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.

Advanced CAD, PPU080

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-10-23 - 2009-11-06
Antal svar: 52
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 47%
Kontaktperson: Lars Lindkvist»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Maskinteknik 300 hp

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.

52 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»12 23%
Around 20 hours/week»18 34%
Around 25 hours/week»14 26%
Around 30 hours/week»7 13%
At least 35 hours/week»1 1%

Genomsnitt: 2.36

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

52 svarande

0%»2 3%
25%»8 15%
50%»16 30%
75%»12 23%
100%»14 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.53

- Had already done the exam ahead!» (0%)
- what i heard was that lars just read what the pp slides said...» (0%)
- wish i hadn"t skipped so much but students from last years said it wasn"t worth going to» (25%)
- I had another course that had lectures at the same time as this course, so I only attended a few excercise lectures.» (25%)
- I don"t feel like learning something from powerpoint-races with too many slides and too little necessary information» (25%)
- The lecturer (Lars Lindkvist) always read right of the Powerpoint slides and spoke it. Was not meaningful to attend since he added little or no information.» (50%)
- Didn"t go to the lectures, but the CAD-leassons.» (50%)
- I found it easier to read the slides by my self, and use the time spent on CATIA and the other course.» (50%)
- The lectures and the slides were very bad.... » (50%)
- The lectures were only slides and therefore you could learn faster by studying them yourselves.» (50%)
- The lectures were unneccesary to attend since Lars only read exactly what was on the slides.» (50%)
- Couldn"t attend initial 2 classes, because i had issues with visa , so joined late to 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.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

51 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»18 35%
The goals are difficult to understand»2 3%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»16 31%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»15 29%

Genomsnitt: 2.54

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.

41 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»6 14%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»35 85%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.85

- Really simple coarse.» (No, the goals are set too low)
- Inga förkunskaper krävs. En grundkurs i CAD, borde inte heta "advanced"» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

47 svarande

No, not at all»6 12%
To some extent»24 51%
Yes, definitely»11 23%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»6 12%

Genomsnitt: 2.36

- Standard exam!» (No, not at all)
- the most useless exam i"ve ever had» (No, not at all)
- Irellevant exam, learning by doing is better. Hard to understand what the lectures and the exam are useful for.» (No, not at all)
- I don"t think it is a good idea to have a written examination for a Cad course, but the project was very good!» (To some extent)
- Donno.» (To some extent)

6. Was the setup of the project work good for learning CAD and CAT systems?

(e.g. excavator model, extra points for extra tasks, ...)

52 svarande

No, not at all»2 3%
To some extent»6 11%
Adequate»9 17%
Yes»16 30%
Yes, definitely»19 36%

Genomsnitt: 3.84

- the model we have done is not realistic at all... If to be manufactured the whole excavator have to be milled from one piece... Would have been better to take a smaller thing and do it correct. e.g. an engine or something complex» (No, not at all)
- The project was very loosely defined, with demands added as the course went along. The project PM should"ve defined which features to use and then you could"ve chosen yourself how to apply them. The book about surface modeling was a waste of time and money since it wasn"t necessary at all.» (No, not at all)
- Hade gärna lärt mig mer om "flexible tubes" tex. på bommen och armen istället för en rendering och ritning som är väldigt simpla saker och skulle kunna ligga som övningar i början.» (To some extent)
- I think that drafting should be part of the basic task since this is important in future work.» (To some extent)
- In an Advanded CAD course surface modeling should be included and mandatory.» (To some extent)
- Yes, but there is too much of learn yourself.» (Adequate)
- The extra tasks were to simple!» (Adequate)
- More time and focus should be spent on RD&T. More about the methodology when doing CAD-models should be tought!» (Adequate)
- I think it should be harder to get maximum points.» (Adequate)
- It was good, but since we were two in the group, I learned some areas and my partner learned other things. It would perhaps be good to force us to at least try everything to some extent.» (Yes)
- But it wasn"t clear in what way it was to be done.» (Yes)
- thats the only reason i took the course» (Yes, definitely)
- Ett väldigt bra sätt att lära sig hantera catia på. Kankse kunde det ställas högra krav på grävskopans geometri.» (Yes, definitely)
- Very good. I would like to see an extend of the project. » (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

51 svarande

Small extent»19 37%
Some extent»22 43%
Large extent»10 19%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.82

- CAD- övningarna har varit väldigt bra med duktiga och hjälpsamma handledare. Föreläsningarna har varit både ointressanta och väldigt dåligt genomförda.» (Small extent)
- Too many lectures by course examiner were appalling: 1- instead of relevant CAD related issues and advanced features lectures were covering too basic functions which everyone did learn on their own Or covering totally irrelevant mathematical principles in computer graphics which are not relevant to CAD users for at least last 20 years! 2- much of the Irrelevant(!) content, for example Anti aliasing and Z-buffer technologies, was unacceptably outdated. If these things are covered, they could at least be true for year 2009. 3- lectures contained very little about "Advanced" CAD, instead there was a load of information needed only for IT specialists (in poor quality) or very basics of Catia for example "Pad" function!» (Small extent)
- It was good to have someone to ask during the project. Especially about the RD&T-things.» (Some extent)
- The helpers did not know the answers to the more advanced questions!» (Some extent)
- Good people at the CAD-leassons in the computer rooms.» (Some extent)
- Could be better assistance, They didn´,t know enough. » (Some extent)

