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.

Finite Simulation in Design, TME125

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-12-15 - 2010-01-31
Antal svar: 27
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 33%
Kontaktperson: Andreas Dagman»
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.

26 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»7 26%
Around 20 hours/week»11 42%
Around 25 hours/week»5 19%
Around 30 hours/week»2 7%
At least 35 hours/week»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 2.19

- Did not read the book or do any of the (exam-) exercises (yet, that is. I have a re-exam to do). The time was concentrated to the end of the course due to the time-consuming third computer exercise.» (At most 15 hours/week)
- This shouldn"t have been necessary if the assignments were better instructed-» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

27 svarande

0%»1 3%
25%»1 3%
50%»4 14%
75%»8 29%
100%»13 48%

Genomsnitt: 4.14

- I spent most of my time on the computer rooms and didn"t have time to attend the lectures.» (50%)

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?

27 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»4 14%
The goals are difficult to understand»2 7%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»7 25%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»14 51%

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- The goals were of a overview character. They could be more specific.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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.

25 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 4%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»21 84%
No, the goals are set too high»3 12%

Genomsnitt: 2.08

- I have read a theoretical FEM before» (No, the goals are set too low)
- I would like to see more applications of the FEM software, such as dynamic or thermal analysis, instead of just static stress and strain calculations.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

26 svarande

No, not at all»1 3%
To some extent»7 26%
Yes, definitely»13 50%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»5 19%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- The exam part of this course is a joke. I got a grade of 5 studying for only 2 days. I think "In design" should mean more practical and no half-hearted theory part. » (No, not at all)
- Too little FEM theory and too much linear algebra. Should be a bit more focus on the theory behind the FEM methods in my opinion» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

27 svarande

Small extent»4 14%
Some extent»6 22%
Large extent»13 48%
Great extent»4 14%

Genomsnitt: 2.62

- The computer assignment took all the time and there weren"t enough teachers to help the students. You were lucky if you got help once during one computer exercise.» (Small extent)
- To learn FEMAP you have to spend a lot of time alone with the program.» (Some extent)

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

27 svarande

Small extent»5 18%
Some extent»8 29%
Large extent»11 40%
Great extent»3 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.44

- Haven"t read that much of it yet.» (Some extent)

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

27 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»2 7%
Rather well»15 55%
Very well»10 37%

Genomsnitt: 3.29

- alldeles för mycket tid var tvunget att läggas på att få femap att fungera.» (Rather badly)

Study climate

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

25 svarande

Very poor»2 8%
Rather poor»5 20%
Rather good»5 20%
Very good»13 52%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

- Some problems with long ques, and somethimes is was also a problem with different knowledge level for assistens» (?)
- especially during the project work the supervision was pretty bad! too long queues and not always helpful guidance. I would recommend to upload more guidelines for known problems!» (Very poor)
- The assignments became tougher than intended due to the long hours of waiting for assistance. Clearer instructions would help this problem.» (Rather poor)
- Jättelång kö för att fråga på övningarna. Ofta kunde ledarna inte ens klara av att hjälpa till att komma vidare i programmet.» (Rather poor)
- The lack of competence was very annoying. One assumes that the ones running the course should be able to at least help out with the tasks, not just take a guess, being wrong and then go away.» (Rather poor)
- Help during the lab needs improvement» (Rather good)
- Sometimes you had to wait a long time for help with the computer assignments.» (Rather good)
- The opportunities were good, both during the computer excercises and outside lecture time.» (Very good)

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

27 svarande

Very poorly»1 3%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»6 22%
Very well»20 74%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- Alla studenter fick hjälpa varandra eftersom ledarna ofta var upptagna.» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

27 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 3%
Adequate»15 55%
High»6 22%
Too high»5 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

- Heavy workload on assignments if unlucky with program... seemed not stable enough all the times.» (Adequate)
- Due to the problem with bugs in the software. Otherwise adequate.» (High)
- The project work took too much time without any benefit for the final grade. I would recommend to give the project work a stronger influence for the grading!!» (Too high)
- This is only due to the fact that FEMAP is a useless software and that one couldnt get the questions answered.» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

