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.

Nanotechnology for Sustainable Energy 2010/2011, TIF165 / FIM640

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-03-15 - 2011-04-07
Antal svar: 36
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 64%
Kontaktperson: Michael Zäch»

Student background

1. What is your educational background?

34 svarande

Physics»7 20%
Chemistry / Chemical Engineering»6 17%
Materials Science»1 2%
Mechanical Engineering»16 47%
Electrical Engineering»4 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

- Electronics and Communication Engineering» (?)
- Production Engineering» (?)
- Mathematics» (Physics)
- sustainable energy» (Mechanical Engineering)

2. What is your mother tongue (optional)?

36 svarande

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

Swedish»3 8%
English»3 8%
German»4 11%
French»5 13%
Spanish»2 5%
Chinese»1 2%
No reply»5

- Persian» ()
- Urdu» ()
- arabic» (German, French)
- Tamil» ()
- Bengali» ()
- Italian» ()
- Italian» ()
- Turkish» ()
- My Mother tongue is Pushto in Pakiatan» (English)
- Persian» ()
- Indonesian» ()
- Bangla» ()
- persian» ()
- turkish-persian» ()
- Urdu» ()
- Russian, Belarussian » ()

General impression and motivation to attend

3. What is your general impression of the course?

36 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 5%
Good»19 52%
Excellent»15 41%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

- it was great!!!» (Excellent)

4. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Variety of topics»
- The evaluation (with quiz, report and presentation)»
- I think everything was fine, just the contents less complex. I liked the lectures with comments under the slides. Also ı, appreciated Michael"s quick correction of the quizzes, also his sensitivity to students needs.»
- fuel cell lecture was very good!»
- study visit to cleaning room»
- Presentation and quiz.»
- nothing»
- no final exam»
- content professor quiz presentation»
- The quizzes organisation, the guest lectures»
- The guess lectures»
- The Same course pattern»
- quiz, project»
- Guest lectures and symposia»
- Balance of topics»
- I think the Method which you use for your course its nice and excellent»
- Giving the sample questions of several years to give better idea about the questions for the first quiz. »
- -helpfull of Mr.Zach :-)»
- the project work as main part of the examination»
- general structure is good enough to be preserved»
- examination format»
- Quizes should really be there instead of final exam »
- Everything»

5. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Feel like presenters were not clear on audience. They went too deep and detailed too quickly. Many times I was lost from the beginning and trying to catch up. Needed to go home and use wikipedia to read up on the topics and fill in the gaps.»
- method of quizes»
- the lectures content. especially the one about Hydrogen storage.I tried so much to understand it, but the contents in the slide were so irrelevant for simpler people to understand.»
- lecture about plasmonics was poorly presented (diagrams too small, no legends for axes....), »
- i do not think there are some contents to be changed next year, i think there are all good »
- Change quizzes time. Take 10:00 instead 8:00. If possible Tuesday is good for quizzes.»
- Examination form»
- more detailed description to some figures/graphs/diagrams»
- Some guest lecturers were not understandable... I haven"t understand anything about the hydrogen storage»
- Nil»
- nothing»
- Some lectures could be better prepared, especially slides»
- Inform guest lecturers about the students" background so that they would prepare lectures of adequate level (sometimes too much was assumed to be known)»
- I think you do not change the method of course. But try to give lectures on other new technologies. Do not re apt such last year lectures.»
- maybe the material, its better to give us more "reading parts" in the slide handout»
- -all of the handouts are uploaded in the home page -more capacity of the class»
- More comments for the slides»
- before distributing project subject , asking about a a background of student and giving related subject to proper people.»
- -amount and diversity of materials reduced to give better understanding of subject. - examinations content are better to emphasis less on just memorizing. they can be more cenceptual »
- in my point of view its already been designed well»
- Hard to say, everything was pretty nice and straightforward (organisation and content)»

6. How did you get to know about this course?

36 svarande

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

By browsing the student portal»23 63%
Via my masters program»7 19%
Recommended by a colleague»13 36%
Flyer / advertisement»1 2%

7. Why did you choose this course?

36 svarande

Mainly because I have an interest in nanotechnology.»7 19%
Mainly because I have an interest in sustainable energy.»10 27%
Mainly because I have an interest in the combination of both»19 52%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- Honestly, I was looking for a class that was less intense than my masters program classes, and to get some knowledge in nano-solar. I think the class succeeded in these two objectives for me, mainly because I was allowed to do my research paper on solar.» (Mainly because I have an interest in the combination of both)
- To get a look into potential areas to do my master thesis» (Mainly because I have an interest in the combination of both)

8. Will you recommend this course to other students?

36 svarande

Certainly not»0 0%
Probably not»0 0%
Yes, probably»10 27%
Yes, definitely»26 72%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- Becasue this course also gives gilmpse on the areas of research going on at MC2 and applied science. » (Yes, definitely)
- especially to the physics, Nano-technology, fundamental physics,& engineering students » (Yes, definitely)

Course goals

9. How understandable are the course goals?

36 svarande

The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»9 27%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»24 72%
I have not seen/read the goals»3

Genomsnitt: 2.72

- But still abstract.Only at the end you understand uouuu how much I learned.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- but some sessions were vague» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

10. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

36 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 2%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»32 94%
No, the goals are set too high»1 2%
I have not seen/read the goals»2

Genomsnitt: 2

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

36 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»17 51%
Yes, definitely»16 48%
I have not seen/read the goals»3

Genomsnitt: 2.48

- I would like a "tougher/harder" limit, I saw many students do what I would like to call cheating during the quizzes by always sitting together and looking at eachothers sheets.» (To some extent)

Work load

12. How many hours per week did you spend on this course in total?

(Including time spent in class, time spent on your own work, and time spent on the project. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.)

