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.

Road Vehicle Aerodynamics, MTF235

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-03-17 - 2010-04-09
Antal svar: 35
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 62%
Kontaktperson: Helena Martini»
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.

35 svarande

At most 10 hours/week»8 22%
Around 15 hours/week»10 28%
Around 20 hours/week»12 34%
Around 25 hours/week»4 11%
At least 30 hours/week»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.42

- 10 hours to be in each lecture and just 5 hours more to read the book, do exercises and work on the project each week.» (Around 15 hours/week)

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

35 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»1 2%
75%»8 22%
100%»26 74%

Genomsnitt: 4.71

- 100% minus one lecture!» (100%)
- The lectures could have been more technically andvanced and more details of flows around different vehicle feuatures.» (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?

35 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»4 11%
The goals are difficult to understand»1 2%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»6 17%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»24 68%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- Referes to the pointsystem» (The goals are difficult to understand)

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.

32 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 3%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»31 96%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.96

- I don"t know the course goals.» (?)
- but maybe improve the goal of the project. I mean, try to have 2 sessions in the lab , first to test the basics things on the prototype and a second session to improve our changes and be concentrated on the improvement of 1 things in particular.but i know it"s difficult to have 2 sessiosn in the lab.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

Teaching and course administration

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

33 svarande

Small extent»1 3%
Some extent»9 27%
Large extent»13 39%
Great extent»10 30%

Genomsnitt: 2.96

- The lectures and book has been good for learning, and the lab was really good.» (Large extent)
- Not the best book and many things i described very unclearly in the book. Presentations on things that is´,t represented in the book should be explained better in the lecture notes.» (Large extent)
- The book is very easy to understand, if not very advanced.» (Large extent)
- A lot of lectures of Lennart were fun but not so useful. He showed a lot of nice classics but that didnt help me understand RVAD. Too bad because he appears to know A LOT about RVAD.» (Large extent)
- The book was really important.» (Great extent)

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

35 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»19 54%
Very well»16 45%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

- No complains» (Very well)

Study climate

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

35 svarande

Very poor»1 2%
Rather poor»1 2%
Rather good»5 14%
Very good»27 77%
I did not seek help»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3.74

- Got answer on the questions i had!» (Very good)
- Good "service" when there was a need to ask questions outside lecture time.» (Very good)
- Lots of class hours to ask questions about theory and lab.» (Very good)

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

35 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»4 11%
Rather well»10 28%
Very well»21 60%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.48

- Problem with the project group. » (Rather poorly)
- The international students have problems to respect to be in time. » (Rather well)
- Actually making i physical model/modification meant it was easier to get acquainted to other students.» (Very well)

9. How was the course workload?

35 svarande

Too low»1 2%
Low»5 14%
Adequate»28 80%
High»0 0%
Too high»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.85

Summarizing questions

10. What is your general impression of the course?

35 svarande

Poor»1 2%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»2 5%
Good»20 57%
Excellent»12 34%

Genomsnitt: 4.2

- Very funny and interessting course.» (Good)
- The lectures could be more detailed and advanced.» (Good)
- Very interesting and feels like it should be mandatory for all machine students.» (Excellent)

11. What is your impression of the lectures?

35 svarande

Poor»1 2%
Fair»2 5%
Adequate»5 14%
Good»20 57%
Excellent»7 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.85

- Lots of theory in the book is not mentioned in the lectures. Lectures gave us a good understanding of classic cars/racing but not of RVAD. When reading the book I learned a lot and a lot came clear to me.» (Fair)
- It felt like all lectures fron Lennart was the same, just pictures of old sportscars. It was interesting one time but when we had heared the same stories for the thired time so....» (Adequate)
- A good mix of lectures with different aspects of RVAD.» (Good)
- Prof. Lenart Lofdahl"s lectures were really interesting easily understandable. I would appreciate if he could add some notes to his lectures especially on the vehicle pictures on slides. This way it can help the students to understand the different innovations by the manufacturer on Vehicle Aerodynamics although after reading the prescribed book describes detailedly on the configurations which can be made.» (Good)
- A lot of interesting things but some of them rather poorly explained. For example talking about the flow around a vehicle instead of showing a pictrure/draw.» (Good)
- But a little bit disapointed by the CFD lecture because i knew already what was it. And I didn"t learn anything.» (Good)
- Quite repetitive to be honest» (Good)
- What I think it should change is the way to present slides. Sometimes the slides contained only pictures and images and is not straightforward to see the point. » (Good)