27 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»7 25%
High»15 55%
Too high»5 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.92

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

27 svarande

Poor»3 11%
Fair»3 11%
Adequate»5 18%
Good»14 51%
Excellent»2 7%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- The computer assignments were poorly written and the different teachers did the assignments in different ways. The instructions in the assignments didn"t make sense and set you off on the wrong direction. There were no opportunity to get help when calculating.» (Poor)
- A more thourough walk-through of the software used would be preferred. Alot of the theory does not apply to the course name, FEM in Design. » (Fair)
- Förutom femap så är det godkänt.» (Fair)
- I like the fact that you learn both the computer program itself and the basics behind a computer program.» (Good)
- It was good to get familiar with a FEM software, but sometimes it felt like focus was more on trying to figure out which buttons to click on rather than focusing on a general understanding of what was going on "under the hood" as well as learning tips and tricks and pitfalls when working with a FEM software» (Good)
- Very well organized. » (Excellent)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The structure of the course is good. The lectures are pedagogic and the computer time is appropriate (you have to, of course, work with the computer exercises outside the schedule, but that is appropriate). »
- Lectures were very clear and easy to follow. Very good to have bonus assignments»
- The voluntary assignments.»
- Good mix between lectures, exercises and computer assignments that should be preserved to next year. »
- The computer exercisers is really good. »
- Nothing»
- The larger assignment and the volontary as well.»
- The tutorials were very good and Johan was a great help also in the assignments»
- The computer exercises were good.»
- Very good lectures!»
- Absolutely nothing.»
- The use of assignments with a connection to real structures. »
- The assignments!»
- The amount of computer classes. As many as they were, all of them were definitely needed. The computer assignments. I learnt a lot from solving them. The relaxed atmosphere of the course. The organization of both lectures and exercise classes.»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- *The computer exercise memos were very bad!! There were a lot of errors and they were written in a way which was often hard to understand exactly what was meant. Also, I my mind you should be able to solve the exercises on your own, with the aid of the memos. The tutors should only be used "in case of emergency". In this case it is simply not possible to solve the exercise without A LOT of help from them. The help section in the program was bad so you did not get much help there. Therefore there must be a lot more help and hits in the memos!! I often spent like 2h to figure out extremely simple things. That is not well used time. *I really think there should be 1 lecture dedicated to FEMAP where the basic stuff is introduced and useful hints are taught.»
- Probably the book and maybe the software too because it felt like it wasnt all that stable.»
- The assignments need to be updated. Some of the instructions were based on earlier versions of the software. Also, if the assignment were more self-instructing this would facilitate the process for both teachers and students.»
- The literature can be changed, did not help me at all.»
- The assignments MUST be changed, the instructions were useless. It would"ve been better to get material about the program instead of instructions on how to solve a particular task.»
- The teachers (some at least) has to have a better understanding of the software in order to be of any real assistance.»
- More scheduled time for the assignments »
- The theory seemed to move rather slow at the beginning and so we didn"t make it to structural dynamics. I would have liked to see a little less time on the early material, especially in the tutorial, and more time on the more complex topics.»
- The extrapoint assignements should be more integrated in the course, and presented earlier.»
- A software without several bugs.»
- Övningarna!! Mindre omfattning och bättre programvara eller guidelines!»
- In the beginning of the course, the exercise classes could have been more "explaining", now it only consisted of copying the writings on the blackboard, but they improved during the course.»
- Either the program or the competence from the teachers using the program. The Course litterature is really poor. Take a look at for example "Introduction to the Finite Element method" by Ottosen and Pettersson. Let the focus be on the "in design" part. The theory is too unthrough to have any value at all. It´,s pointless. »
- If possible more help with computer assignments. »

16. Additional comments

- Very good and useful course and with good and helpful teachers! »
- This is an interesting FEM course! I has what most other courses at Chalmers lacks, a connection to the reality that is coming... And not only Matlab coding. »
- I"am as a whole satisfied with the course.»
- Good teaching. Good access to both the teacher and TA"s.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från