36 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»9 25%
At most 20 hours/week»12 33%
At most 25 hours/week»14 38%
At most 30 hours/week»1 2%
At most 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.19

- Well, I think I spent a lot because of the project also and the quiz. Mainly because some topics is completely new for me so I need to search information in other materials to give me understanding. » (At most 30 hours/week)

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

35 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»2 5%
75%»18 51%
100%»15 42%

Genomsnitt: 4.37

- 93%» (?)
- Well, I just did not come twice.» (75%)

14. How was the total workload this study period?

36 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»2 5%
Adequate»24 66%
High»9 25%
Too high»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

- there was a lot of work necessary for the quizzes and the project work.» (High)
- But fun! I really get the overview about nanotech.» (High)
- Bcz My thesis work also going on with this course.» (Too high)

Administration

15. How well did the course administration work in general?

36 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»13 36%
Very well»23 63%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

- Solutions to the quizes would have been nice!» (Rather well)

16. How well did the administration of the course homepage work?

36 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»2 5%
Rather well»16 44%
Very well»18 50%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

- Handouts from all the lecturers could have been uploaded at least some days before the lecture takes place, so unfamiliar subjects would be possible to study.» (Rather badly)
- some problems with electronic distribution of slides» (Rather well)

Study climate and study aids

17. How did the fact that the lectures were not mandatory affect your motivation to learn?

36 svarande

In a positive way»9 25%
Not at all»27 75%
In a negative way»0 0%
I did not know that the lectures were not mandatory»0

Genomsnitt: 1.75

- I didn"t feel pressure to attend. I attended b/c I wanted to, which makes the learning environment more relaxed and natural.» (In a positive way)
- you had to be there to know what is important for quizzes....» (Not at all)
- I don"t care its mandatory or not, I like this course and love to learn nano» (Not at all)

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

36 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»7 19%
Large extent»18 50%
Great extent»11 30%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

- strongly depends on the teacher! some were very good, some were horrific. Michael was a very good one!» (Some extent)
- heavily depending on the lecture» (Some extent)

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

34 svarande

Small extent»1 2%
Some extent»12 35%
Large extent»18 52%
Great extent»3 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.67

- didnt use» (?)
- The handouts, most times, were general, and sometimes many slides at a time were skipped through without explanation. When looking back to study, it"s impossible to understand these slides. I think less slides, with more description/commentary, would make the learning experience MUCH more valuable.» (Some extent)
- More "text" literature maybe needed to give a student more understanding. Just by seeing the slide sometimes was so hard to understand. I also spent a lot of time to search in internet. But maybe because my background is not electric or something like that.» (Some extent)

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

36 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»1 2%
Rather good»10 29%
Very good»23 67%
I did not seek help»2

Genomsnitt: 3.64

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

36 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»2 7%
Rather well»17 60%
Very well»9 32%
I did not seek cooperation»8

Genomsnitt: 3.25

Overall course content

22. The course content corresponded to what I expected from the course description. (If not, please indicate in which respect(s) we failed to fulfill your expectations in the comments box below.)

35 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»0 0%
I agree»26 74%
I strongly agree»9 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

23. There was little overlap with the contents of other courses that I have been taking. If there was any overlap, it was healthy rather than disturbing.

34 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»2 5%
I agree»26 76%
I strongly agree»6 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

24. The course content was arranged in a logical and helpful way.

35 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»0 0%
I agree»23 65%
I strongly agree»12 34%

Genomsnitt: 3.34

25. There was a good balance between "academic" content and content with industrial relevance.

35 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»1 2%
Neutral»7 20%
I agree»23 65%
I strongly agree»4 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.85

- Perhaps more industrial examples would be helpful. On the other hand, it is the state-of-the-art technology that the most interesting to hear about.» (I agree)

26. Are there any topics which were not treated in the course but which you think should be part of the course?

- I felt Nano-solar was too brief. A lot of students were excited to learn about solar but from what I heard from other students, they felt disappointed. The lecture was quick, and the lecturer was rather poor in presentation...»
- no»
- no»
- Nill»
- Maybe separation of CO2.»
- nanotoxicology and nanoethics»
- Industrial visits»
- some practical work»
- More of bio applications»
- I think in could power engineering some topics, Dye-sensitized solar cell, more about Nuclear physics »
- I think the project parts and presentation has given the other view of nano topics.»
- the other Energy storage devices e.g. battery, supercapacitors.»
- No»
- NA»
- no»

27. Additional comments regarding the course contents (optional):

- Variety of energy topics was very good. I learned a little bit about a lot of different things I didn"t know before!»
- Very knowledge full and interesting course.»
- NIL»
- The course was quite interesting and the contents are very helpful in some other courses as well.»
- two tumbs»

Lectures

Lecture times and rooms

28. The Tuesday lecture hours (10-12) were appropriate and did not collide with any other lectures I took in reading period 3.

