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.

Turbomachinery, TME210

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-11-15 - 2010-11-30
Antal svar: 18
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 45%
Kontaktperson: Tomas Grönstedt»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Maskinteknik 300 hp
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Maskinteknik 300 hp

Your own effort

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

18 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»7 38%
Around 20 hours/week»6 33%
Around 25 hours/week»2 11%
Around 30 hours/week»3 16%
Around 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.05

- Not accounting for lectures, that is» (At most 15 hours/week)

2. To which extent did you take part of the teaching offered?

18 svarande

0-20%»0 0%
20-40%»1 5%
40-60%»1 5%
60-80%»5 27%
80-100%»11 61%

Genomsnitt: 4.44

- due to a clash with another course» (60-80%)

3. Balance during study quarter?

During the study quarter how does the time spent on this course relate to the other courses:

18 svarande

I spent a lot more time on other courses»6 33%
I spent somewhat more time on other course»3 16%
I spent roughly equal time on this course»5 27%
I spent somewhat more time on turbomachinery»3 16%
I spent a lot more time on turbomachinery»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.44

Goals and goal fulfilment

4. How understandable are the course goals?

The course PM states that after completion of the course you should be able to:

* Explain how turbomachinery is applied in various fields of power generation such as nuclear and combined cycle power plants, wind and hydropower engineering and process industry.

* Formulate turbomachinery design criteria for a range of applications.

* Carry out preliminary design of a range of turbomachines

* Be able to apply commercial tools to outline more detailed turbomachinery design

18 svarande

No idea what they mean?»0 0%
A bit fuzzy»2 11%
Understandable»14 77%
Crystal clear»2 11%

Genomsnitt: 3

5. To which extent did you establish the abilities that the goals state?

18 svarande

Not at all»0 0%
To some extent»14 77%
To a high degree»4 22%

Genomsnitt: 2.22

Teaching and course administration

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

18 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 11%
Acceptable»3 16%
Good»6 33%
Excellent»7 38%

Genomsnitt: 4

7. How do you rate the learning impact of the computer lab (2D turbine CFD)?

18 svarande

Poor»3 16%
Fair»1 5%
Acceptable»7 38%
Good»6 33%
Excellent»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- You cannot be very proud of how the lab turned out...? You learned a lot anyhow.» (Poor)
- was tough, we spent a lot of time on it! hopefully we got 5 bonus points ,)» (Acceptable)
- But it could have been more prepared» (Good)

8. How do you rate the industrial lecture by Michael Källberg/SCANPUMP?

17 svarande

Not relevant for the course»0 0%
Relevant»7 41%
Relevant and interesting»10 58%

Genomsnitt: 2.58

- did not attend» (?)
- maybe next time, we should also remember to bow and worship the almighty CFD god.» (Relevant)

9. How do you rate the industrial lecture by Rolf Karlsson (steam turbine lecture)?

17 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 5%
Acceptable»2 11%
Good»11 64%
Excellent»3 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.94

- Was unable to attend.» (?)
- Good lecture» (Good)

10. How do you rate the water turbine lab?

Comments on preparatory material, contents etc

18 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Acceptable»0 0%
Good»10 55%
Excellent»8 44%

Genomsnitt: 4.44

- unfortunately 1 hour was short especially when the preliminary calculations are wrong... but really interesting and it is nice to wrk on smthg which is concrete» (Good)
- Håkan is a a good teacher. The lab was very good.» (Excellent)

11. How do you rate the study visit to the Olidan power plant?

18 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Acceptable»1 5%
Good»6 33%
Excellent»11 61%

Genomsnitt: 4.55

- More technical information had been interesting, long travel (in time) » (Acceptable)
- Fun!» (Good)
- maybe have a time to explain what we see in group instead of trying to get a piece of technical from each teacher» (Good)
- good for the motivation» (Excellent)
- Would have been nice with some more time» (Excellent)

12. How do you rate the lectures/lecture material?

You may provide specific comments to either Tomas Grönstedt and/or Håkan Nilsson

18 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 5%
Acceptable»3 16%
Good»13 72%
Excellent»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.77

- The slides where very godd for leraning the theory problems.» (Good)

13. How do you rate the exercises with respect to quality content etc?

17 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Acceptable»4 23%
Good»10 58%
Excellent»3 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.94

- The exercises was quite good, but they were alot harder than the exam questions.» (Acceptable)
- I think there should be a few more, smaller in size, design tasks.» (Acceptable)
- ...but they didnt help much on the exam, since very different questions were asked.» (Good)
- maybe more interactive, give time to the student to try to solve the exercise by himself» (Good)
- They got better with time...» (Good)
- This is where I learnt almost everything» (Excellent)

14. How do you rate the course book?

Did all chapters have the same quality. Do you think that some sections should be excluded for next year or should something else be included?

18 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 11%
Acceptable»8 44%
Good»8 44%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- Too much to read.» (Acceptable)
- The book was ok. Good reading instructions helped a lot.» (Good)

General questions

15. What should be preserved for next year?

- computer lab, study visit and industrial lectures are very helpful.»
- Guest lecture, and study visit»
- Labs and exercises, though the CDF project should be made less time-consuming»
- The study visit»
- Water turbine lab, some kind of cfd-lab, guest lectures, hand in task»
- visit, water turbine lab, warm-up exercise»
- Labs»
- The study visit to Olidan»
- theorey problems»

16. What should be changed for next year?

- Credits should be assigned to computer lab from start. Lab is very interesting.»
- The exam should reflect the exercises in the book.»
- Easier exam, more prepared computer lab. Introduce the course with more examples visit to the wind tunnel lab and other practical stuff to make it easier to understand what we calculate later on»
- make the computer lab easier, have an introductory lecture for basic knowledge (start with the velocity triangle without showing videos is hard for non-applied mechanics students) give assignments (2 or 3 small exercises for the most important chapter perhaps because the warm-up exercise is a good idea but is nt enough, give easy assignments to make sure students understand what is important!»
- The computer lab should be better prepared»
- relation between exercises and exam»

17. What is your overall rating of the course?

18 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 5%
Acceptable»5 27%
Good»10 55%
Excellent»2 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- Liked it a lot. Both Tomas and Egill did a very good job teaching!» (Good)
- really interesting, some point to improve but it was the first year!» (Good)
- The test exam was very easy! Much easier than the real exam. The exams was however not too hard, so I think it was very strange to lower the grade limits. Felt like it was only done to get nice looking statistics.» (Excellent)

Kursutvärderingssystem från