatment of new material always left me confused. The lecturer cannot assume that everybody is always prepared for the lecture! Wish there were more detailed examples.» (Neutral)
- storys about applications are nice, but sometimes one more calculation on a derivation would have been better.» (Useful)
- When mr. Östlund did not loose himself too much with the indexes I think the lectures were very good» (Useful)
- The lectures are in general interesting. However, the structure is not always great. Also, I feel that Stellan assume that we know things that we do not.» (Useful)
- I thought the lectures were well organized, and Stellan presented the material clearly and cleanly» (Very useful)
- It helped me to understand some complex concepts of Quantum mechanics better.» (Very useful)

3. Rate the problem sessions from 1 to 5

36 svarande

Not good»0 0%
Below average»9 31%
Average»12 41%
Above average»4 13%
Excellent»4 13%
No opinion»7

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- I would have liked to see more solved problems from Sakurai. Some of the problem sessions sort of drifted into disguised lectures.» (Below average)
- It was unclear what the crucial moments in the solutions were.» (Below average)
- The problem formulations were too vague and sometimes ambiguous. The problems were a bit too hard (especially combined with the vague formulations leading to difficulties understanding what one was supposed to do), there were also too many errors in them, which led to them taking more time than necessary.» (Below average)
- The pace during the problem sessions are too slow. More material could have been covered.» (Below average)
- Too fast, left out important details. Never got a complete solution. Wish that a complete solution was put on the net after the hand in. » (Below average)
- I find that the teacher should go through problems more careful, not skipping any steps, so it is easy to take notes and go through the problems later. Also shoose problems that are more useful.» (Below average)
- Same as for lectures. » (Average)
- the basic points how to attac a problem were sometimes missed, while explaining other interesting stuff» (Average)
- Better with more structure» (Average)
- A little bit too work intensive» (Above average)
- The solutions that stellan presented were easy to follow, and helped my understanding of the material» (Excellent)
- Var inte på dem.» (No opinion)
- Did not attend.» (No opinion)

Your own effort

4. 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.

37 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»3 8%
Around 20 hours/week»5 13%
Around 25 hours/week»9 24%
Around 30 hours/week»13 35%
At least 35 hours/week»7 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.43

- Several hours a week could have been cut from the homework if the problems were better written. Errors like missing numbers and incorrect sentences were a real pain and made us have to spend a few hours understanding the text before starting to solve the problems in each homework. It got better at the end though, number 6 was almost completely free of errors! » (Around 25 hours/week)
- The workload was heavy because of the six problem homework sessions. It would have been good to skip the last one of these. » (At least 35 hours/week)
- I spent a lot of time to solve homework questions without copying from others.» (At least 35 hours/week)
- The time was almost exclusively reserved for the problems (too much of it trying to understand what one was supposed to do, due to the using of nomenclature differing from the one in the book and vagueness, or sometimes errors, in the problem formulations).» (At least 35 hours/week)
- The problems are difficult to solve if one is not familiar with the material. They took all my time.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

37 svarande

0%»2 5%
25%»4 10%
50%»1 2%
75%»11 29%
100%»19 51%

Genomsnitt: 4.1

- Hoppade på sent.» (25%)
- I have already attended the lectures the previous year and have rather extensive notes since that.» (25%)
- I attended more than 75% of the classes. Since I arrived to Sweden on Sep 10 (due to my Ph.D. viva in Mathematics) so unfortunately I missed about 6 classes.» (75%)

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.

6. How understandable are the course goals?

37 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»8 27%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»11 37%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»10 34%
No opinion»8

Genomsnitt: 2.79

- On the course homepage it is stated that one aim and content of the course is "Scattering theory". I can"t remember it was anything about it in the course. Maybe I missed that lecture.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- the goals do not give the content, so they do not tell me what i have to learn, but what i am hopefully capable of doing after the course» (No opinion)

7. Are the goals reasonable

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

36 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»17 77%
No, the goals are set too high»5 22%
No opinion»14

