|
|
| ENKÄTER | |
Visa resultatHär 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.
Engineering Metals advanced course 2010/2010, MMK231Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2010-10-22 - 2010-11-15 Antal svar: 15 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 51% Kontaktperson: Lars Nyborg»
1. Comments regarding the practical class on heat treatment of hypereutectiod steel- good type of learning, helps to understand the knowledge»- A little too much talking/whispering when the students instead are supposed to listen. And too hard questions about the pictures in the pm, compared to their quality. All else, all good. Regarding all forming of groups: this should have been made by the teachers, it"s really hard for the students themselves to form the groups. Regarding the lectures: the slides contain way too little info, it"s not educatve at all to study them. And the study instructions came way too late in study week 5! Not ok.» - Johanna and Stefan are very good teachers. Some more hours would been nice!» - learn a lot from the questions, but I think it is not necessary to be compulsary.» - More time could be given on evaluating the group written answers so that everyone gains the same idea/image of the heat treatment processes. » - The guys who act as supervisors were not suitable for such a class. I mean they do not have enough information about the topics and unfortunatly some rude sometimes.» - the time was too much for this class. I think it would be better to add more subjects to this class, like aluminum alloys, stainless steel. » - We learn more knowledge about the heat treatment of hyereutectiod steel through this class.» - good, but more time with johanna end stefan would be appriciated» - Very good exercise liked it. Good too see how you use the knowledge, better than just learning facts by heart. Learnt alot.» - Very good! It was really good to work with the problems yourself and not just lectures, and a good possibility to ask questions. » - This was a really great set of classes! It helped the understanding of heat treatment in a good way and both Stefan and Johanna were great as tutors. This was one of the most rewarding (knowledge-wise) classes.» - Good for the understanding och great teachers. » - Really good exercise! Stefan and Johanna was really a help and they are both good at explaining.» - Very good! learned a lot. Should be complemented with a REAL lab! I strongly believe that there should be at least one real lab session letting the student try out some heat treatments and analysing specimens etc. » 2. Comments regarding the tutorial on JMatPro- The teacher talks a little too fast and a little too low in volume. He also seemed to have forgot about breaks, whick is more important that you might think to follow. Otherwise, educative. Regarding all forming of groups: this should have been made by the teachers, it"s really hard for the students themselves to form the groups. Regarding the lectures: the slides contain way too little info, it"s not educatve at all to study them. And the study instructions came way too late in study week 5! Not ok.»- The lecture with the hole class was a waste of time but in the smaller grups it was good!» - useful» - Excellent class. Much knowledge gained on the software and insights on processes.» - It was good and usefull.» - it would be better if we could practically learn it during the class, not just an introduction.» - It is interesting.There are lot of diagrams and datas to help us to learn the lecture.And we also learn a little about the using of the software.» - good, but we didn"t use it at all in the course» - Informative.» - The tutorial was good to understand ttt- and cct-diagrams, but the first lecture were not that good. It is hard to understand how a program works when you don"t use it yourself.» - This was not so good. The actual lecture about the different software was very bad. The other class however (the "practical" class) was much better in comparison. Here things were explained in a much better way as they were shown in the actual software.» - Good, but it should have more time. » - The lab session were relly good! But the introduction lecture was worthless! 2h of nothing. It wolud be better if the lab were 1h longer and you could read the PP-slides yourself before the lab.» - I think it was good. The lcture about the software in MA prior to the practical class was less good. should be either excluded or improved.» 3. Comments regarding the project assignment- The project was a little too small for so many people per group. All else, good. Regarding all forming of groups: this should have been made by the teachers, it"s really hard for the students themselves to form the groups. Regarding the lectures: the slides contain way too little info, it"s not educatve at all to study them. And the study instructions came way too late in study week 5! Not ok.»- Its a big diffrent between the swedish and the exchange students when it comms to english. The swedish student did almoste the entire work since there better in english!!!» - I can learn a lot of things from it.» - Excellent class. :)» - It was useful to stimulate students to be more active in the topics.» - that was good» - It is good.It can improve us the ability of teamwork.» - the information about it was really late. would be expected that all the information about would be done by the course start or at leats by the presenation of the project. otherwise good to work about a subject in the course but the groups could be done better it was a lot of mixup between all the projects and diffrent groups.» - Large group for rather small assignment made it hard to administrate tasks in the group.» - The groups were to big to do such a small assignment and it would be better if you could sign up for the groups via studieportalen. About the lectuers: It would be better if the pp-slides contained more text, not just diagrams and picture. With more text it is easier to understand and remember the most important things. The read instructions to the book were very good, but we should have got it lv1 not in the end of lv5, it made it hard to start study the course.» - It was rewarding to work freely on a subject chosen by oneself. The group formation in the beginning was a bit confusing and the fact that the guidelines for the project appeared when the report was almost finished was a big minus. It was very interesting to listen to the other groups topics.» - It could be ā little bit larger. » - Bad information! The info came when some groups already had made the report. And the projekt din"t gave me som much knowledge and preperation to the exam. At last: Way is this evaluation only three questions? Nothing aboute the general opinion aboute the course, what was good/bad etc.» - good but there is a strong divergence in student perception regarding what a project assignement really is. Specially the chinese students are not used to working and collaborating in teams. There should also be a clear agenda regarding how to use sources and references at chalmers when writing papers or reports. Wikipedia and vague web-sites are not OK as references! The results would strongly improve if the examinar had a 10 min mid-project meeting where the group could present their iseas on what to focus on and how to go forward etc. that kind of feedback could improve the reports a lot I think!»
|
|