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.

Gas turbine technology, MTF171

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-11-05 - 2009-11-22
Antal svar: 22
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 55%
Kontaktperson: Tomas Grönstedt»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers

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.

22 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»5 22%
Around 20 hours/week»10 45%
Around 25 hours/week»4 18%
Around 30 hours/week»0 0%
At least 35 hours/week»3 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.36

- Mostly to read the book...» (Around 25 hours/week)

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

22 svarande

0%»2 9%
25%»0 0%
50%»1 4%
75%»11 50%
100%»8 36%

Genomsnitt: 4.04

- » (0%)

3. Which master program do you follow

21 svarande

Sustainable engineering systems»3 14%
Applied Mechanics»9 42%
Automotive Engineering»2 9%
Erasmus»7 33%

Genomsnitt: 2.61

- Sustainable energy systems» (?)
- Sustainable ENERGY systems !» (Sustainable engineering systems)

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.

4. How understandable are the course goals?

22 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»5 22%
The goals are difficult to understand»3 13%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»8 36%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»6 27%

Genomsnitt: 2.68

- Detailed learning outcomes wanted.» (The goals are difficult to understand)

5. 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.

18 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»18 100%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

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

20 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»6 30%
Yes, definitely»12 60%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

Teaching and course administration

7. How do you rate the efforts of the lecturer?

22 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 9%
Adequate»4 18%
Good»8 36%
Excellent»8 36%

Genomsnitt: 4

8. How do you rate the efforts of the course assistant?

22 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 9%
Adequate»4 18%
Good»12 54%
Excellent»4 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.81

9. How do you rate the course book?

22 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 9%
Adequate»5 22%
Good»12 54%
Excellent»3 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- Difficult to sort out the important parts and get an overview. » (Adequate)
- It took a time to come into understanding of how it was ment to be read, but then it was good I think. » (Good)
- everything was well explained, maybe a bit too long to read!!!» (Good)

10. How do you rate the design tasks?

22 svarande

Poor»1 4%
Fair»1 4%
Adequate»5 22%
Good»13 59%
Excellent»2 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

- Ithink that 4 students cooperating is too many, when working with matlab. There is always one that understands less than the others.» (Good)
- Quite hard for people who does not know Matlab (especially for the DT3)» (Good)
- the third one was more or less a "did you understand how to use Matlab"-task. So I am not sure, if it is really a very important task the way it is now. But I couldn"t say, how to make it better.» (Good)
- More stationary things!» (Good)

11. How do you rate the written exam?

- Very good»
- Good»
- Good mix of questions»
- Good, but in some senses I felt that it didn"t bring up some topics that I think were important parts of the course. »
- Good»
- Ok»
- good»
- very good»
- It was very fair to pass the exam and good, that you have to have a very good knowledge to get the 5.»
- Fair. Had a little bit of everything.»
- Fairly easy»
- It was not what i expected. I expected an exame with problems like those in the course litterature. I belive it only was problem nr 1 that was like this. Maybe more focus on knowledge which One gain if reading the book should be credited. I belive the focus was to much om proving mathematical expressions and formulas. »
- I think it was easier than the previous exams, and it"s really helpful to be able to solve them before the exam, in this way you can find out what you didn"t understand well and have a global sight of the program and topic you will be verified on»
- the excercise 3 was difficult»

12. How well did the course administration, web page, hadouts etc work?

- Very well»
- They worked well. Escpecially the use of the studieportal functions like contributing assignments through it instead of mail or by paper. This is not used in many other courses.»
- Excellent»
- Ok. Handouts appreciated.»
- Exercises to do at home should be stated in the course pm. »
- Good»
- Good»
- good»
- excellent»
- very clear and complete»
- very good»
- Good. Good that we got the handouts. Is simplifies the learning.»
- Perfect. Thanks for printing the slides, but maybe the next time you could print it from the beginning of the course as you did it at the end (the design: 2 slides on one page).»
- Not good»
- Good»
- they"re ok»
- good»

Special events

13. How do you rate the efforts of the industrial lecturer (Martin Nilsson - Volvo Aero)?

21 svarande

Poor»1 4%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»5 23%
Good»12 57%
Excellent»3 14%

Genomsnitt: 3.76

- Didn"t attend» (?)
- Talking to much!» (Poor)
- Gave a good view of what one can work with if studying gas turbines, which is always interesting.» (Adequate)

14. How do you rate the aircraft aerodynamics lecture (Henrik Ekstrand)?

- Good»
- Interesting, but could have more focus on how the usage affects the gas turbine.»
- I think it would have been better if he told us more about the topic that he"s been working on, than showing a lots of graphs. He was very good at the "flying-topic" but he didn"t make it clear. »
- Rather poor.»
- ok»
- ok»
- intresting but I would prefer more details»
- Super interesting.»
- It was very interesting.»
- Good. Interesting to have a pilots point of view too.»
- Poor.»
- Very good»
- interesting, but not so useful for the programme»
- very interesting»

15. How do you rate the study visit at Rya Verken?

- I think it is a very useful part of the course. It is good to see how things work in reality,»
- Good»
- Good, but it would have been nice to get the broschure in advance so that one can try to understand how it works before going there. This since it was very hard to hear inside the building.»
- I haven"t attended it.»
- ok»
- didn´,t attend»
- very intresting»
- Okay.»
- Very nice :)»
- Were not there this time. Been there before.»
- Good»
- Very good»
- very interesting and useful!!!»
- very interesting»

Study climate

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

22 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»3 13%
Very good»17 77%
I did not seek help»2 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.95

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

22 svarande

Very poorly»2 9%
Rather poorly»2 9%
Rather well»6 27%
Very well»12 54%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

- Due to people in the group who does not know Matlab, I had to work almost all by myself and there has even been some tension within the group due to this. » (Rather poorly)
- Groups of four creates huge problems in planning!» (Rather well)

Summarizing questions

18. What is your general impression of the course?

21 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»4 19%
Good»13 61%
Excellent»4 19%

Genomsnitt: 4

- More stationary gas turbines!» (Good)
- It"s very fun with courses that is so close to reality. Try to keep it that way!» (Excellent)

19. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Design tasks»
- Keep the course as it is.»
- The design task »
- Design tasks»
- The book which covers all the subjects.»
- the design tasks. »
- Design tasks. not necesserily the same.»
- the design tasks»
- the study visit and the book (taking away some chapters as the one on mechanical failures)»

20. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- More exercises about axial turbine in. »
- Mechanincs part needs to be integrated more, seemed a little out of place now. Maybe something in design tasks?»
- The number of students in each group. »
- The course by Henrik Ekstrand should definitely be more dynamic. »
- maybe the course book. I didnt like the structure in the book. maybe additional course literature would be nice, to clarify the most important things.»
- Bonuspointdefinition: Please say more clear, what the definition of the bonuspoints are, i.e. if you just get them, if you passed the exam or if they are there from the beginning. For example: "For handing in of all 3 tasks you get UP TO 10 bonuspoints (if you pass the exam)."»
- More stationary gas turbines, and things related to that. Cool heat exchanger and stuff. »
- maybe little less of the course material, there"s alot of things to learn by heart, and alot of text to go through»
- i think the design task should be applied to something more actual!»

21. Additional comments

- About the content: It was probably too general. For me it was very good the way it was now, because I just read this course out of my interests, but I can understand that for those who want to be expert in this topic and have some experience with thermodynamics etc the courselevel might be too low. But I really liked the course it was now (for me it was nearly perfect) but I am Civilengineer and had almost no preknowledge of thermodynamics etc. so it was a totally new topic for me.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från