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 , Quarter 4, 2010, IPE061

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-05-17 - 2010-05-31
Antal svar: 15
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 34%
Kontaktperson: Mohammad Shahriari»

General Information

1. Program:

15 svarande

Master student»7 46%
Exchange student»5 33%
Others»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 1.73

2. What is your background, i.e. production development, industry or chemical engineering?

- Civil Engineering»
- supply chain management»
- Industrial Design Engineering»
- Industrial Design Engineering»
- Management and Economics of Innovation»
- Civil engineering»
- Chemical engineering»
- Mechanical engineering»
- Industry engineering»
- Mechanical and industrial engineering»
- Chemical Engineering.»
- industrial engineering and management»
- Mechanical»
- Product development»
- Production development»

3. How did you find out about the course?

- Studieportalen»
- During the course introduction presentation last term.»
- From student portal, one of reconmmeded course.»
- It is included in the IDE human factors track, so found out from the programme coordinator.»
- Through course portal.»
- On student portal»
- Really intersenting. I think all people should do it. You learn how to see the thinks with another perspective»
- Friend and lecture of the Course homepage»
- by my coordinator in Chalmers»
- My coordinator suggest me it»
- Via manager at the company where I work.»
- It was among the elective courses for the MEI programme.»
- Friends»
- Studieportalen»
- Surfade runt lite på studentportalen.»

4. How come you chose the course?

- Risk management is a new and important subject in my field, learn more of risk management methods»
- I want to have some different background, not only in my own departmanet, and also want to meet some people from other programs.»
- I am interested in safety management. »
- I wanted the Human Factors specialisation. »
- It is one of the elective courses for my program.»
- Had to pick one in last minute, and it looked interesting»
- Sound interesting»
- Course homepage resumé interesting. I do not have a course of "Risk" so-called in my university»
- I read the contents and I thought it was interesting content and outline.»
- Interesting topic that I knew nothing about previously.»
- Interesting in risk management»
- Sounds interesting»
- Den verkade intressant.»

Course Content

5. What did you think about the workload of worskshops?

15 svarande

Too little»0 0%
Little»0 0%
Good»9 60%
Much»6 40%
Too much»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- It was a good way to learn the methods. Some assignments, e.g. the fire explosion one was not so rewarding since it was just taking numbers and putting them into formulas. We know how to do that.» (Good)
- We have 6 home assignments, 3 workshops,1 seminar and 1 project with approximately 7000 words. You can count yourself how much work. I think if the home assignment can be reduced to 4 it will be much better.» (Much)

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

14 svarande

Too little»1 7%
Little»1 7%
Good»6 42%
Much»6 42%
Too much»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.21

- Didn"t do them» (?)
- I have had so much to do I actually have many of them still left, sorry for this inconvenience!!» (Good)
- Very spread knowledges acquired by myself thanks to home assignment» (Good)

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

15 svarande

Too little»0 0%
Little»0 0%
Good»8 53%
Much»6 40%
Too much»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 3.53

- Tight time frame for a large project» (Much)
- We need to search quite much information and write a lot of things.» (Much)
- Depends on the subject but for me, surveys and meetings were time consuming» (Much)

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

12 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»6 50%
Very good»6 50%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- Didn"t attend» (?)
- Approach of the structure of a gas-producing firm and the risk allocated to the plant» (Good)
- could not participate» (Good)
- Excellent! It"s the highlight of this course. I have never been so close to those kinds of companies, very good experience!» (Very good)

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

12 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»2 16%
Good»6 50%
Very good»4 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

- Did not attend» (?)
- Too general, few examples of risk management, too much PR for AkzoNobel» (Poor)
- The most interesting with the visit was the attitude of the boss there. He didnt seem to be all that focused on safety..which I believe is a prevalent reality.» (Good)
- could not participate» (Good)
- I like site visits very much, it"s quite practical.» (Very good)

10. What percentage of lectures did you attend?

15 svarande

0%»0 0%
20%»1 6%
50%»3 20%
80%»8 53%
100%»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.86

