ENKÄTER

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

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.

Quantum Field Theory, FUF020

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-03-09 - 2011-03-31
Antal svar: 12
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Gabriele Ferretti»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: 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.

12 svarande

At most 15 hours/week» 0 0%

Around 20 hours/week» 1 8%

Around 25 hours/week» 1 8%

Around 30 hours/week» 8 66%

At least 35 hours/week» 2 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.91

- varying» (Around 25 hours/week)
- Hard course, somewhat unorganized and much heavier course load in the first few weeks of the course than the rest.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

12 svarande

0%» 0 0%

25%» 0 0%

50%» 1 8%

75%» 7 58%

100%» 4 33%

Genomsnitt: 4.25

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

12 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals» 3 25%

The goals are difficult to understand» 5 41%

The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer» 3 25%

The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn» 1 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.16

- There are no goals to find anywhere!» (I have not seen/read the goals)
- the hand-ins are easy to understand the goals of, but it is very unclear what is expected of the oral exam.» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- Osäkert vad som krävs av en för betygsstegen. Känns som om betygsättningen blir lite godtycklig om det inte finns några krav för de respektive betygen.» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- The content of the course is rather well defined, but not how the grades will be set. The content of the oral exam was also a bit unclear.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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.

10 svarande

No, the goals are set too low» 0 0%

Yes, the goals seem reasonable» 10 100%

No, the goals are set too high» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Assuming the goals are doing the hand-ins» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- The goals are set high, but they are reachable (at least for people in the Fundamental physics program).» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Might be slightly too ambitious course.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

11 svarande

No, not at all» 1 9%

To some extent» 4 36%

Yes, definitely» 5 45%

I don"t know/have not been examined yet» 1 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.54

- Incredibly hard with an oral exam. Do not quite know what is expected.» (To some extent)
- good hand-in problems. I think the level was right.» (Yes, definitely)
- Since doing the hand-ins seems to be the goal...» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

12 svarande

Small extent» 1 8%

Some extent» 7 58%

Large extent» 4 33%

Great extent» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- The lectures vary widely in quality. Sometimes Per is hitting the material heads on, and sometimes he get lost in troublesome calculations and totally misses the point of explaining the idea and reason of the theory. The tedious calculations can we do better ourselves in most cases, since the method is the thing in Peskin that is most clearly explained. » (Some extent)
- Very very formal. Not much physics at all during the first weeks.» (Some extent)
- not much of intuitive and clearifying explanations but much technical computations which often became messy and sometimes erroneous.» (Some extent)

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

12 svarande

Small extent» 0 0%

Some extent» 3 25%

Large extent» 5 41%

Great extent» 4 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.08

- Peskin is good as a book of methods.» (Large extent)
- Peskin & Schroder is good but it is very formal and the book and Pär says very much the same things, one needs to get the physics in somewhere.» (Large extent)
- I include the homeworks in this category, which definitely have been helpful in learning the subject.» (Great extent)
- Peskin and Schoeder är bra men lite svår ibland. Men med lite kompletterande litteratur och internetresurser funkar det bra.» (Great extent)

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

12 svarande

Very badly» 0 0%

Rather badly» 1 8%

Rather well» 6 50%

Very well» 5 41%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- Instead of writing what happened last year, a schedule for the actual year would be helpful...» (Rather well)
- the homework problems were returned late» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

12 svarande

Very poor» 0 0%

Rather poor» 0 0%

Rather good» 2 16%

Very good» 9 75%

I did not seek help» 1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.91

- Pär is not in his office very often it seems but when he is he is always happy to help.» (Rather good)
- Jättebra att man alltid kan komma fråga Per i princip när som helst.» (Very good)

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

12 svarande

Very poorly» 1 8%

Rather poorly» 1 8%

Rather well» 2 16%

Very well» 8 66%

I did not seek cooperation» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.41

11. How was the course workload?

12 svarande

Too low» 0 0%

Low» 0 0%

Adequate» 3 25%

High» 6 50%

Too high» 3 25%

Genomsnitt: 4

- It was VERY high the first weeks, the hand ins took a LOT of time. However, I understand this is the way it has to be since the things we learned in those exercises are essential to the rest of the course.» (High)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

12 svarande

Too low» 0 0%

Low» 0 0%

Adequate» 2 16%

High» 9 75%

Too high» 1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.91

- QFT could fill upp the period alone, and a tough choice of second course made my weeks...» (High)
- Unfortunately the other courses suffered due to the high workload in this course.» (High)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

12 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 3 25%

Adequate» 3 25%

Good» 5 41%

Excellent» 1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- could have been more clearifying concerning spinor properties, renormalizability and mathematical aspects of QFT» (Adequate)
- All in all a fun and interesting course. Although the outlay might have been confusing and a high workload, I learned a lot.» (Adequate)
- Good, with a minus sign. To much time of lectures spend on calculation technique,» (Good)
- I learned a lot of things that I feel will be to great use for me.» (Good)
- QFT is a lot of fun! Ideally there should be some sort of continuation course!» (Excellent)

14. What should be preserved to next year?

- Hand-ins, no written exam (I suppose, not having visited Per for oral exam..)»
- I think the examination style (hand ins, oral examination) is very good since it forces the student to do practice problems during the course. This is a key to understanding in my opinion.»
- Hand ins and the overall structure of the course.»
- The focus on the homework problems.»
- the hand-ins and the oral exam»
- Hand-in problems.»
- Peskin & Schroeder was a good book to work with»

15. What should be changed to next year?

- a more rigouros treatment of why QFT has the form it has, from symmetry principles, relativistic invariance and the mathematical foundations of spinors, Dirac operators, gauging etc.»
- Nothing I can think of.»
- the book»
- The "How to calculate a cross-section" lecture was really good, while the parts on the Lorentz group and its representations were harder to follow - especially for us without any real knowledge of group theory. Maybe one could introduce those parts a bit more carefully?»
- Tydligare mål vad som krävs av studenterna. Standardmodell-delen av kursen kanske kan skippas och mer fokus på vissa delar. Tex QED.»
- More structure to the course.»
- no changes of notation compared to the text book»

16. Additional comments

- There are no goals set anywhere but it seems the grading is done on a relative basis which I do not like at all. There should be very clear goals for each of the grades 3,4,5 and those goals should be kept no matter how many 5"s there are.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från