12. What is your impression of the guest lectures?

35 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»7 20%
Good»20 57%
Excellent»8 22%

Genomsnitt: 4.02

- Most of them where really good, and all of them had very interesting stuff to talk about.» (Good)
- Sven Perzon was very good! Lotus lecture was boring and i could read about the Lotus company on the webpage instead.» (Excellent)

13. How would you rate the project work?

35 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 5%
Adequate»4 11%
Good»21 60%
Excellent»8 22%

Genomsnitt: 4

- We got a good understanding of the flow around our selected vehicle, but very little information from the other groups. More time in the windtunnel and more time to build the model would have been appreciated.» (Good)
- Nice practical work :)» (Good)
- Very good and gave a deeper understandning.» (Excellent)

14. What did you think about the project layout?

How would you rate the project layout with pre-study, wind tunnel laboration, report and presentation?

35 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 5%
Adequate»6 17%
Good»19 54%
Excellent»8 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.94

- If it is possible it would be great with two shorter sessions in the windtunnel to be able to prepare new ideas. We realised we had lots of things we should have done a few days after the session.» (Adequate)
- Good layout» (Excellent)

15. How would you rate the wind tunnel laboratory work?

35 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 2%
Adequate»3 8%
Good»19 54%
Excellent»12 34%

Genomsnitt: 4.2

- We schould have been given moore time here, this is the part where we are actually learning! » (Adequate)
- but it was a short time» (Good)
- 2 hours of windtunnel is a bit on the short side» (Good)
- Time is limited but didnt limit quality of the results. » (Good)
- Funny and learned alot!» (Excellent)

16. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Laboration»
- Variety of lecture topics was very interesting. Keep guest lecturers - was great to get insight from industry. »
- guest lectures are extremely useful. »
- Wind Tunel Lab work.»
- Labs»
- Wind tunnel laboratory»
- The wind tunnel laboratory work»
- Wind Tunnel Experiment»
- Wind tunnel and Guest lectures.»
- the project guest lecture lectures»
- The exam was really well made.»
- Wind tunnel lab and the lecture by Sven Perzon - F1»
- Mr.lennard"s lectures, and wind tunnel laboration»
- The Laboratory work, the lecturers»
- wind tunnel lab»
- More project work with wind tunnel.»
- Lectures by Lennart Löfdahl and by David Söderblom were excellent and very interesting. The project was really interesting.»
- Wind tunnel tests. Good guest lecturers.»
- The wind tunnel lab»
- - wind tunnel laboratory - Lennarts classic car lectures but then WITH useful information - guest lectures »

17. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Skip the Lotus lecture! More difficult excersice since these were to basic and much repetition since previous courses!»
- Make group sizes smaller if possible. Was difficult to work on paper with five people - three would be more manageable. »
- I would expect better assignment. Current assignment is very easy.»
- Some more lectures on the Navier stokes derivations and CFD basics.»
- Nothing in particular»
- A better briefing on the navier stokes and bernoulli equations and the cases on which they can be used.»
- just have one lecture on CFD, because guest lecture talk about also to CFD. more than 1 session in the lab (but i know it"s difficult)and it should be interresting if we had the model of the car in CFD and with some lecture on CFD include in the RVAD lecture study the flow around the car ( car model depend on what we chose for our project)and compare ourself CFD/caluclations/wind tunnel»
- Not much»
- nothing specific»
- nothing has to be changed »
- Maybe more practical excercises and the content of some slides.»
- Lennart could have more variation in his slides. Alot of times the same stuff appears in more than one lecture. »
- Not as much "story telling". »
- no»
- Maybe fit guest lectures better to rest of lectures. A lot of information in the guest lectures was already given in regular lectures, made the guest lectures repititive»
- The relation between the aerodynamic of the car and the equations was always forgotten during lectures. » (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

18. Additional comments

- Good course!»
- More CFD should be interesting.»
- I think that everyone who wants to take the advanced course should be able to to that. RVAD is the most interesting course in the AE program.»
- Maybe move some of the guest lectures to the company itself and combine this with a factory/windtunnel tour.»
- Very good course, thank you very much for your work. »
- A representative vehicle for each type can be choosed for detailed analysis of its advantages and disadvantages for aerodynamics, so we can apply the basic knowledge.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från