Genomsnitt: 2.22

- If there were less errors in the lectures and homework problems the amount of content would be good. As it is now it takes a few hours more every week than I feel it should. » (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Did we do "Scattering theory" that is listed among the goals? If we didn"t have time to get through all the goals they"re probably set too high. On the whole I also have to say that it is a lot of material that is covered, and I feel the course has taken up more time than any previous course I"ve read (F, Chalmers). I have heard faculty express it in the air of: "Yeah, it is a lot of material to get through, but it has to be done to lay the groundwork for the following courses". It is a bit problematic that it takes so much time. Even if one feels it is a interesting subject and is ready to put in the time, it has a big potential for stealing time from other courses/activities. I see the point that the material has to be treated, and the same goes for the "Advanced Classical Physics"-course that runs in parallel, but it results in a really tough study period. I have also heard faculty express that at F, we learn this stuff in a strange order in a way. I guess it has to do with that F isn"t primarily aimed for theoretical physics, but in my hindsight I feel that it would be nice to have embedded more of the ACP-course in previous mechanics-courses for example (Lagrangian/Hamiltonian formulation and such) which could be argued to give some advantages in that -the basic QM-course might make more sense since the Hamiltonian formulation is a basis in that course, even though the students have never seen it before -the ACP-course could be reduced, leaving more time for the students for this QM-course -the students from F that take this QM-course from outside Fundamental Physics and thus without reading ACP in parallel would have an easier time. This is of course a modification that I feel might be positive from the "Fundamental Physics"-perspective. Most F-students don"t end up here, so it might be overkill to try to change the entire program just for the beginning of one master program. An unfocused answer maybe, but it"s hard to keep track of one"s writing in these small text boxes :-)» (No, the goals are set too high)
- The is not enough time to really understand every topic in only 7 weeks!» (No, the goals are set too high)

8. Did the examination reflect the goals of the course?

36 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»13 54%
Yes, definitely»11 45%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%
No opinion»12

Genomsnitt: 2.45 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I was disappointed that the exam didn"t focus enough on theoretical and conceptual understanding of the material. Too much depended on doing messy algebra.» (To some extent)
- I was lucky I also studied the Advanced Classical Physics course this autumn. Otherwise I would not have had a chance on the 14p question about hamiltonian and lagrangian mechanics on the exam. I guess there were many non-fundamental physics students who didn"t have a chance on that question at all. We have not learned anything about lagrangian mechanics before at Chalmers and there was no lecture on this.» (To some extent)
- I think the exam didn"t cover the whole course, for example density matrices instead of the classical mechanic problem» (To some extent)
- strange to include problem nr 1. It requires a certain knowledge which wasn"t extensively discussed, and certainly not emphasized in the lectures!» (To some extent)
- The examination was on the level and subjects I have anticipated. I wouldn"t be surprised if people found the first question on the exam, where you could get 8 (?) points for writing down the classical Lagrangian/Hamiltonian for a pendulum, strangely weighted. With the bonus points I had from the homeworks I think I could have passed the course by only writing down the classical equation for a pendulum, which conceptually feels strange in a QM-course. I can also believe that some people that don"t take the ACP-course simultaneously and has come directly from F3 felt the question was a bit unfair, especially since it was so central for that problem. Of course it is a basic concept in QM, but it isn"t up to this course to teach us Lagrangians/Hamiltonians, and I think it was malplaced on a final exam. 8 points for writing that down, and then follow-up questions, it constitutes a substantial part of the total points on the exam.» (Yes, definitely)

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

37 svarande

Small extent»1 2%
Some extent»5 13%
Large extent»19 51%
Great extent»12 32%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.13 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The additional papers and essays posted on the course page were a good addition to the book. The book was a good resource to support the lectures» (Large extent)
- Couldn"t have made the course without sakurai» (Large extent)
- The book was superb. Unfortunately some of the problems in the problem sessions took up things not really covered in the book or on the lectures leaving oneself without material for these problems.» (Large extent)
- Sakurai is nice.» (Large extent)
- Sakurai is a good book but has few examples that show how to calculate!» (Large extent)
- Sakurai"s book is one of the best course books I"ve had so far. The perturbation chapter is however hard to follow. It might be good to suggest other references for this part of the course.» (Great extent)
- The links posted on the homepage were great! I"ve read much of Fowlers material which was really great. I really think there should be a lecture on pure representation theory and a little group theory in the beginning of the course instead if one history lesson. It would have helped alot. I had no idea about representations before this course but hard work with sakurai and the material on the course webpage helped alot.» (Great extent)
- Sakurai is really good!» (Great extent)
- Sakurai är kanon!» (Great extent)

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

37 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»1 2%
Rather well»18 48%
Very well»18 48%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.45

- Except for many timeconsuming errors in the hand-in problems the administration worked well. Stellan was good at updating the homepage and informing about changes in the schedule. » (Rather well)
- there were lots of typos in the homework problems, which is quite nasty if they appear to be in the formula or such that it is difficult to understand the question» (Rather well)
- It is annoying for the students that the original problem formulations often were subject of small errors and sometimes unclear questions. I think more attention can be payed to the formulations of the problems so that they are correct, maybe it isn"t more work than having the course assistant look them over to get external input before handing them over to the class.» (Rather well)
- Web page was very effective at organizing the course. Always up to date, linked to interesting material » (Very well)
- Students were provide with many good materials of course. Every thing was done very well.» (Very well)
- Funkar kanon!» (Very well)

