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.

Introduction to Nuclear Reactors, TIF215

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-11-26 - 2009-12-07
Antal svar: 30
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 55%
Kontaktperson: Anders Nordlund»
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.

30 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»18 60%
Around 20 hours/week»12 40%
Around 25 hours/week»0 0%
Around 30 hours/week»0 0%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.4

- Probably less... Can"t really remember the total lecture time each week, but i didn"t spent more than 3 hours á week excluding lectures » (At most 15 hours/week)
- Passe mengde arbeid med tanke på at Nuclear Chemistry var mye arbeid.» (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%»1 3%
75%»6 20%
100%»23 76%

Genomsnitt: 4.73

- Meget bra og interessante forelesninger. Morsom foreleser. » (100%)
- As many as I could» (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?

30 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»6 20%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»2 6%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»22 73%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

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.

26 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»9 34%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»17 65%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.65

- It was to basic most of the time. » (No, the goals are set too low)

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

26 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»6 23%
Yes, definitely»19 73%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- I though there would have been some harder question, or more developed.» (To some extent)
- The exam was perfect considering learning goals for the course and the level of the lectures.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

30 svarande

Small extent»1 3%
Some extent»0 0%
Large extent»9 30%
Great extent»20 66%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- Bra foreleser.» (Great extent)
- Very good lecturer. Best introduction to detectors I have seen and I have seen at least 4 before. » (Great extent)
- Anders Nordlund is one of the most competent lecturers I have ever had during my 5 years at Chalmes» (Great extent)
- Anders Nordlund is the best lecturer I have come across during my five years at Chalmers.» (Great extent)

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

30 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»3 10%
Large extent»10 33%
Great extent»17 56%

Genomsnitt: 3.46

- Very nice conpendium» (Great extent)
- Bra materiell.» (Great extent)
- Since the material was put together by Anders it corresponded to the lectures which made it very easy to follow.» (Great extent)

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

30 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»1 3%
Rather well»9 30%
Very well»20 66%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

9. How do you percieve the overall pedagogical quality of the course?

30 svarande

Very low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Agerage»0 0%
High»9 30%
Very high»21 70%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 4.7

- Very nice lectures, dynamic, entertaining and well explained.» (Very high)
- Anders is very good lecturer. Good tone of voice, great english and puts life to the lectures.» (Very high)

10. How was the quality of the part about nuclear fuel?

30 svarande

Very low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Agerage»13 50%
High»11 42%
Very high»2 7%
No opinion»4

Genomsnitt: 3.57

- I think it would have been better to have the lecture about nuclear in the end of the course. » (No opinion)

11. How was the quality of the part about fusion?

30 svarande

Very low»0 0%
Low»2 7%
Agerage»8 30%
High»12 46%
Very high»4 15%
No opinion»4

Genomsnitt: 3.69

- I took the Sustainable power production and transportation at the same time so I had the lecture twice.» (Agerage)
- It was intresting, but quite irrelevant for this course.» (High)

Study climate

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

30 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»3 10%
Very good»22 73%
I did not seek help»5 16%

Genomsnitt: 4.06

13. How was the course workload?

30 svarande

Too low»6 20%
Low»17 56%
Adequate»7 23%
High»0 0%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.03

- Man hade kunnat lägga på mer i kursen, man hade kunnat få ut mer. » (Too low)
- This course was very well balanced, if you didn´,t understand something in the book your got it at the lectures or could always ask Anders. Good to have tasks to do at the end of each chapter of the compendium.» (Adequate)

14. How was the total workload this study period?

30 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»3 10%
Adequate»13 43%
High»11 36%
Too high»3 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.46

- different in different weeks» (Adequate)
- No problem if it was higher» (Adequate)
- All the small assignments in SPPT made the overall workload quite high.» (High)
- Nuclear Chemisrty should be like 15 ECTS credits on its own. 6 labs with 6 reports is crazy! » (Too high)
- Kärnkemi kursen som går paralellt är väldigt arbetskrävande. » (Too high)

Summarizing questions

15. What is your general impression of the course?

30 svarande

Poor»1 3%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»4 13%
Good»9 30%
Excellent»16 53%

Genomsnitt: 4.3

- no so much work» (Good)
- It"s a nice course, but way to easy» (Good)
- Anders made learning fun! » (Excellent)
- I think that the course might was a bit to easy. It could have been more challanging, but I guess that this was purpose of this course was to get a light overview and if that is the case then I have nothing to complain about» (Excellent)
- Nog en av de mest intressanta kursen jag läst. » (Excellent)
- Best course I have taken at Chalmers during my five years here.» (Excellent)

16. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Anders! The course structure»
- Anders»
- Anders Nordlund»
- keep anders»
- Almost everything, maybe not fusion.»
- Faget er bra som det er. Men kan f. eks. korrigere skrivefeil i kompendium, fjerne svensk osv. Burde også ha forelesning i alle oppsatte timer, i år ble en del av de oppsatte timene droppet.»
- Anders in particular and his stories and anecdotes for sure! »
- Anders is greate»
- The teacher!»
- The structure, with an introductions to all parts of the reactor»
- More or less everything»
- Everything!»
- Kompendiet var väldigt bra. »
- Anders as the lecturer and the compendium. »
- The way this course is taught is very well. I have a mechanical background and I learnt a lot. In my opinion everything should by preserved to next year.»
- Way of teaching.»

17. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- no idea, maybe add some tutorials»
- Maybe put a table of contents in the compendium...»
- A Balance in workload.»
- The lecture about nuclear fuel was quite intresting and I would like to learn more about it. I definately think the fuel should be a part of an introduction course. Where else will we learn about it?»
- the processes could be more deeply described. »
- The workload on the Nuclear Chemistry course»
- The visit to Ringhals could be more interesting. »
- Maybe increase in the diffusion part and decrease it in the next course.»
- More content. You can have a lot more information in the course. »
- Nothing in particular»
- balance of work lode »
- Nothing that I can think of.»
- I would say that the tempo was to low. There could be much more information in this course, because as a student at engeenering physics you have seen most of the topics in previous courses. A smaler overlap whith the chemstry course would also be desireable.»
- Lite mer innehåll.»
- Maybe a few more questions at the end of each chapter in the compendium, like 5-7.»
- Extend amount of topics or go deeper into some topics. Increase speed (information density).»

18. Additional comments

- It was a»
- put in some home tasks or something»
- The course could cover more, for example some math to prepare the students for the following course "Physics of nuclear reactors". The difficulty is very different between those courses.»
- Anders is one of the best teachers I ever had! »
- Anders take care of the course Physics of nuclear reactors! You must save it!»
- If only all courses were as good as this one. Grade 5.»
- The course was really good but we could have learn more. »

Kursutvärderingssystem från