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.

Course evaluation Applied Nuclear Engineering, TIF 195

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-04-09 - 2010-04-20
Antal svar: 11
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 55%
Kontaktperson: Anders Nordlund»
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.

11 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»0 0%
Around 20 hours/week»4 36%
Around 25 hours/week»2 18%
Around 30 hours/week»4 36%
At least 35 hours/week»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

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

11 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»1 9%
75%»2 18%
100%»8 72%

Genomsnitt: 4.63

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

11 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»3 27%
Yes, definitely»6 54%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 2.9

4. Should there have been a written examination at end of course?

11 svarande

Yes, a written examination instead of hand-ins.»0 0%
Shorter hand-ins combined with a written examination»1 9%
No, only hand-ins (as is now)»10 90%

Genomsnitt: 2.9

5. Should there have been a finer grading in hand-ins?

11 svarande

No not at all, only passed/not passed»1 9%
Leave as is (0,1,2)»6 54%
Yes finer grading (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2)»4 36%

Genomsnitt: 2.27

Teaching and course administration

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

11 svarande

Small extent»1 9%
Some extent»3 27%
Large extent»7 63%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.54

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

11 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»3 27%
Rather well»7 63%
Very well»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

- Didn"t use it» (Rather badly)

Monte carlo exercise

8. Pedagogical quality

11 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 9%
OK»6 54%
Good»4 36%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

9. Difficulty of exercise

11 svarande

Very easy»1 9%
Easy»1 9%
OK»6 54%
Difficult»3 27%
Very difficult»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3

10. Overall impression

11 svarande

Very boring»0 0%
Uninteresting»0 0%
OK»4 36%
Interesting»7 63%
Very interesting»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

Core calculations

11. Pedagogical quality

11 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
OK»2 18%
Good»7 63%
Very good»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 4

12. Difficulty of exercise

11 svarande

Very easy»0 0%
Easy»1 9%
OK»6 54%
Difficult»3 27%
Very difficult»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

13. Overall impression

11 svarande

Very boring»0 0%
Uninteresting»1 9%
OK»3 27%
Interesting»6 54%
Very interesting»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

SEMCON - fluid calculations

14. Pedagogical quality

11 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
OK»6 54%
Good»5 45%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

15. Difficulty of exercise

11 svarande

Very easy»0 0%
Easy»2 18%
OK»6 54%
Difficult»3 27%
Very difficult»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.09

16. Overall impression

11 svarande

Very boring»0 0%
Uninteresting»1 9%
OK»5 45%
Interesting»5 45%
Very interesting»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

- Good things to know, but hard to write a report for the tasks...» (Interesting)

SEMCON - structural calculations

17. Pedagogical quality

11 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»3 27%
OK»7 63%
Good»1 9%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

18. Difficulty of exercise

11 svarande

Very easy»0 0%
Easy»2 18%
OK»6 54%
Difficult»3 27%
Very difficult»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.09

19. Overall impression

11 svarande

Very boring»1 9%
Uninteresting»3 27%
OK»6 54%
Interesting»1 9%
Very interesting»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.63

- Also good to have heard, but some of the topics was not so clear. The lecture was unstructured and one could see that in the slides to. » (OK)

Transient calculations

20. Pedagogical quality

11 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 9%
OK»6 54%
Good»4 36%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

21. Difficulty of exercise

11 svarande

Very easy»0 0%
Easy»1 9%
OK»8 72%
Difficult»2 18%
Very difficult»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.09

22. Overall impression

11 svarande

Very boring»0 0%
Uninteresting»0 0%
OK»4 36%
Interesting»7 63%
Very interesting»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

- It is a little boring to just look at input and output files, but the aim was clear.» (OK)

Scandpower - PSA

23. Pedagogical quality

11 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 9%
OK»6 54%
Good»3 27%
Very good»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

24. Difficulty of exercise

11 svarande

Very easy»0 0%
Easy»1 9%
OK»8 72%
Difficult»2 18%
Very difficult»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.09

25. Overall impression

11 svarande

Very boring»0 0%
Uninteresting»1 9%
OK»6 54%
Interesting»1 9%
Very interesting»3 27%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

- Hard to write a report to this lab to...» (Very interesting)

ES konsult - Machine-man interaction - safety engineering

26. Pedagogical quality

11 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
OK»7 63%
Good»2 18%
Very good»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

27. Difficulty of exercise

11 svarande

Very easy»0 0%
Easy»8 72%
OK»3 27%
Difficult»0 0%
Very difficult»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.27

28. Overall impression

11 svarande

Very boring»0 0%
Uninteresting»0 0%
OK»8 72%
Interesting»3 27%
Very interesting»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

General

29. Did the extra lecures (E.ON and dosimetry) add value to the course?

11 svarande

Yes»9 81%
No»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 1.18

- E.On was great but not the other on dosimetry. Most of that lecture was old news» (Yes)
- Not dosimetry because this topic is touched before, but the E.ON lecture was really interesting.» (Yes)
- E.ON was interesting. Almost everything presented in the dosimetry lecture had already been discussed in nuclear chemistry courses.» (Yes)

Study climate

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

11 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»1 9%
Rather well»3 27%
Very well»7 63%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

31. How was the course workload?

11 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»6 54%
High»5 45%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

32. How was the total workload this study period?

11 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»4 36%
High»6 54%
Too high»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- Had 2 courses which both focused heavy on hand-ins.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

33. What is your general impression of the course?

11 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 9%
Adequate»3 27%
Good»6 54%
Excellent»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

34. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- E.ON, semcon»
- Scandpower»
- all the lecture»

35. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- monte carlo. I have never done programming in latex before and it took a lot of time just to undrestand how to write the code.»

36. Additional comments

- I would rather see more presentations and fewer lab reports. Maybe a small assignment at one topic that should be presented for the class. »

Kursutvärderingssystem från