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

37 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»3 9%
Rather good»6 18%
Very good»17 53%
I did not seek help»6 18%
No opinion»5

Genomsnitt: 3.81

- I needed help from the group teacher, but he mostly wasn"t prepared to answer the questions. » (Rather poor)

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

37 svarande

Very poorly»2 5%
Rather poorly»3 8%
Rather well»7 18%
Very well»22 59%
I did not seek cooperation»3 8%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.56

- Was in Germany.» (Very poorly)
- I tended to work alone » (Rather well)
- It was really fun working with exchange students! This was my first course completely in english and although it was tough in the beginning after a few weeks it was much fun!» (Very well)
- We from GU, studied alot together, and it was really good, » (Very well)

13. How was the course workload?

37 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»7 20%
High»12 34%
Too high»16 45%
No opinion»2

Genomsnitt: 4.25

- In theory the workload was good. In practice, things took more time than Stellan estimated. One lecture he said that he spent 15 minutes on a problem and then switched to another way of solving it. I expect he was done after a total of 30 minutes. The same problem took us ca 5 hours before switching method and then another 2 hours to solve. There is so many new things that we have never seen before, dirac notation, representations, groups e.t.c. so it was very tough. Especially in the beginning.» (High)
- Especially the first half of the course, before I learned how to deal with the homework assignments, was to ruff. » (High)
- The homework problems were good, but they took too much time. It was hard to keep up the reading in Sakurai because almost all time was spent solving homeworks. Also, if the homeworks hadn"t been so time-consuming, there might have been time to solve some problems from the book. I think that solving lots of smaller problems generally pays off more than solving a few big ones. There"s a structure and deeper understanding that emerges from seeing a lot of different situations that I feel was missed.» (Too high)
- The problem is the large amount of homework. You say that we do not need to do all of them, but you are actually wrong. Those of us that dream of an academical career will always do the full workload and thus, when you hand out homeworks that demand about 20 hours a week to complete, people are bound to be caught in personal dilemmas, spend time with boy/girlfriend or do the homework? Personally I have only met with my mother once this period (on her birthday) and the reason is the huge workload that you have given us. For next year you should care more about your students personal lifes. Do not abuse those who have great plans for the future.» (Too high)
- The problems took way too much time (and not the actual solving of them, but the time it took to understand the formulations).» (Too high)
- I think the handin problems were to massive. Better to test more of the principles in the handins, instead problems you need to find certain "tricks" to solve» (Too high)
- I say "Too high" with the homeworks in mind, but as Stellan pointed out in a lecture, one has the option to skip them. In hindsight I actually think it might have made things clearer to do so, if one had spent the same amount of time on own studies, but without the deadlines constantly "forcing" you to put in work, one probably hadn"t spent as much time with the subject. Simply reducing the number of homework problems may be of benefit for the students. I can see that it may be an unwanted thing to do since it might lead to students spending less time with the course, but for many of the students well-being I can feel that it would be overall positive.» (Too high)
- The problems were often too difficult to solve. One needs to solve something similar, but a bit easier in order to be able to solve something more complicated, as the problems were.» (Too high)

14. How was the total workload this study period?

37 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 2%
Adequate»6 17%
High»14 40%
Too high»14 40%
No opinion»2

Genomsnitt: 4.17

- Combining Advanced Classical and this course has been very hard.» (Too high)
- I felt that the ACP course was quite what you would expect from a 7.5hp course on this level - it covered a lot of new concepts and it definitely wasn"t "easy", but the assignments and the tempo felt OK. I also felt that the QM course was a bit on the heavy side, which I guess is a known fact. I have written some of my personal thoughts about it in other boxes in this evaluation.» (Too high)

15. What is your general impression of the course?

37 svarande

Poor»1 2%
Fair»2 5%
Adequate»8 22%
Good»20 55%
Excellent»5 13%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- The course should be spread in two quarters» (Poor)
- It was interesting, but sometimes too fast and left me very confused.» (Fair)
- To much material in the course. And very hard problems to work out. I think some things should be explained better in the lectures instead of given as a home problem.» (Adequate)
- A very interesting course with a good lecturer. Good course book also.» (Good)
- It was a nice and interesting course. I can"t evaluate yet how much use I will have of it, but I guess it will be fundamental for a lot of the rest of the courses I am going to take.» (Good)