- More information on how to prepare for the lectures would be good, literature to read if missing a lecture» (20%)
- I would say 60%. it is a shame because most lectures I attended were really good, but this study period was really busy.» (50%)
- If by the question it is ment of the total then it is 50% because som are ment for production and some for chemical.» (50%)
- Some of them are too far from my major and hard to follow so I dropped.» (80%)
- Almost 100%, above 80 %» (100%)

Course Organization

11. Quality of course outline:

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

15 svarande

Very poor»1 6%
Poor»3 20%
Good»7 46%
Very good»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- Very unclear what is anticipated» (Poor)
- They are coming always on time.» (Very good)
- Very good contents but too little time to concentrate on the big project due to mostly home assignments. It is worth to think about that students have other courses paralell and mabey select the workload so that the tasks to be done during the course are done properly and not in haste. » (Very good)

12. Course expectations:

(i.e. what was expected of you)

15 svarande

Very vague»0 0%
Vague»2 13%
Clear»10 66%
Very clear»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.06

13. Organisation of Lectures:

15 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 6%
Good»11 73%
Very good»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

- The best time slot for lectures is around 9-15. Lecturers coming in at 15.00 get drowsy students, and for me 8 is too early to be focused. » (Good)
- most clear but some lecturer were very bad.» (Good)

14. Organisatioin of Workshops:

15 svarande

Very poor»1 6%
Poor»1 6%
Good»13 86%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- Hard to get help» (Poor)
- The introduction section is too short, only 3-5 min.» (Good)
- most clear but some lecturer were very bad.» (Good)

15. Organisation of Guest lectures:

15 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 6%
Good»11 73%
Very good»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

- most of them were good.» (Good)
- I love the fact that there are so many external lectures. It really ties in with reality and it is obvious what we learn is something employers value.» (Very good)

16. Organisation of Lab@Risk:

12 svarande

Very poor»3 25%
Poor»4 33%
Good»5 41%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.16

- did not attend» (?)
- Too general, no real lab, copy-paste» (Very poor)
- Lack of time & presentation did at the end of the period. Suggestion:May be 2 course of 2h dedicated to @Risk will be better.» (Very poor)
- I have no idea what that guy talking about.» (Poor)
- The lecture was tooo slow and then the workshop was too fast. It would be better if we could work at the computers ourselves with a tutorial and then he can go around and help us.» (Poor)

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

15 svarande

Weekly (as it was in this study period)»13 86%
At the end of the course»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 1.13

- I really like it, but unfortunately I missed the first one and then it is easy to wait with the second one and so on.» (Weekly (as it was in this study period))
- very good why of having the home assignment. I prefer to have it weekly instead of in the end of the cource.» (Weekly (as it was in this study period))

18. How did you find the course literature?

14 svarande

Very poor»2 14%
Poor»3 21%
Good»8 57%
Very good»1 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.57

- Have not read it, since I didn"t know that it existed until a week ago» (?)
- I did not use it very much. It was more useful to find articles concerning risk and safety among chalmers electronic resources.» (Poor)
- The field seems not very mature, still alot of things happening research-wise which is fun (but implies there are alot of unsafe practices going on).» (Good)

19. How well did the course literature correspond with the course objectives?

13 svarande

Very poor»2 15%
Poor»2 15%
Good»8 61%
Very good»1 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.61

- Have not read it, since I didn"t know that it existed until a week ago» (?)

Teaching and learning support

20. Helpfulness of teacher?

15 svarande

Very unhelpful»0 0%
Unhelpful»1 6%
Helpful»8 53%
Very helpful»6 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- Very engaged and interested in our work. =)» (Very helpful)

21. Helpfulness of tutor?

14 svarande

Very unhelpful»0 0%
Unhelpful»2 14%
Helpful»8 57%
Very helpful»4 28%

Genomsnitt: 3.14

22. Availability of course material (e.g. website, handouts, etc)

15 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»9 60%
Very good»6 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

23. How effective did you find the course homepage?

15 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 6%
Good»10 66%
Very good»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

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

(only if attended)

14 svarande

Very poor»3 21%
Poor»4 28%
Good»6 42%
Very good»1 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.35

