Visa resultat

KBT135 - Waste Management, KBT135

1. Course material/textbook

30 svarande

Yes»		13		43%
No»		17		56%

Genomsnitt: 1.56

- there are some questions in the exam that are not discussed enough in the class, but you want us to write about it, and it has 4 points!! why??!!» (Yes)
- At least some book name for specific topic would have been good.» (Yes)
- In my case I spent lot of time searching on the inthernet to completely understand the lectures. The leterature does not have to be a textbook but it could be a compendium of chapters from different books or notes from the teachers. » (Yes)
- If there is no book, maybe we can get some extra material to read. Some material in the slides that you gave are too short if we want to understand. I also search extra material to read in the internet (to get me understand about the topic)but its too much article i found and I don"t know which the most suitable. So I read a lot but I am not quite sure if there is right article.» (Yes)
- It was very hard to keep up if you miss a lecture without even some recommended literature.» (Yes)
- The information given in written form is very scarce. It is very difficult to learn some parts in your own if you (as I) can"t go to all lectures because of conflicting courses.» (Yes)
- At least some articles can be provide to found some information» (Yes)
- Even though there is any specific textbook for this course, many information can be found on the websites.» (No)
- Would have liked more recommended articles etc.» (No)
- there was no such book. just lecture slides, but i understand that it is hard to have a book that covers everything in this course.» (No)
- But any kind of litterature or articles would be great. Especially since some of the lectures were really crappy. for instance christian said something about some processes that were to be included in the course but he didnt want to take it up in lecture and said we will have to find out ourselves. really not good way of having lectures. maybe a hint of were to find the informantio could come in handy. » (No)
- I think that there should be more discription in some of the figures in the handouts.» (No)
- No but it would have been great with complementing articles instead, to get an deeper understanding for the subject» (No)

2. Several different lecturers were involved in the course. Do you think it is an advantage or a disadvantage if many different specialists are involved in a course? Please motivate!

Advantage»		27		90%
Disadvantage»		3		10%

Genomsnitt: 1.1

- Every lecturer is teaching their own specialised field where he/she has more experience on the lecture(s) that he/she taught.» (Advantage)
- An advantage, since each specialist has a special interest in their area.» (Advantage)
- It is good to have different viewpoints and angels of the problem. Though it is sometimes hard to know how much we "should" know in every field. Due to that there is no book, it is only the slides to study. » (Advantage)
- It is good that we get to learn abt different topics» (Advantage)
- » (Advantage)
- Yes I can get a lot of new knowledge and a lot of topic. But its just general knowledge.» (Advantage)
- The quantity does not matter, what"s important is the quality.» (Advantage)
- It"s always fun to hear an experts opinion.» (Advantage)
- the teachers are able to answer the questions from the students very detailed» (Advantage)
- Nice to get the experts, but they lacked a common structure and scope. The course coordinator should coordinate more.» (Advantage)
- Subjects are different so it requires different teachers» (Advantage)
- Its good that every lecture has its own specialist» (Advantage)
- a disadvantage when there"s a lot of repetitions and lectures slides" information flow variations between lectures» (Advantage)
- I think too many lecturers were used.» (Disadvantage)
- some lecturers doesn"t realise that the slides are the only litterature we have for the exams and therefore doesn"t contain any useful information. » (Disadvantage)
- It is hard to get a good overview of the course» (Disadvantage)

3. Should additional teaching/learning activities be included?

30 svarande

Yes»		8		26%
No»		22		73%

Genomsnitt: 1.73

- Hands-onn is always the best way to learn theories in the text.» (Yes)
- There should be some tutorials on the calculation exercises and maybe weekly assignments with main topics, to break down the vast amount of new information to be learnt in this course. » (Yes)
- A couple of tutorial lectures with home assignments so everyone actually tries to lern the concepts and calculations. Also some other homeassignments would be good. The group presentations could have been handed out (power points or reports) to be able to study those before the exam.» (Yes)
- Tutorial lectures would have been the only way for me to learn the chemistry calculations on reactors as I have absolutely no experience in that field from before.» (Yes)
- The course was really not very time consuming. Do more!» (Yes)
- Absolutly that would help» (Yes)
- I dont think we need lab work or tutorials. But the project work seemed not to have any relevance with what is taught. Like batteries or biological waste, there are no lectures on those topics but the project work was supposed to fill in many information regarding those topics which was not taught in the course.» (No)
- But I would definately keep the study visits, they have been very illustrative.» (No)
- Its good combination so far» (No)
- Maybe be more specific with the technologies explained... dare to say which technology is better for waste management» (No)