16. What should be preserved to next year?

- The overall course structure.»
- The book is good. The setup with hand-in problems is also very good, we learned alot doing the homeworks. »
- - the offering of asking questions - asking questions to the students during lecture - supply of old exams»
- The homeworks and the mix of theory and problem solving in the problem sessions.»
- Just about everything! A little bit less work intensive home work maybe.»
- The five first homework sessions. They are a good way of getting familiar with the material.»
- Giving time to student for asking their questions and giving them homework as it was in this course.»
- Sakurai.»
- more aobut the homework slution»
- the course should be divided in two parts one in 1st quarter and 2nd is in 2nd quartes in more details and from some ground level....need to connect it with students of all ...mean aderage background.»
- Sakurai!»
- Kurslitteraturen!»
- The book is nice. I didn"t have any personal contact with the course assistant more than notes on my hand-in problems, but I think he performed his tasks well. Stellan is a good teacher, benefiting a lot from his English-skills which takes away a barrier that sometimes can be present among other teachers when they hold lectures in English.»
- Some of the problems»
- Homeworks, problems and solutions»
- The most things were good.»

17. What should be changed to next year?

- Less time-consuming hand-in problems.»
- History is interesting but we were all too stressed about the homeworks to enjoy it. I think it would be a great idea to cut the history lectures and instead have one lecture on basic lagrangian / hamiltonian mechanics and another lecture about groups and representations. Doing this in the beginning would make it much easier to grasp the rest of the course. Also, the hand-in problems should be proof-read before put on the webpage, presumably by some other person than Stellan. This is because Stellan has a wonderful intuition and I feel like he can understand problems much more confusing than the homeworks very easily. But we didn"t get the point that easily and spent much time in vain.»
- - less misprints on the homeworks - a little more "how to attack problems" with a new theorem, lemma, tool, etc. during the classes/lessons»
- more exercises in the lectures to get more insight on how to use the formulas»
- More about lagrangeans if there is to be 14 points on the stuff on the final...»
- A new lecturer for the mathematics exercises. It is good to get another persons view as well.»
- Asking questions in the class sometime.»
- Less homework. See discussion above.»
- have a assitsant special for the homework courses»
- More problems solving in class»
- Course should be in more details and studenst cooperation amongthemselvs with the help of teachers...and also there should be some more problem session.»
- Clearer problem formulations. More structured lectures. »
- Maybe would it be good with a separate "räkneövningsledare"»
- the content of the material provided should be lessened.»
- In some places, perturbation theory especially, when the lectures deviated a lot from Sakurai, it is nice to have som other reference material to study by oneself. Just the lecture notes can feel a bit sparse on the details some times. Either if it exists some (preferably free) treatment that can be linked from the homepage, or if Stellan or someone could write a couple of papers in a more organized manner than lecture note scribbles.»
- give simpler problems to start with, build with the difficult ones on that. Needed: WRITTEN SOLUTIONS! »
- Duration should be longer. »

18. Please provide any additional comments

If you have opinions on it, comment on this course evaluation.

- Stellan, although a bit confusing sometimes, seems to be a really nice guy. I think it is very human to make misstakes, both in lectures and in homeworks. But, getting an assistant to check the problems and maybe help with problem sessions could be a good idea. I"m impressed that Stellan managed to get this course so well together almost all by himself. Credit!»
- Lol at hbar...»
- I would like to thank you for all your efforts and helps.»
- Thank you for a good course. »
- I think it"s easy to overestimate the students previous understanding of the subjects treated. The F-people took a basic QM-course 9 months ago and for many different reasons maybe not everything is still obvious. Since the people who feel the most comfortable with the subject are the ones doing the talking in class for example, it is almost impossible for a lecturer to not get the impression of a higher general understanding of the subject. I"m certain that this is a well-known phenomenon, but I think it"s easy to think that everyone grasps more that they do. For a teacher it must be frustrating when noone answers even the "simplest" questions in class sometimes, especially when the teacher maybe has given the course several years and is enormously familiar with the concepts, but I think it"s good to really give the impression that every question is OK to ask. In class, I often felt that a lot of people sat inactive even though they didn"t really understood what was happening (which is true in more or less every course I"ve attended, but it is a point worth considering nonetheless to hopefully improve the students attitude).»
- The teacher was good, but it would be better if he was more organized, when he wrote on the blackboard.»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.86

code to pick up your grades: hbar

Go to the course homepage and use this code to
pick up your course grade.

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 2.86
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.62

Kursutvärderingssystem från