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.

Advanced Subatomic Physics, FUF025

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-02-02 - 2010-03-31
Antal svar: 5
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Gabriele Ferretti»

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.

5 svarande

At most 15 hours/week» 3 60%

Around 20 hours/week» 1 20%

Around 25 hours/week» 1 20%

Around 30 hours/week» 0 0%

At least 35 hours/week» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.6

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

5 svarande

0%» 0 0%

25%» 1 20%

50%» 0 0%

75%» 1 20%

100%» 3 60%

Genomsnitt: 4.2

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

5 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals» 2 40%

The goals are difficult to understand» 0 0%

The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer» 0 0%

The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn» 3 60%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- The formulations "use a scientific methodology in application to subatomic phenomena" and "use theoretical tools of subatomic physics" are quite vague, but I personally don"t have a problem with that. In some courses the goals are much more precise, e.g. explicitly naming different methods, but it might be harder to apply in this course. The formulations "understand experimental methods used in subatomic physics" and "have a working knowledge of quantum methods required to investigate and interpret strong and electroweak interactions" are more to the point.» (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.

4 svarande

No, the goals are set too low» 2 50%

Yes, the goals seem reasonable» 2 50%

No, the goals are set too high» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.5

- The goals aren"t necessarily set too low, but since the formulations are left quite unspecified it doesn"t really pinpoint the scope of the course. In retrospect I believe the course could have tried to cover more material.» (No, the goals are set too low)
- with more lectures one could cover more material that would be nice» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

5 svarande

No, not at all» 0 0%

To some extent» 1 20%

Yes, definitely» 1 20%

I don"t know/have not been examined yet» 3 60%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- you did not have to study that thourroughly for the homework problems, just find the particular informations required» (To some extent)
- The problem sets were well balanced I think. If the course content should expand, there wouldn"t be a problem to fit one more problem set in, though.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

5 svarande

Small extent» 2 40%

Some extent» 2 40%

Large extent» 1 20%

Great extent» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.8

- I did not attend many lectures.» (Small extent)
- there were very different qualities of lecturers. the lectures given by cristian forssen were very good and i would have rated them with the option great extend. the lectures by natalia Shul"gina, were boring and the english difficult to understand, i would have rated them with small extend. Mikail Zukov seemed very ambitious but his lectures are also only rated "some extend".» (Some extent)
- Christian is a great lecturer! More lectures with him would definitely be good for the course.» (Some extent)

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

5 svarande

Small extent» 1 20%

Some extent» 2 40%

Large extent» 0 0%

Great extent» 2 40%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

- The course literature is too basic. For next year you should recommend the students with a theoretical background to use some other literature.» (Small extent)
- The level and content of the book fitted the course, I think.» (Great extent)
- good book» (Great extent)

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

5 svarande

Very badly» 0 0%

Rather badly» 0 0%

Rather well» 2 40%

Very well» 3 60%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

Study climate

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

5 svarande

Very poor» 0 0%

Rather poor» 0 0%

Rather good» 0 0%

Very good» 3 60%

I did not seek help» 2 40%

Genomsnitt: 4.4

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

5 svarande

Very poorly» 0 0%

Rather poorly» 0 0%

Rather well» 1 20%

Very well» 3 60%

I did not seek cooperation» 1 20%

Genomsnitt: 4

11. How was the course workload?

5 svarande

Too low» 2 40%

Low» 1 20%

Adequate» 2 40%

High» 0 0%

Too high» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- This course is meant to be open for "anyone" within the physics-oriented master programs I guess, and it doesn"t require much more than a passed introductory course in subatomic physics (and special relativity helps a bit). The ones who have taken the course "FKA081 Quantum Mechanics", and perhaps even the follow-up "FUF070 Advanced Quantum Mechanics", and perhaps even simultaneously attend "FUF020 Quantum Field Theory" probably find some of the concepts a bit to simplified. It is impossible to make everyone, independent of background, happy about the way the course is given though. It is an issue for the course, which I am sure the lecturers are aware of. That being said, I think the workload still was "too" manageable. There is space to crank it up a notch.» (Too low)
- The level of the course was too low, but the workload was just low. Maybe I find the workload low because the course was too easy. Thus the possibility that the course workload is adequate exist.» (Low)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

5 svarande

Too low» 0 0%

Low» 1 20%

Adequate» 2 40%

High» 2 40%

Too high» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- "FUF020 Quantum Field Theory", with three lectures and quite extensive hand-ins weekly, quite filled the period. I don"t think I underestimate if I say I spent 80% of the total time on that course. This made "Advanced Subatomic Physics"-course a good match since I didn"t feel it was especially heavy, but at the same time the problem lies at QFT being too extensive.» (High)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

5 svarande

Poor» 1 20%

Fair» 1 20%

Adequate» 0 0%

Good» 3 60%

Excellent» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3

- It could be more extensive, containing more theory.» (Poor)
- The course was too basic. The course literature was very easy and I felt it was not sufficient even for the level of the course.» (Fair)
- I really liked the subject, to the extent that I will try to continue within the area in my education. The things it covered were really good, but it could have been even more, I felt both in hindsight and during the course.» (Good)
- The content is good, the lectures see above, organisation is very good. » (Good)

14. What should be preserved to next year?

- The homeworks, though there ought to be three of them.»
- I think the structure of the lectures with mainly slides fits the material well. It is also very welcome to have access to the slides so that one can read them before the lectures.»
- do not require QFT»
- Christian Forsén as lecturer.»
- Christians lectures»

15. What should be changed to next year?

- What is taught during the lectures, definitely the material covered by the four (or so) first. The material need also be connected to the homeworks in a more obvious way. More lectures would also be good, because the workload is simply far too low. Furthermore, next year perhaps the oral presentations can be held during the 3rd reading period, or at least closer to it.»
- I haven"t presented the survey yet, so I might become surprised, but the presentation time spontaneously feels over-estimated. We got an indication that the survey shouldn"t be much bigger than 10 pages, images and such included, and. Maybe the time limits are intentionally generous, but it will of course be very clear how well estimated it is when the surveys are in fact being presented.»
- more lectures, digging deeper into the specific topics»
- Recommend another course book for those with a theoretical background.»
- Keep presentations inside the study period. It"s annoying when courses never ends but streches out over more than one study period.»

16. Additional comments

- Very unrelated to the course, but why are the text boxes one is allowed to write in during these surveys so small?»

Kursutvärderingssystem från