- Didn"t attend» (?)
- Inget nytt alls. Han gick ju inte igenom @risk utan sa bara att det gör man i excell. » (Very poor)
- I think he started to basic describing a model. He should have gone on to @risk direct.» (Poor)
- Need of more time and do not present Excel but focused on @Risk. 1h about only "programing view" (some people seemed to need it) and 2h of doing exercises» (Poor)
- It was more concerned with things I already knew than it was with @Risk. I"d like to see a greater focus on the actual software.» (Poor)

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

(only if attended)

13 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»10 76%
Very good»3 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.23

- Didn"t attend» (?)
- Very good and interesting lecture!» (Very good)

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

(only if attended)

11 svarande

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

Genomsnitt: 3.45

- Didn"t attend» (?)

27. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Constructing Safety - Obstacles and support by Anders Pousette"?

(only if attended)

12 svarande

Very poor»1 8%
Poor»2 16%
Good»9 75%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- Didn"t attend» (?)
- Some problems with the communication» (Very poor)
- Somewhat slow and a bit too careful. A bit more authority is ok. » (Good)

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

(only if attended)

11 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»9 81%
Very good»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- Didn"t attend» (?)

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

(only if attended)

8 svarande

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

Genomsnitt: 2.62

- Didn"t attend» (?)
- This was not a good lecture. He didn"t have a sufficient English level.» (Very poor)

30. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "Human factors - Man, technology, organisation (MTO)/Control Room Design by Per Christofferson"?

(only if attended)

12 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»7 58%
Very good»5 41%

Genomsnitt: 3.41

- Didn"t attend» (?)
- Was not here» (?)

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

(only if attended)

10 svarande

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

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- Didn"t attend» (?)

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

(only if attended)

10 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 10%
Good»6 60%
Very good»3 30%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- Didn"t attend» (?)
- This one is the most useful one for me, I learned a lot.» (Very good)

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

(only if attended)

10 svarande

Very poor»1 10%
Poor»0 0%
Good»6 60%
Very good»3 30%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- Didn"t attend» (?)

34. How do you evaluate the quality of presentation "SHE Including regulations and legislations by Andrea Menne"?

(only if attended)

7 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»7 100%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Didn"t attend» (?)

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

(only if attended)

11 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»2 18%
Good»9 81%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

- Didn"t attend» (?)
- The case he makes that cybernetics is logistics does not seem that relevant. » (Good)
- 2h is too few to approach the topic» (Good)

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

(only if attended)

9 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»8 88%
Very good»1 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

- Didn"t attend» (?)

37. Overall, how would you rate guest lectures?

14 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»10 71%
Very good»4 28%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- Didn"t attend» (?)

38. Overall, how would you rate this course?

14 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»9 64%
Very good»5 35%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- Very good due to good connection to real-life industry and projects.» (Very good)

Your perspective

39. Good features of this course:

- Positive spirit, everything is possible, interesting exercise tasks»
- Given variety perspectives to students»
- Lots of guest lecturers, study visits and impressions. Rich learning opportunities. Mohammad"s focus on students learning, always ready to further explain if something is unclear.»
- Guest lecturers offer students different perspectives, expert and practical opinions.»
- Good with study visit. Teachers very helpful, creating a good atmosphere in classroom.»
- The coordinator is really good»
- There is not only one answer to risk. Complexity is also interesting and the wide application of Risk management makes this course powerful.»
- The tools that we saw are very helpful »
- Home assignments instead of a home exam makes it possible to learn throughout the course.»

40. Poor features of this course:

- The planning, more information of the tasks»
- Overloaded»
- Some of the students presentations are not that interesting (or their english is rough to listen to).. but its hard to do anything about.»
- The home assignments, workshops, and submission (to whom they should be submitted) were not very clear in the course outline. »
- The course literature!»
- Not enough time with @risk»
- Despite of progress report, lack of follow-up of the project => more frequent suggestions/comments are needed»

41. How could this course be improved?

- More information in course-PM»
- Keep it up.»
- Better literture and better information about the home assignment.»
- More link between lectures.»
- By have more feedback from our tutor concerning the project»
- I think all students could benefit from those lectures and workshops that were only given to chemical engineering students.»

Thank you!

Kursutvärderingssystem från