ENKÄTER
 

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

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.

Risk management and safety (IPE061) Quarter 2, 2009

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-01-26 - 2010-03-11
Antal svar: 31
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 29%
Kontaktperson: Mohammad Shahriari»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers

Course Content

1. What did you think about the workload of workshops?

31 svarande

Too little»0 0%
Little»6 19%
Good»16 51%
Much»7 22%
Too much»2 6%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

- not evenly distributed.» (Much)
- Alot of writing and continous work that was unecessary and not worthy the effort.» (Too much)

2. Do you think the workload of home assignment was evenly distributed?

31 svarande

Too little»1 3%
Little»7 22%
Good»16 51%
Much»5 16%
Too much»2 6%

Genomsnitt: 3

3. What did you think about the workload of project?

31 svarande

Too little»0 0%
Little»1 3%
Good»19 61%
Much»9 29%
Too much»2 6%

Genomsnitt: 3.38

- we got no support and feedback on the project work.» (Good)

4. How useful did you find study visit to Preem?

20 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»14 70%
Very good»6 30%

Genomsnitt: 3.3

- No attended » (?)
- was not there» (?)

5. How useful did you find study visit to AkzoNobel?

17 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»13 76%
Very good»4 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.23

- No attended » (?)
- Was not there» (?)
- was not there» (?)

6. What percentage of lectures did you attend?

31 svarande

0%»1 3%
20%»1 3%
50%»7 22%
80%»16 51%
100%»6 19%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- Way too many lectures» (50%)
- I dropped out of the course in the 4th week. I dont think the course was relevant according to the course sillabus and the workload was heavy without beeing educational.» (50%)

Course Organization

7. Quality of course outline

(i.e. document concerning course aim and content, organization of teaching, assignments, reading, assessment, etc.)

31 svarande

Very poor»2 6%
Poor»11 35%
Good»15 48%
Very good»3 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.61

- Bättre klarhet i upplägg och tydligare med poäng och schema. Mkt blev obligatoriskt under tiden vilket inte är bra för planering/krock med andra kurser» (Very poor)
- Unclear what they wanted» (Poor)

8. Course expectations

(i.e. what was expected of you)

31 svarande

Very vague»2 6%
Vague»13 41%
Clear»15 48%
Very clear»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 2.48

- se 7» (Very vague)
- At first it was somehow vague and the information for having more clear information was distributed during the lectures and they were not on the portal. After that it became more clear.» (Clear)

9. Organisation of lectures?

31 svarande

Very poor»2 6%
Poor»8 25%
Good»19 61%
Very good»2 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.67

- Powerpoints behöver fräshas upp så att föreläsningarna får en röd tråd och har samma layout och lagom dvs relevant info» (Very poor)
- Some of the lecturers were not very good in lecturing.» (Good)

10. Organisation of workshops?

31 svarande

Very poor»1 3%
Poor»12 38%
Good»16 51%
Very good»2 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.61

- Ofta sa mohammad vad sheedah skulle säga sen och visade samma exempel vilket gjorde att workshopen kändes omödig» (Poor)

11. Organisation of guest lectures?

28 svarande

Very poor»1 3%
Poor»2 7%
Good»24 85%
Very good»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 2.89

- Intressant och relevant» (Good)
- Same as I mentioned in the lectures section.» (Good)

12. Organisation of Lab?

27 svarande

Very poor»3 11%
Poor»5 18%
Good»18 66%
Very good»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 2.62

- It was cancelled» (Very poor)

13. When do you prefer to have deadline for home assignments?

30 svarande

Weekly (as it was in this study period)»25 83%
At the end of the course»5 16%

Genomsnitt: 1.16

- weekly deadline for home assignment and also an extended deadline on the revision of home assignments.» (Weekly (as it was in this study period))
- With deadlines sequentially throughout the course it is easier to get motivated to start working with the material early in the course and this makes it easier to follow the content of the lectures, so i think that is the best way to learn the course material.» (Weekly (as it was in this study period))

Teaching and learning support

14. Helpfulness of teacher?

29 svarande

Very unhelpful»0 0%
Unhelpful»5 17%
Helpful»15 51%
Very helpful»9 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

15. Helpfulness of tutor?

29 svarande

Very unhelpful»0 0%
Unhelpful»2 6%
Helpful»21 72%
Very helpful»6 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

16. Availability of course material?

(e.g. website, handouts, etc)

30 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»5 16%
Good»18 60%
Very good»7 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.06

17. How effective did you find the course homepage?

30 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»5 16%
Good»20 66%
Very good»5 16%

Genomsnitt: 3

18. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Probabilisitc safety assessment by Carl Sunde"?

(only if attended)

24 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»3 12%
Good»18 75%
Very good»3 12%

Genomsnitt: 3

19. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Constructing Safety - Obstacles and support by Marianne Törner"?

(only if attended)

23 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»3 13%
Good»17 73%
Very good»3 13%

Genomsnitt: 3

20. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Safety climate by Anders Pousette"?

