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.

Modern Subatomic Detection and Analysis Methods, FUF065

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-06-07 - 2010-08-31
Antal svar: 5
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Gabriele Ferretti»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Teknisk fysik 300 hp
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Teknisk fysik 300 hp

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.

5 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»1 20%
Around 20 hours/week»3 60%
Around 25 hours/week»1 20%
Around 30 hours/week»0 0%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- I spent most of the time on the hand in problems and the report for the lab.» (Around 25 hours/week)

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

5 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»2 40%
100%»3 60%

Genomsnitt: 4.6

- The course collided with another course I followed. Unfortunately I had to choose between the courses on some occasions.» (75%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

5 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»0 0%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»2 40%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»3 60%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- One of the goals is to attain "competence to be able to identify suitable detector types depending on which radiation type and physical parameters to be studied" which I think was treated in the course, but I felt that I lacked a gut feeling about the cost magnitudes of different detector types (which I felt mostly during the oral exam). It is often stated for the different detector types that they are "expensive" or "cheap", but the magnitudes were unclear to me at least. Maybe some cost examples of real detector installations would have given me more intuition on the subject.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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.

5 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»5 100%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

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

5 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»0 0%
Yes, definitely»5 100%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3

Teaching and course administration

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

5 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»1 20%
Large extent»4 80%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

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

5 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»1 20%
Large extent»2 40%
Great extent»2 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- I bought the book, but mostly I used the internet (Wikipedia in particular) for information, which I believe worked quite well. A side effect is that I read a lot about related info not explicitly included in the course, but I guess that isn"t bad either :-) In practice I think I only used the book for clarification on some parts regarding scintillators, but it can be noted that much information on the related subjects on Wikipedia uses Leo as a source, and thus almost exactly the same information is often available there. It doesn"t make the book bad, but in some cases perhaps superfluous. In an ideal world it could also have been more moderately priced: it cost 665:- @ Cremona (789:- (!) @ Adlibris) which in retrospect feels quite expensive.» (Great extent)

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

5 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»3 60%
Very well»2 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- The material for the ROOT hand-in problems could be clearer. There are some annoying things that stole a couple of hours from my work. I will give a detailed summary of these to Thomas later this summer.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

5 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»0 0%
Very good»5 100%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 4

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

5 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»2 40%
Very well»3 60%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

11. How was the course workload?

5 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 20%
Adequate»4 80%
High»0 0%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

12. How was the total workload this study period?

5 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 20%
Adequate»2 40%
High»2 40%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- I took three 7.5p courses (String theory, Beyond the Standard Model and this one) this period so at times it was hectic, but if so it was my own "fault" for taking an extra course. The deadlines and such for this course was quite loose, allowing one to choose when to do the work, and as such the work didn"t pile up which makes it easier to plan (and thus also easier to postpone stuff...). As such the course was appropriate to combine with other courses.» (Adequate)
- The course at Radio and Space science was huge. Although there was no deadline for the handin problems in this course the natural time for doing them was around week 6 or 7. Week 6 and 7 was very busy in the other course, so it was a bit tough those weeks.» (High)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

5 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»0 0%
Good»4 80%
Excellent»1 20%

Genomsnitt: 4.2

- I felt that I learned a lot about the relevant subjects. This was the most practical course I have taken during my masters time after following the theoretical track and I found that it in a good way gave a connection between theory and practical results. The trip to GSI was nice, and this year I think the students who also went to CERN got a lot out of the course. This opportunity probably won"t be available every year for cost reasons, which is a bit sad. Personally I actually think the CERN trip fitted just as well (and probably even better) with this course than with the Advanced Subatomic Physics course which was the one that organized the trip, but I"m not complaining :-)» (Excellent)

14. What should be preserved to next year?

- The exam format is good, the oral examination fits well. The write-ups following the K8 laboration seems to be a good way to "force" us to understand the different parts in what is happening. I believe Thomas is an appreciated lecturer. I couldn"t attend Göran Nyman"s lecture, but from what I heard it was also very good.»
- trip to gsi»
- introduction to root, analyzing data»
- The study trip to GSI, it was great! We all learned a lot!»
- GSI trip, examination form, lecture plan.»

15. What should be changed to next year?

- - deadlines on the hand ins - clearer formulation of hand in tasks »
- more but therefore smaller homeassignments, bit more root instructions, remove the radon lecture»
- Check and clarify some things in the ROOT writeup.»
- Would have been good with more detailed slides or lecture notes for the lectures not covered in the book. Labs could be a bit more structured.»

16. Additional comments

- - review the introduction on root! One really has to dig to get the information why something is done and why in this way.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från