4. Lecture: Introduction to waste management and to the projects (Stefan Allard)

28 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		1		3%
3»		8		28%
4»		15		53%
5»		4		14%

Genomsnitt: 3.78 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- It was ok» (3)
- A bit short. Use the availible time to teach more.» (4)

5. Lectures: Waste flows in society: amounts and composition (Magdalena Svanström)

30 svarande

1»		1		3%
2»		2		6%
3»		6		20%
4»		9		30%
5»		12		40%

Genomsnitt: 3.96 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- lectures were good, but exam questions were so stupid, specially that one about the amount of each waste in MSW. as stupid as possible!! whats the use of knowing the weight of each part of MSW in sweden in 2007??!! really whats that???!!!» (1)
- Just 50 pictures is impossible to follow. Needs "real" slides.» (2)
- Good to have interactive parts» (5)
- I liked her lectures and slides very much. They were very helpful while preparing for the exam.» (5)
- She was the best lecturer in the course. She was the only one who recomended literature. » (5)

6. Lecture: Waste flows in society: management strategies (Magdalena Svanström)

30 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		1		3%
3»		6		20%
4»		13		43%
5»		10		33%

Genomsnitt: 4.06 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Liked very much.» (5)
- Still the best» (5)

7. Lecture: Hydrothermal waste treatment methods (Magdalena Svanström)

28 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		6		21%
4»		15		53%
5»		7		25%

Genomsnitt: 4.03 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Did not attend» (?)
- good but too many examples of plants that where to detailed to understand during lecture and even harder after lecture.» (3)
- Very much info to grasp which is hard» (3)
- Nice examples» (4)
- I like your material. The link also gave me good understanding. Thanks a lot!» (5)
- This was the most interesting lecture in the course» (5)

8. Lecture: Ashes (Britt-Marie Steenari)

29 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		4		13%
3»		13		44%
4»		12		41%
5»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.27 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Did not attend» (?)
- The slides are not so informative.» (2)
- Hard to know whats important» (2)
- I think its better to give us more material to read or a link or special clue to make us more understand about your lecture.» (3)
- Can"t tell, I missed it.» (3)
- what was the source of the exam question about ashes? there was just 1 slide in the lecture, and teacher talked about it for 1 minute, then you ask that!!!» (4)
- Should have been the second lecture.» (4)

9. Lecture: Thermal waste treatment methods (Britt-Marie Steenari)

30 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		4		13%
3»		13		43%
4»		12		40%
5»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3.33 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Not enough detailed, we didn"t have time to understand the advantages/drawbacks of each method.» (2)
- The slides in this lecture is too little and made me not surely understand. So I search extra information in internet, but it became too large area to read. So maybe its better if you give the student some extra clue, link, article, to us to read. But nice lecture. Thank you.» (3)
- It was too short, no literature.» (3)

10. Lecture: Principles of bioremediation (Claes Niklasson)

29 svarande

1»		1		3%
2»		6		20%
3»		11		37%
4»		8		27%
5»		3		10%

Genomsnitt: 3.2 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Unclear lectures. Hard to relate to the other content of the course. Difficult calculations if you don"t have the skills, which was not a precondition» (2)
- Good teacher but the slides are somehow too detailed and covers unnecceasry much stuff for the non- chemist student and for the expected knowledge for the exam!!» (3)
- It needs more real examples.» (3)
- Very good lecture, but I think the subject and all the content he tried to include was too much for just three lectures. Sometimes he had to rush to fit the time and things were kind of unclear because of that.» (4)
- Maybe you can give us more real examples about bioremediation.» (5)

11. Lecture: Material balances for biological methods of handling waste (Claes Niklasson)

28 svarande

1»		1		3%
2»		9		32%
3»		10		35%
4»		6		21%
5»		2		7%

Genomsnitt: 2.96 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Did not attend» (?)
- same» (2)
- He should have solved the example exercise which he finally gave in the exam.» (2)
- This really should not be within the scope of the course.» (2)
- More emphasis or time spent on the exercises. The examples were rushed, abbreviated and seemed disorganized. » (3)
- Same» (4)

12. Lecture: Modelling and simple optimization of biological treatment systems (Claes Niklasson)

28 svarande

1»		1		3%
2»		9		32%
3»		8		28%
4»		7		25%
5»		3		10%

Genomsnitt: 3.07 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Did not attend» (?)
- same» (2)
- Same as above.» (2)
- Very hard to follow the excerise on the blackboard» (2)
- Same» (4)

