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.

Turbulent flow, MTF265

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-12-11 - 2010-01-31
Antal svar: 24
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Lars Davidson»
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.

23 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»2 8%
Around 20 hours/week»7 30%
Around 25 hours/week»8 34%
Around 30 hours/week»6 26%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.78

- An appropiate guess I suppose.» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

23 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»4 17%
75%»8 34%
100%»11 47%

Genomsnitt: 4.3

- probably around 85-90%. Missed only a few lectures» (75%)
- A bit slow at times, but you get the job done without leaving anything out, so it"s all good. It was a bit hard following Gunnar"s part. It was hard to know what was needed for us to know, and what was just side tracking.» (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?

23 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»1 4%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»7 30%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»15 65%

Genomsnitt: 3.56

- Gunnar lab work is boring as hell!!!!! sometimes we just looking each other!» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- Lars part» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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.

21 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 4%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»19 90%
No, the goals are set too high»1 4%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Once you have passed it is VERY easy to get a 4 or a 5 thanks to the assignment. Good or bad, I don"t know. Have"nt seen the statistics yet, but I would expect a lot of 5"s.» (No, the goals are set too low)
- what I remember they seem reasonable. » (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

22 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»2 9%
Yes, definitely»13 59%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»7 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.22

- Since almost all of the questions from the exam was taken from the learning outcomes, I would have to say that it was so.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning in Part 1 (first 4 weeks)?

23 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»5 21%
Large extent»4 17%
Great extent»14 60%

Genomsnitt: 3.39

- Great teacher. Always makes time to help out.» (Great extent)
- Great help.» (Great extent)
- I realized that I had learnt a lot from the lectures when I read the course material.» (Great extent)

7. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning in Part 2 (last 3 weeks)

- some extent»
- it is better to have some part of it in the first weeks for example visualization I think it is not even right to have it first visualization should be mixed with course »
- Not much»
- Unstructured and fuzzy...»
- I must say I had a hard time with the lectures. By the way, the first lecture, in the wind tunnel lab, which turned out to be quite an important one, could have much rather been held in a class room. This way, we would have been able to take notes, and not concentrate on standing up for the last 40 minutes. The wind tunnel wasn"t even examined up close so pictures of it would have sufficed.»
- More topics should have been covered in Part 2. »
- Well.. They are (according to me) not that well defined. Although, they gave some kind of guiding. They could be more defined.»
- Not much»
- Not much»
- Large extent»
- I think the line of argument was missing in Part 2. I never realized what I was suppose to learn because it was not as organized as I hoped it would be. »
- Not so much, really. Debating physics with the entire class, trying to answer questions the professor asks, only to be counter-questioned immediately had you the courage to answer, is a hard and arguably bad model in a Swedish classroom. People are not used to that kind of interaction (which isn"t to say it is bad) but it makes it hard to get the point. I simply prefer a blackboard, a peace of chalk, a professor that calmly goes through the physics and explains what needs to be understood, rather than trying to make sense out of the pretty random guesswork we students come up with. »
- Some extent»
- Not at all»
- It was felt that contents looked heavy and in my opinion more time is needed for this part. »

8. To what extent has the course literature in Part 1 been of help for your learning?

23 svarande

Small extent»2 8%
Some extent»2 8%
Large extent»7 30%
Great extent»12 52%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

- It was hard reading it at first but after a couple of times, I found them easier to read. » (Large extent)

9. To what extent has the course literature in Part 2 been of help for your learning

- some extent»
- Nothing»
- Unstructured and fuzzy...»
- It was not very helpful.»
- A bunch of randomly selected papers it seemed. No idea which parts where good for the course, and which parts was not. Way to much information to take in without some reading instructions.»
- Not much help. It would be better to have literature specific to the course content as time does not permit to read all the literature.»
- I sometimes felt confused about what we really had to read. I felt as if some of the litterature was just handed out but were of no greater interest from a examination point of view.»
- Not much»
- No it was hard to understand what was part of the course or not, way to much litterature for 3 weeks»
- Large extent»
- Just a bunch of papers, as I said before where was the line of argument? »
- Much worse. It"s not coherent literature. It"s a fairly random set of more or less related topics. But it"s hard to make heads or tails out of what is really important. I would suggest Gunnar write his own stuff, considering just 20 pages should be enough to cover the essentials. »
- some extent»
- none»
- it gives some idea what can be done on turbulent flow practicaly.gave some knowledge of measuring devices and how to interprit the data obtained experimentaly.»
- Small extent»
- there was so much text to go through and which ofcourse i didnt read .. and that was becuase of lack of time . »

10. To what extent has the assigment (in Part 1) been of help for your learning?

- some extent»
- much»
- Good to look back at, it all seems clearer after a few weeks...»
- It was very interesting and helpful.»
- It covered almost all of the aspects of the course. Time consuming, but good for learning.»
- It was very helpful to understand the theory.»
- It obviously gives the students one more reason to start the studies in läsvecka 1. It is the most bountiful assignment from a bonus point of view I"ve ever done.»
- large extent»
- Medium, i learned more from the lectures»
- Large extent»
- Very helpful, I learned a lot from it.»
- It"s great!»
- Great extent»
- great extent. I got a great understanding for most of the parts included in the course.»
- it gave how to interpret the data statisticaly»
- Some extent»
- It helped alot . it gave the feeling of how every term is behaving and how is it computed in N-S eqn. it was very helpful »

11. To what extent has the lab (in Part 2) been of help for your learning?

- small extent»
- not much»
- ...»
- It was not very helpful.»
- They where chaotic. Getting the data a week late, and with assistants who seemed to not want to help, it was difficult. My group didn"t finish it all. Again, clear instructions, so we could get the data analyzed, instead of searching for a simple a matlab command for hours would be preferable. This way, we would have had time to understand what, and especially why, we were doing the task. »
- More things can be explained during lab. »
- The wind tunnel introduction was informative, but since all students had to stand upright, and only got to hear all information (there was no litterature handed out) a lot of the information was probably forgotten.»
- Minumum extent, it was nice to see the windtunnel but the actual lab was really hard to grasp »
- Some extent»
- Well, I found out how difficult it is to do analytical experiments, otherwise I can come up with anything.»
- Very little really. Almost a waste of time in its current form.»
- Large extent»
- some extent.»
- lab didnt help much»
- small extent»
- it was better. but i still feel more time and effort was required. »

12. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work in Part 1?