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

51 svarande

Small extent»11 21%
Some extent»19 37%
Large extent»11 21%
Great extent»10 19%

Genomsnitt: 2.39

- way too expensive book!!! 480kr for something you use for one day, robbery!!!» (Small extent)
- the textbook was useless because one didn"t need to make any surface parts» (Small extent)
- Didn"t use it. Google is better.» (Small extent)
- Didnt buy any.» (Small extent)
- Did not buy the book, managed good without it» (Small extent)
- I didn"t buy the courselitterature since i think it was too expensive, and I didn"t need it as well.» (Small extent)
- The booklet in surface modelling was a total rippof not needed to complete the course» (Large extent)
- Since the slides have been my only source of information, they have been very influential.» (Large extent)
- The slides.» (Large extent)
- The lecture slides, and material handed out on studieportalen.» (Great extent)
- Slides and handed out material at Studieportalen.» (Great extent)
- Perhaps the book could be replaced with similar tutorials as given for the basics of CATIA? The book"s content is not really any better than tutorials, it just covers functions not included in .pdf tutorials.» (Great extent)

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

52 svarande

Very badly»2 3%
Rather badly»1 1%
Rather well»30 57%
Very well»19 36%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

- Post the lectures in before the lecture!» (Very badly)
- Lectureslides on the homepage in good advance before the lecture. Otherwise it"s impossible to follow the powerpoint-races.» (Very badly)
- SMARTEAM didn"t work at all.» (Rather badly)
- SmarTeam once again didn"t work?» (Rather well)
- Good that all documents were available on the course web site.» (Very well)

Study climate

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

52 svarande

Very poor»2 3%
Rather poor»4 7%
Rather good»19 36%
Very good»26 50%
I did not seek help»1 1%

Genomsnitt: 3.38

- hard to get a computer.» (Very poor)
- The exercise room was overfilled and there was to few teachers there to help, but they were very helpful when you got help.» (Rather poor)
- Since many had problems with their CAD-models during the course the waiting list for help was always at least 45 minutes. This meant that if you worked at home and needed help you had to wait for 45 minutes doing nothing.» (Rather poor)
- The queues where a bit long at the excercises at times» (Rather good)
- Maybe I would like to see one or two more people in the computer rooms. But they were good att what they did (learning CAD).» (Rather good)
- Very helpful and capable course assistants!» (Very good)
- It felt like the assistants were cooperative» (Very good)

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

51 svarande

Very poorly»2 3%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»10 19%
Very well»38 74%
I did not seek cooperation»1 1%

Genomsnitt: 3.7

- The person who I was supposed to do the project with dropped the class in week 4. I had to do all the work myself» (Very poorly)

12. How was the course workload?

52 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»5 9%
Adequate»39 75%
High»8 15%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- Was finished after some weeks» (Low)
- But I liked this course so it was ok» (High)
- Probably just felt high since I did the project work by myself» (High)
- We wanted to make a really good excavator, which maybe took too much time the last weeks.» (High)

13. How was the total workload this study period?

52 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»5 9%
Adequate»34 65%
High»11 21%
Too high»2 3%

Genomsnitt: 3.19

Summarizing questions

14. What is your general impression of the course?

51 svarande

Poor»4 7%
Fair»8 15%
Adequate»15 29%
Good»20 39%
Excellent»4 7%

Genomsnitt: 3.23

- Bra sätt att lära sig att använda CAD. Men det övriga kursinnehållet kändes helt onödigt att läsa. » (Poor)
- CAD is learning by doing and since the excavator project didn"t have any demands you just got on with and tried to get it done as fast as possible.» (Poor)
- Such a great subject was a bit destroyed of the feeling that you could learn the whole course on your own.» (Fair)
- i think the project was really good but lectures were stupid. the exam was very irrelevant and stupid. One just had to study one day for it, and wont remember anything from it later on. » (Fair)
- I would like to see more focus on the handling of the software than on the functional background.» (Fair)
- The Catia/RD&T part was fine, but the lectures were just horrible. A lot of details should be replaced with CAD/CAT methodology (how to build up a CAD model in the right way, what to think of etc.)» (Fair)
- The project was good and fun, the exam was unnecessary.» (Adequate)
- The only thing I am really impressed is now I can work on CATIA. » (Adequate)
- There were a lot of different areas covered in on course. A bit too much focus on RD&T» (Good)

15. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The course assistants»
- the catia project»
- The catia basic training. A very good way to learn the principles.»
- Some sort of project work.»
- It was good to have a project, but the project didn"t reflect the kind of CAD work we will be faced with. The RD&T part was excellent! It was great that all of the lecture slides were available on studieportalen.»
- The part about RD&T. The project part is important, but I don"t think that the excavator modeling represented the kind of CAD-challenges that we"ll face in the future.»
- project.»
- De handledarledda övningarna»
- The project»
- The project work»
- The excavator project + rdnt»
- The project with some modifications.»
- The project»
- The project»
- The project, hopefully with some more tasks.»
- CAD and CAT Exercices (Excevator)»
- The excavator project because it is a really good way to learn CAD»
- Nothing.»
- Project»
- the cad-project»
- CATIA and RD&T project.»
- The modelling of an excavator and bonus asignments.»
- Catia»
- The examinationform»
- schedule, softwares»
- Course project is good, tutorials are fine as well»
- The project work»

16. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The way Lars Lindkvist holds his lecures»
- the exam, remove it»
- Combine the lectures with the reality and what we are doing in the project. And have more of an interactive course with more exercises like the basic training, because then you have to learn for example a specific command, and not like now when you build up the model in a easier but more long-winded way.»
- Much of the mathematical background to how the CAD-system works does not seem relevant. It would be good to connect it to practical advantages or limitations. The fact that many CAD-systems use 3rd order curves for instance, makes it hard to achieve C2 continuity. More practical aspects than a lot of matrices...»
- Some minor changes in the project work. It might have been good to have some sort of blueprints to follow, at least for some of the parts.»
- The project. A more defined task with drawings to follow that makes it harder to "cheat".»
- The lecturing technique should be improved, e.g. contain more examples and the theory should be presented in a better way. »
- Alla människor är inte lämpade till att hålla föreläsningar. Lars är väldigt ödmjuk och försöker lära ut det han kan. Men föreläsningarna har varit väldigt opedagogiska. »
- The lectures, more examples of CAD in the real world would be nice»
- Some of the lectures are not up to date, especially the computer graphics part. Some information given there was actually false. Lectures can be made more interesting and just don"t repeat what is written on the slides.»
- I think one should be forced to use surfaces when designing parts in catia. I also think more focus could have been spent on rdnt because i found it useful, but did not get into it enough to learn much. I dont think there need to be a final like the one we had now. It was stupid!»
- More focus on drafting rules and standards. And more guidance on RD&T, perhaps an exercise guided by teacher?»
- There must be a way to make the geometry assurance part clearer.»
- Some greater degree of theory perhaps»
- I don"t now if i think the exam is good. It"s much more important with the project than with the exam.»
- Shortening down the number of lectures, maybe with less material on each slide. Also, when intorducing RD&T, it would be more giving and less tiring to have that lecture in a computer room so you can test the program as the lecture goes. »
- Make new slides Change the project»
- The way of giving the lecture because it is quite slow and sometimes with examples is easier. I would focus more in projects»
- The project, but much more thorough PM with demands for features and surface modeling.»
- No exam or lectures about the mathematical methods behind a cad program. Learning by doing is better, perhaps exercises instead of lectures where you get to do things yourself with the guidance of a teacher. Instead of listening to someone listing every button in a program very rapidly. Not good for the learning.»
- Lectures and lectures slides could be improved.»
- Reduce lectures and focus more on CATIA and RD&T. I think it is better to change from final exam to oral exam.»
- More lectures in computer rooms and not like seminars. More clearly defined what to learn for the exam. »
- The lectures! Even though Lars has limited english skills, he must be able to make the lectures more interesting!»
- More interesting lectures thanks! Maybe making an excavator was a too big project, because it took very long time to make it look REAL. And what"s the point doing things if they don"t look real. I want to work like they do in real life CAD modeling!»
- less theory and more practice or deeper theory and less program in class»
- The written exam. Haven"t ever seen such a bad exam.»
- Course material, need more information about the sub topics»
- harder project.»
- Less lecture and more practical exercises»
- Lectures - people were sleeping in most of them because of irrelevance to CAD use.»

17. Additional comments

- i think most of the students are there to learn catia. maybe start up a pure catia course»
- I think that there sholud be more lectures in the later weeks of the course»
- Be more clear on why we learn the things you go through on the lectures, because we we sit there it is so booring. But when I read it at home before the examination I thought it was quite interesting actually.»
- I think its bad to divide the groups in us and them. Sure, the product development people should get to know eachother, but isn"t it better if they learn to cooperate with peoples with different point of veiws as well? They would probably get to know eachother anyway during their two years together. I think also that they have been favorized during the whole course. »
- There was NO course evaluation or improvement activities during the course. NO course evaluators, NO meetings, NO means to influence bad lecture materials. While the project work is good and some lectures are useful, most lecture content must be made from scratch.»

18. What master program do you attend?

52 svarande

Product development»31 59%
Systems, control and mechatronics»2 3%
Automotive engineering»9 17%
Engineering design»1 1%
Advanced Engingineering Materials»1 1%
Other»8 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.28

- How does knowing matrix transformation functions for rotating 3D points in space help in professional CATIA use in a design department???» (Automotive engineering)
- Advanced Engineering Materials» (Advanced Engingineering Materials)
- Industrial Design Engineering» (Other)
- Industrial Design Engineering (Teknisk Design)» (Other)
- Industrial Design Engineering» (Other)

Kursutvärderingssystem från