13. Lecture: Recycling of metals (Christian Ekberg)

29 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		4		13%
3»		11		37%
4»		6		20%
5»		8		27%

Genomsnitt: 3.62 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Can"t tell, I missed it.» (3)
- A bit vague» (3)
- would be good if we had the STENA pp instead, more comprehensive..» (4)

14. Lecture: Handling of radioactive waste (Christian Ekberg)

28 svarande

1»		3		10%
2»		6		21%
3»		9		32%
4»		6		21%
5»		4		14%

Genomsnitt: 3.07 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Did not attend» (?)
- The worst lecture of the course, he didn"t even bring decent markers. The question in the exam was too much for such a bad lecture.» (1)
- Clearly political and therefore not trustworthy. To many pointless datails about nuclear power generation not related to waste management. » (1)
- His exam question and the slide are not relevant. If he wanted us to look for information by ourselves then he should have given us some hint or book names.» (2)
- Difficult grasping the concepts. » (3)
- Christian, your exam is beyond my prediction. But I like the way you teach us. Thank you.» (4)
- I am eager to know how many students could answer the exam question??!!» (5)

15. Lecture: Recycling of plastics (Anna Jansson)

27 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		1		3%
3»		3		11%
4»		15		55%
5»		8		29%

Genomsnitt: 4.11 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Did not attend» (?)
- Very good, interesting outside perspective» (4)
- Great lecture Anna!» (5)
- Clear and straight forward. Grasped a wide perspective. Nice with the sample bags.» (5)

16. Study visit to Lillesjöverket

30 svarande

1»		1		3%
2»		3		10%
3»		3		10%
4»		8		26%
5»		15		50%

Genomsnitt: 4.1 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I missed it, because of the changes in the schedule. These changes always have bad consequences. Please next year stick to the original schedule.» (1)
- interesting and good» (4)
- Nice guides. Could have stayed for longer.» (4)
- Great to see first hand what is being done!» (5)

17. Study visit to Stena Metall, Halmstad

29 svarande

1»		1		3%
2»		3		10%
3»		5		17%
4»		10		34%
5»		10		34%

Genomsnitt: 3.86 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- seemed to be really unprepared, since one person were missing and noone of the other two ladies seemed to know the third lady"s part of the presentation. also really bad that they didn"t have any hearing aid so that we could hear them whne being outside among the noise machines and bulldozers. even if you were close to them when they spoke i didn"t heear half of what they said. » (1)
- I was not really able to hear everything. There were no hearing devices and it was to loud, so I and many other students were only able to see the plant without explanations» (2)
- We were in the bus during more than 3 hours and waited in Mc Donald 1 hour, for only 1 hour 30 min of visit. Moreover, some of us had other lectures during the afternoon and they weren"t able to attend to these lectures. On the other hand, I know some people who wanted to attend to their other lectures of the day and who were given an assignment to compensate the fact that they weren"t at the visit. They probably spent more than 10-15 hours to write the report they were given because the visit was mandatory. But what is the goal of the visit ? Isn"t it supposed to be a benefit for us ? In this case, is it really necessary to penalize the students who couldn"t attend to the visit because they had important lectures at the same time ?» (3)
- Very long busstrip for a short visit» (3)
- 4 because of the weather.» (4)
- Despite the bad weather it was very interesting.» (4)
- The group was to big. Half-class would have been better. But it was fun.» (4)
- Great to see first hand what is being done. A copy of their presentation would have been valuable» (5)
- Very fun way to learn!» (5)

18. The project

30 svarande

1»		1		3%
2»		2		6%
3»		6		20%
4»		15		50%
5»		6		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.76 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- yes they were, but I think a literature overview does not give much to the student. Also, the requirements for the task were very misleading and the time allocated for the presentation was misleading as well. » (1)
- I would change the approach to the projects. In some lectures I felt that most of the student, me included, were missing knowledge about what it is being done about waste management in the different countries/cities of origen of the students. I think it would have been more interesting to focus the project on the waste management practices in those countries rather than in a general literature research.» (2)
- Very poor group which was not good» (2)
- Some of them were relevant and some not, such as university waste. » (3)
- Not so much. If the aim was to give an overview of different treatment then it is okay i guess. » (3)
- good topics» (4)

19. Project group size

30 svarande

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

2»		2		6%
3»		8		26%
4»		26		86%
5»		6		20%
6»		1		3%
7»		0		0%
8»		0		0%
9»		0		0%
10»		0		0%