23 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»7 30%
Very well»16 69%

Genomsnitt: 3.69

- focussed on one particular case ,giving rise to a question whether the graphs are applicable to all conditions in fluid flow.» (Rather well)
- what I remember » (Very well)

13. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work in Part 2?

- rather badly»
- Bad»
- ...»
- It was not bad not good.»
- Bad. Not much communication between Tobias and Gunnar it seemed. We needed the lab data ALOT sooner.»
- Not much help. More literature should be uploaded.»
- not bad, could have been better.»
- Too much material!»
- Rather well»
- very well, what I remember»
- Handouts were given during the lectures, so that was ok. »
- Was not used»
- ok. A lot of things were handed out, but it was not always clear what was included or not.»
- Professor did good part and he is enthusiastic.but other things not helpful»
- Very badly, the data needed for the Lab work was only available a few days before the exam period started. This is why everything turned out to be unnecessaryly stressful. The entire Lab work was completely messed up and of no help!»
- they were ok.»

Study climate

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

22 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»2 9%
Very good»20 90%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.9

- Lars is always helping us when we need it. great devotion to his job.» (Very good)
- I"m glad that those involved with this course are so helpful and let the students ask questions even if it"s not "exercise time". This is not the case in all courses, unfortunately. Good job!» (Very good)
- Lars is really good at both understanding a question and answer it. » (Very good)

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

23 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»1 4%
Rather well»8 34%
Very well»14 60%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.56

16. How was the course workload?

23 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»10 43%
High»11 47%
Too high»2 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.65

- Fine for the most part. Too high in the end, with no clear goal.» (High)
- High as expected. It is the adequade workload according to me.» (High)
- high only because of the second part. that was kind of heavy. » (High)
- In general the workload was adequate, but the lab work in part 2 of the lectures was way too much work for only a few days of time left.» (Too high)

17. How was the total workload this study period?

23 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»7 30%
High»8 34%
Too high»8 34%

Genomsnitt: 4.04

- Studied 3 courses this period» (High)
- To long time with assignments that influence the study time for the exams badly» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

18. What is your general impression of the course?

22 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»3 13%
Good»13 59%
Excellent»6 27%

Genomsnitt: 4.13

- By this i mean mr Lada"s part» (Excellent)
- after this course i feel confident about the turblence .. atleast i have an idea why and how flow looks near the wall and in turbulent region. and ofcourse how to handle each term if needed to compare or compute. » (Excellent)

19. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Assignment»
- Exact goals for part 2»
- Assignment 1, learning outcome 1,2,3,4 and Lars»
- All the lecture notes in part 1 is very good and if it is possible, some topics related to boundary layer is to be added.»
- Lars»
- Assignment 1»
- The lecture set up.. First quick repetition of last lecture, then explain what we are going to do today. Then sum up at the end.»
- The syllabus and teachers.»
- Assignment 1 and Lars :)»
- Part 1 is great. Fix a lot of errors in the text though. »
- The first assignment, the learning outcomes»
- assignment I! I learnt almost everything from the assignment.»
- Lars Davidsson»
- kolmogorov theory,some practical information,spectral analysis.»
- assignment»
- first part was very nicely distributef ad explained. in second the experiment part is very nice , it gives a good idea that what we study how it appears in realtime. »

20. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The experimental task was not clearly defined and was way too much work, especially since it started one week before the exam...»
- Part 2»
- Part II»
- The part two should be offered better.»
- Second part. Give us the data sooner, and help us do the assignment. When we have the data, we can start to understand it. Not the other way around.»
- Second part of the course has to be more well defined, learing outcomes has to be updated, what is expected to be presented.»
- approach to the part 2 of the course.»
- The last lab. No one in the class had any idea what to do. Make it clearer»
- Assignment 2»
- Part 2 of the course needs to be redesigned. Approach it more in a classical way. »
- The laboration should be better prepared and the teaching in the second part should, at least start, at a lower level.»
- The lab. Badly structured and unclear expectations»
- what is tubulent realy rather than giving some statistical information.what is turbulent being understood rite now rather explaining 100 years before hypothesis.»
- the lab work needs some (a lot!!) restructuring! It is interesting to get some insight into experimental fluid mechanics, but in this lab work only knowledge about statistics was required»
- i think the time and contents for the second part must be revised , e.g. it reqiores more tiem i guess and the experimental part must be started as the second part starts so that we have sufficient time .. instead of taking results again it can be done that some early data is givent to students and ofcourse how the measurements are taken can be explained in some lab class to the entire class not in groups that creates lots of problems. »

21. Additional comments

- Lars has done a good and interesting job. Keep structured lecturenotes and your spirit!»
- course is good for begineers like me but i came to know the limitations of turbulent theory only through self study.apart from that it is good.»
- THANK YOU for all your efforts made me confident about turbulance. thanyou Sir Lars. and Sir Gunnar and ofcourse TObias . »

Kursutvärderingssystem från