(only if attended)

23 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»4 17%
Good»14 60%
Very good»5 21%

Genomsnitt: 3.04

21. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Technical design of equipment and systems design by Mats Lindgren"?

(only if attended)

24 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»3 12%
Good»13 54%
Very good»8 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- This was the best lecture in my opinion. It delt with a topic which I will probably use after graduation.» (Very good)

22. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Dioxins: The recurrent history of a poisoning family of molecules by Hervé Boileua"?

(only if attended)

18 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 5%
Good»14 77%
Very good»3 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

23. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Accident investigation applying CFD by Sohrab Nassiri"

(only if attended)

16 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»2 12%
Good»9 56%
Very good»5 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- Not attended » (?)

24. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Hearing Protection in transportation and logistics: meeting special needs by Pedro Arezes"?

(only if attended)

23 svarande

Very poor»1 4%
Poor»5 21%
Good»13 56%
Very good»4 17%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

25. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Modelling and simulation: applying @RISK by Jamal Nasir"?

(only if attended)

24 svarande

Very poor»2 8%
Poor»6 25%
Good»11 45%
Very good»5 20%

Genomsnitt: 2.79

- This lecture was meaningless for Chemical engineers, we have heard all of this already. I think it should be a lecture only for those who are not chemical engineers.» (Poor)

26. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Supply risk management by Ulf Paulsson"?

(only if attended)

16 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»3 18%
Good»12 75%
Very good»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.87

27. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Human factors - Man, technology, organisaiton (MTO) by Per Christofferson"?

(only if attended)

22 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»2 9%
Good»15 68%
Very good»5 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

28. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Complexity in logistics systems: controlling chaos using cybernetics by Per-Olof Arnäs"

(only if attended)

16 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»2 12%
Good»13 81%
Very good»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

29. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Maintenance, dependability and safety by Torbjörn Ylipää"?

(only if attended)

17 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»2 11%
Good»14 82%
Very good»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.94

30. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "SHE Management by Andrea Menne"?

(only if attended)

16 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 6%
Good»14 87%
Very good»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 3

31. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Risk of bad ergonomic by Annki Falck"?

(only if attended)

10 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»9 90%
Very good»1 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- Not attended» (?)
- can"t remember» (?)

32. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Risk management in complex systems by Roland Örtengren"?

(only if attended)

13 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 7%
Good»9 69%
Very good»3 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.15

- can"t remember» (?)

33. Overall, how would you rate guest lecturers?

26 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»2 7%
Good»23 88%
Very good»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 2.96

34. Overall, how would you rate this course?

30 svarande

Very poor»2 6%
Poor»9 30%
Good»14 46%
Very good»5 16%

Genomsnitt: 2.73

- Ostrukuterat och röriga föreläsningar» (Poor)

Your perspective

35. Good features of this course?

- No examination »
- no exam, weekly assignment»
- Sheedeh»
- The course covered a broad area. It was good that some of the lectures were divided between the two groups since not everything is relevant for both groups.»
- Home assignments was very good»
- Lärde sig de olika verktygen samt många gästföreläsningar som vände sig till de olika masterprogrammen»
- Interesting and Practical»
- Some of the guest lecturers. Site visits, specially Akzonoble.»
- many guest lecturers»
- Nice distribution of the workload.»
- The study visits were very good, lso some of the guest luctures was very intresting. The course gave a very broad perspective of the subject of risk management»

36. Poor features of this course?

- Unclear what was wanted in home assignments »
- So many guest lecturer with so many irrelevant topics »
- mandatory lectures»
- Some of the lectures was a bit irrelevant for me as a chemical engineer. They could have been in the other group´,s schedule.»
- Workshops were unclear and not very good, seemed to clash with home assignments resulting in doing basically the same thing twice..»
- Ostrukuterat och röriga föreläsningar»
- N/A»
- Some of the guest lecturers. Channels of information to students.»
- unorganized»

37. How could this course be improved?

- focus on a few aspect of risk assessment and reduce the number of guest lecturer »
- it was very good, no idea»
- The level of difficulty in the home assignments could be increased. I know this might result in higher workload for the examiner. But you might be considering some more tasks which are resulting in a spefic result which then could quite easily be considered right or wrong..»
- Struktur och klar information så att inte studenten känner sig vilsen. Bättre upplägg på föreläsningarna»
- The course has too much content and should definitely be focused on the most important subjects. Just look at the number of guest lecturers above, the weekly group assignments, the individual assignments, the study visits, the group project etc. There is too much workload and the learning could be benefited by decreasing the workload and focusing on whats most important instead.»
- The expectations of the course should be very clear from the begining and informed in the original posts in the begining of the quarter. Guest lecturers who are more professional in lecturing and class management should be invited. »
- be more oganized and clear in what should be done»
- do not put the lectures held by guestlecturers in the afternoon»
- Groupwork must be designed randomly or by the professor in order to guaratee the highest level of etereogenity of nationality, background and knowledge.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från