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.

MPRSS: RRY050 Radioastronomical Techniques and Interferometry Sp4, 09/10

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-05-24 - 2010-06-01
Antal svar: 3
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Arto Heikkilä»

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.

3 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»1 33%
Around 20 hours/week»1 33%
Around 25 hours/week»1 33%
Around 30 hours/week»0 0%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- This wasn"t enough to learn everything in the course, but I realised that too late.» (Around 20 hours/week)

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

3 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»1 33%
100%»2 66%

Genomsnitt: 4.66

- One lecture every week collided with another course at Fundamental Physics. Unfortunately neither course was possible to move and I therefore missed a few lectures.» (75%)

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?

3 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»1 33%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»1 33%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»1 33%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

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.

3 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»1 33%
No, the goals are set too high»2 66%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- It"s not the level, but the amount of material one is supposed to learn that is the problem. The course would be more sane with only two parts instead of three (but with the same amount of material in these two). If the two first parts were spread out over the total course time (and the third removed) then it would be a resonable amount of information to learn.» (No, the goals are set too high)
- Half the people doing the exam were from the Fundamental Physics program. We don"t know signal processing and antenna engineering.» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

3 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»3 100%
Yes, definitely»0 0%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- The exam reflected the course both in contents, and in the way that it contained too much. Most people I talked with after the exam didn"t have time to answer more than around 66% of the questions. The exam should be smaller, which would fit nicely with making the course smaller.» (To some extent)
- Susanne"s part contained a few things that had only been briefly touched upon during the lectures. John"s part was pretty good in the respect. On Rudiger"s part of the exam one could simply put in the given numbers in the given formulas and go to work on the calculator. It took thirty minutes to solve, but required almost no understanding of what you were doing.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

3 svarande

Small extent»1 33%
Some extent»0 0%
Large extent»2 66%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- Part 1: For such a Master course, I would expect a much higher ratio of time effectively spent teaching to time spent in class. Time spent talking about course organization, or repeating same details, or simply chatting was too much. Part 2: Interesting and pedagogical way to teach interferometry Part 3: Adding a lab or exercice session would help to understand, e.g. the concept» (Small extent)
- John Conway is quite an outstanding lecturer. Both Susanne and Rudiger are good. But John is really great!» (Large extent)
- John"s coffee cup interferometry lecture was brilliant. Rudiger"s lectures felt unfocused and very technical.» (Large extent)

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

3 svarande

Small extent»1 33%
Some extent»0 0%
Large extent»2 66%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- I didn"t like the book. It was very inconsistent.» (Small extent)
- Part 1: Use of the textbook was unavoidable to catch up what hadn"t been done in class. Part 2: Lecture slides are not detailed enough, and the textbook doesn"t cover everything. Part 3: Recommended readings would be helpful!» (Large extent)

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

3 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»2 66%
Rather well»1 33%
Very well»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- There were some errors in the problem solutions by Susanne, and we also got those solutions only the last week in their corrected form. It was much too late. Problems and solutions must be proof read, checked and handed out earlier, preferably week 1 or 2.» (Rather badly)

Study climate

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

3 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»2 66%
Very good»1 33%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- I asked a lot of questions to Susanne and Francesco, mostly about the hand-in lab report. The response I got was good, but sometimes it took quite a few days to receive an answer. The ash cloud keeping Francesco in Italy without his computer was partially a reason. But I think assigning a little more time to answering questions would be good.» (Rather good)
- The lecturers and Francesco were all helpful and easy to talk to. Susanne even had scheduled meetings before the exam, so that we could clear things out.» (Rather good)
- All teachers were willing to help and answer questions. As for the lab, extra" help meeting" was arranged (reduction of the data), and it was really interesting.» (Very good)

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

3 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»1 33%
Very well»2 66%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

11. How was the course workload?

3 svarande

Too low»1 33%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»0 0%
High»1 33%
Too high»1 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

12. How was the total workload this study period?

3 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 33%
Adequate»1 33%
High»1 33%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3

- I follow the Fundamental Physics master programme and therefore cannot speak for the MPRSS. » (High)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

3 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 66%
Adequate»1 33%
Good»0 0%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- I wish I had been taught more.» (Fair)
- I learned quite a bit but the course has to be changed in some way.» (Fair)
- The content is very interesting and the lectures are good. Unfortunately, there is way too much to learn in this course and the only way to handle that is to cut down the amount. There is a limit of how much information one can digest per unit of time. Although I really wanted to learn almost everything in the course, I had no chance to do so.» (Adequate)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The lab at Onsala (but there should be 2 labs).»
- John Conway!»
- John Conways interferometry introduction is excellent and should definitely be a part of some course. The lab was a lot of fun and writing the report really helped me in learning Susanne"s part of the course. The meetings with Francesco were absolutely required to be able to use xs. If the course doesn"t change fundamentally, the ability for students to turn in some extra work for the parts of the exam that they didn"t pass is required.»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The amount of work. Even though Rudiger is no bad lecturer, I suggest skipping his part. Because, one has to know the basics of interferometry to appreciate Rudigers part, and since everyone was still working with Susannes" (and Johns"s) material the last weeks there was no time to dig deep into Rudigers part. Sad but true. Geotetic VLBI is amazing and very cool. But it takes some time to learn, time which is not available.»
- A lot. There is too much material in the course as it is. You have to rush through things and not really grasp them because you have to go on to someone else"s part. The three parts of the course also don"t seem to have anything to do with each other. None of the lectures connected to any lecture of the other lecturers. John briefly mentioned what Rudiger would talk about and why it would seem to be a completely different subject. Without that it would have even more difficult, not to say impossible to notice that they were both talking about more or less the same thing. Perhaps the only way to make this course work is to either split it into two ("radioastronomical techniques" and "interferometry"), or simply to cut one of the three parts from the course. In case one of the parts has to be cut I suggest the geodesy part, since I felt that that was the part in which I learned the least. Another thing... the data reduction from the lab has to made simpler. You can"t learn xs by you"re self. It"s impossible.»

16. Additional comments

- 4 hours lecture in a row, on Friday afternoons, is a silly timeschedule »
- The course book Tools of Radio astronomy is in some ways very good. But, some sections are really confused. I suggest someone call for proofreading. I remember reading lists of things in it where things were repeated several times, definitions of Brightness temperature what were different on different pages (just a few pages apart), and referring to later chapters quite a few times in earlier chapters. The intent is good, but the book needs another check it think. This course really contain a lot of interesting things. I"m eager to lean, but please, not all at once!»
- Susanne has to set an alarm so we get breaks. Otherwise her lectures will go on way too long, as we experienced on several occasions. The exam was too big. We would have needed about 6 hours for such an exam. But of course the better solution is to make sure that next years exam isn"t this long.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från