- We were 4 but some people didn"t work on the report... I don"t know. Even with groups of 2 people, I guess one can work and the other one not. » (2)
- I think the most important point is to keep the same number of members in all the groups, otherwise is not fair for the rest.» (4, 5)
- Four is ok» (4)

20. Project bonus

29 svarande

Yes»		27		93%
No»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 1.06

- It should be clearer how the 6 points is graded divided in report and presentation.» (Yes)
- Yes, I think it should play a more important role since we spent many hours on it. (20% of the final grade?)» (Yes)
- I think it could give us more extra points in the final exam.» (Yes)
- more than it does, 6 credits is not to much.. and we dont know have to get the credits either.. what is good??» (Yes)
- We spent time working on the projects and for the presentation so I think it should be part of the final grading. It is also a way to motivate people to write good projects.» (Yes)
- Yes because we did a lot to that project. It will make it worth if it affect the final grading.» (Yes)
- since we have no proper litterature and many people put a lot of effort into these projects it would be more fair to give more extra points by doing good on the projects. now it feels more unnecessairy to put a lot of effort into it. » (Yes)
- Should give more points» (Yes)

21. Course administration

29 svarande

1»		1		3%
2»		3		10%
3»		9		31%
4»		15		51%
5»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3.41 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Small lecture rooms, too many changes in the schedule, all lectures at 8am with the winter starting (not everybody is used to the cold and darkness), missing markers, missing lecturers, misleading presentation and project instruction, very little literature reccomended. Very disappointing course.» (1)
- Bad, change of lecture rooms, bad information about the field trips, you have to log in to the student portal 24/7 to not be able to miss something.» (2)
- The lecturers clearly had not got sufficient guidence about wat there lectures should cover, therefore their scope varied much. Much information, especially about the project, was fuzzy and unclear.» (2)
- Is it possible if the handout is given before the lecture start. So we can print it and make a note during the class. Because when we got the handout after the class, I just realized that there was something not so clear enough to understand. (Because we couldn"t meet directly to ask it to the teacher few days after class over, some teacher is only once gave the lecture)» (4)

22. Exam

30 svarande

1»		2		6%
2»		1		3%
3»		18		60%
4»		8		26%
5»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3.16 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- there were so many important and interesting points and materials in the lectures, but questions were very stupid from least important parts. please revise the method of selecting questions for final exams. it is not my first and last course. I have seen more that 20 funal exams of variety of courses. please avoid stupid and useless questions not to upset students.» (1)
- It was rather easy, except for the nuclear waste and bioreactor questions. They were too much for the little we received during the course.» (3)
- It is difficult to know what is important when you only have the ppt slides to learn from. It is also difficult to understand pictures without complementing text» (3)
- Some questions were too especific with questions that are not so relevant» (3)
- I found that a question in the final exam was kind of "remembering statistics in the reference website", which is not suitable in the context of waste management not the statistics of waste generation. I suggest that the final exam questions should reflect the management of waste.» (4)
- quite good i would say. probably little easier than you first think after the lectures. » (4)
- Overall, the exam is well reflected the course. But for Uranium problem, NO. I didn"t prepare to answer that question. Its not in my prediction.» (4)

23. Comments/suggestions in general

- Better guidelines for the projects, it seemed like nobody took the projects seriously. The presentation method was good (one person presenting).»
- I think the presentation od the projects should be divided in 2 groups but it shouldn"t be compulsory for both days because I presented the second day and most of the people who presented the previous day did not go to our presentation and I think it was no good. At least, if it is compulsory you should control that everybody attend the presentation.»
- It would be good to have solution to the exam problem on material balance. »
- I feel satisfied with this course. I got a lot of view to get in touch with the waste in this world. »
- Take away some subjects and go deeper into others.»
- i think the presentations were really bad. letting one person only present a GROUP"s complete work. of course i understand that all memebers should be prepared this is a university of technology not grade school. if that person does a louse presentation he/she drags the whole group down. unfair. and i think csome of christian"s comments on the presentation where kind of unprofessional. there are good and bad feedback but some of his comments were just coarse and kind of mean. try to keep it on a professional level. we are not idiots»
- A person as unfriendly and unprofessional as Ekberg should not be allowed to teach at a univerity. The students are usually more interested in getting a broad perspective of a problem, rather than his personal belittleling opinions. That goes for both lecturing and commenting on project presentations.»
- As mention before, the teachers shold dare to say which technologies are better and go deeper into that ones, and not go so superficial with all the technologies.»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.57