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.

Composite & nanocomposite materials 2010-2011, MPM052

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-05-12 - 2011-05-18
Antal svar: 11
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 45%
Kontaktperson: Rodney Rychwalski»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Maskinteknik 300 hp
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Maskinteknik 300 hp

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

We mean total time (in class and at home). It likely varied from week to week but try to estimate the average time per week

11 svarande

max. 15 h/week»5 45%
around 25 h/week»6 54%
at least 35 h/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.54

2. How much part of teaching offered did you attend?

11 svarande

close to 0%»0 0%
close to 50%»4 36%
over 90%»7 63%

Genomsnitt: 2.63

- at least I was in the room, if I was awake is another question» (over 90%)
- 100%» (over 90%)

3. Are the course goals reasonable considering the number of credits?

10 svarande

yes, I think so»5 50%
hesitant»3 30%
no»2 20%

Genomsnitt: 1.7

- i appreciate goals. credit for he course should be higher considering the lecture hours per week» (?)
- no exam yet» (no)
- There could have been much more material covered, and/or going deeper.» (no)

4. Was the examination constructed to assess in the right way?

just skip if the exam is still to come (on 26 May)

7 svarande

yes, I think so»2 28%
hesitant»4 57%
no»1 14%

Genomsnitt: 1.85

- It was constructed to asses what was covered in the course, but the course was shallow» (hesitant)
- The examination was based on a lot of facts one had to know. The problem with this is the 20%-limit on every topic to pass. Most of the facts are very easily confusable since they are to a certain extent similar, but nevertheless not exchangable. Because of this it would be a lot more reasonable to ask more than two questions on each topic, so even if, despite of proper learning, one particular detail just doesn"t come to one"s mind it is still possible to pass.» (no)

5. Was the lecturer approachable?

11 svarande

yes, I think so»10 90%
hesitant»1 9%
no»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.09

6. How well has cooperation between you and your classmates worked?

11 svarande

well»7 63%
to some extent»4 36%
poorly»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.36

7. How was the course workload?

10 svarande

too high»1 10%
adequate»8 80%
too low»1 10%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Massive but not that useful!» (too high)

8. How was the total workload this study period (quarter 4)?

11 svarande

too high»1 9%
adequate»10 90%
too low»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.9

- on the border to low, but saved by other course» (adequate)

9. What should be preserved to next year?

- everything »
- compendium is good enough except figures )) rodney is a total book himself.. there could be more sections concerning thermoplastic composites reinforced with fibers.»
- Everything (lectures, project, lab)»
- project and lectures»
- the name of the course? the course really needs a redo»

10. What should be changed to next year?

- i could not find any»
- laminate theory was confusing.. there could be simplified version or more detailed figures explaining it»
- Maybe spend more time on MMC and CMC»
- lab»
- Stop read line by line from the compendium . Less to know, more to understand. It could be good to be more precise about the chemical terms. Not mix them.»
- Cover more material, go deeper into how the composites can be utilized to best use their strenghts»
- Less focus on polymer basic information which was too much in this course. This is not Polymer course, this is Composite! More attention is needed for MMC, CMC and Nano-composites (not just preparation or so on, but practical matters).»
- There should be more labs. In particular practical labs with experiments on failure that can occur in reality, e.g. delamination.»

11. Should the course cover more or fewer topics?

10 svarande

more topics»4 40%
reasonable as it is»3 30%
fewer topics»3 30%

Genomsnitt: 1.9

- although the course is mainlt attributed to polymer composites there are much details for metal composites. there could be less info.» (?)
- As I described in previouspart!» (fewer topics)
- Some facts were very specific to a certain topic and one could not be sure which information was needed for the exam, so sometimes it was learning tables by heart. Maybe a new topic with presentation of more failure criteria.» (fewer topics)

12. Solved problems helped towards computational aspects:

11 svarande

agree»8 72%
hesitant»3 27%
disagree»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.27

- Best part of the course» (agree)
- However, there was not very difficult computational problems.» (agree)
- the computational aspect was very thin and could be much heavier, the only thing that was new was the laminate theory» (hesitant)

13. Lab/computer session helped towards the laminate theory

11 svarande

agree»9 81%
hesitant»2 18%
disagree»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.18

- but what the practical part in the lab was supposed to give i still a riddle, all students i have been talking to have seen an tension test multiple times already» (agree)

14. Project/Diary was helpful towards "my first application" and/or "there was connection between parts A-F"

11 svarande

agree»8 72%
hesitant»1 9%
disagree»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 1.45

- to some extent but the groups are to large, smaller groups would help to have to really sit down and cover all subjects by your self» (agree)

15. Course (administration, homepage, handouts...) was well working and caring:

11 svarande

agree»9 81%
hesitant»1 9%
disagree»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 1.27

- Why should we buy a compendium that isnt complete ?» (disagree)

16. Compendium was a helpful source:

11 svarande

agree»6 54%
hesitant»3 27%
disagree»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 1.63

- Very helpful» (agree)
- Only the absence of figures was a question that solved.» (agree)
- Disturbing with a lot of figures on separate papers.» (hesitant)
- The source didnt make sence .The english was bad. The content was messy. Worst thing iv ever red. » (disagree)
- to sell a compendium and then hand out the pictures afterwards is not a good way. when you buy a compendium you think it is read ready. The compendium in it self is substandard with a lot of grammatical missteps. And also recovering the same areas over and over. And some parts are not at all linked to the course. » (disagree)

17. Invited lecture was interesting/motivating:

10 svarande

agree»6 60%
hesitant»2 20%
disagree»2 20%

Genomsnitt: 1.6

- did not take place» (?)

18. On the whole you would:

11 svarande

recommend the course»6 54%
hesitant»2 18%
not recommend»3 27%

Genomsnitt: 1.72

- It was a good and interesting course» (recommend the course)
- The professor is quite nice and lectures are interesting!» (recommend the course)
- Felt like wast of time.(exept the tutorials) The teacher was friendly but the lectures was pointless.» (not recommend)
- A course where you sit and wonder if you or the lecturer will fall asleep first is bad. The level of the course is to low, much of it is things already covered in others courses and the computational part is a terrible is the lecturer afraid of equations?» (not recommend)
- Absolute changes are needed so that the course become what it name really suggests!» (not recommend)

Kursutvärderingssystem från