35 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»4 11%
I agree»15 42%
I strongly agree»15 42%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

- there was a collision with compressible flow!» (I strongly disagree)
- The hours were appropriate but I had a collision with one of my other courses. But I chose to skip it in order to come to your lectures» (I agree)

29. The Friday lecture hours (8-10) were appropriate and did not collide with any other lectures I took in reading period 3.

35 svarande

I strongly disagree»2 5%
I disagree»8 22%
I agree»14 40%
I strongly agree»11 31%

Genomsnitt: 2.97

- too early!» (I strongly disagree)
- Because when the quiz at 8 am then its difficult for most of student which live far from university.» (I disagree)
- hard to think on Friday morning ha» (I disagree)
- No collision but 8AM is too early..» (I agree)
- But sometimes I had another class in this period.» (I agree)

30. The lecture hall (FL61) was appropriate.

35 svarande

I strongly disagree»2 5%
I disagree»7 20%
I agree»21 60%
I strongly agree»5 14%

Genomsnitt: 2.82

- Too few seats and the ventilation was insufficient when the room was full.» (I disagree)
- too crowded » (I disagree)
- Too small» (I disagree)
- It was crowded all the time. » (I disagree)
- too small. Ones who sit in the back can not see clearly. A bit too far from back side to listen and catch the teacher expalnation» (I disagree)
- At times it was a little bit to small. Eg. at the quizzes.» (I agree)
- Sometimes not big enough» (I agree)
- but i think larger is better because the late student will disturbe the others (if try to find a front seat).» (I agree)
- it seems sometime it need a bigger place» (I agree)

Lecture notes

31. Lecture notes

Matrisfråga

- Few lectures contained much more slides than the printed versions" (not updated?)»
- Would be helpful with comments, like the ones Uta Klement did. Also, would be good to have them all on the course home page.»
- the last two points strongly depend on the teacher (see above)....»
- Some guest lectures had notes that were very confusing to follow (some figures with no explanation)»
- Not strongly agree because some question which in could in Quiz but not in lecture..»
- For repeating the course, its hard to understand due to lack of information in that slide. Some slide just full of picture and I forgot the meaning.»
- - all handouts must be uploaded in the home page»
- some lecture notes didn"t coincide completely with the slides during lecture so it was sometimes difficult to find the right page in time and pay attention in the same moment. »
- Less slides! In some lectures the teachers had problems to discuss all the slides. It would be nice if there are less slides which were discussed more in detail.»

Printed lecture notes were available in time.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»2 5%
I agree»7 20%
I strongly agree»25 71%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

Printed lecture notes were helpful in following the lectures.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»2 5%
I agree»12 34%
I strongly agree»20 57%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

The printed lecture notes were helpful in repeating the course content / preparing for the quizzes.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»2 5%
I disagree»2 5%
I agree»14 40%
I strongly agree»17 48%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

Lecture 1 - Course overview and global energy situation

32. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- Very basic information for me about the global energy situation, but perhaps not for everyone.»
- i have heard about that a hundred times already, but it is important!»
- Good»
- I did not attend»

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
36 svarande

I strongly disagree»2 5%
I disagree»0 0%
I agree»18 50%
I strongly agree»16 44%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

33. Lecturer (Michael Zäch)

Comments regarding the lecturer, e.g. what you appreciated most, what the lecturer should improve on, willingness to answer questions, etc. (optional):

- Michael was great. No comments really. »
- good one»
- It was very good.»
- well prepared answered fast and precisely on questions via e-mail good knowledge good teaching atmosphere»
- I think you are a very good teacher who know how to interest his students. I liked a lot your lectures»
- Good»
- Michael Zäch is nice and good teacher. also his method of teaching is excellent i am so impress from his teaching. I also take his course Modern Imagine spectroscopy, which very nice. »
- I would like to thank Dr. Michael Zäch for all his efforts to improve our knowledge.»
- - I think you are a good teacher... :-)»
- very nice lecture notes, allways willing to answer questions»
- very good lecturer, friendly and helpful. »

Lecture 2 - Nanofabrication and semiconductor short tutorials

34. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- Plasmonics was unknown to me before I took this course, so it might be good to bring it up early in the course. Perhaps you can make a list of "key concepts" to look into before each lecture, so that you don"t have to start from scratch with every topic not shared by all backgrounds.»
- would be helpful to step back and explain what some of the terms mean first. WE jumped right into it - lithography, substrates, etc, and I had no idea what these terms really meant. Just understanding the audience...»
- Good»
- Plasmonics should be covered in this lecture so that other lecturer could skip introducing them»
- I did not attend»
- this is a basic course and not the advanced one so it should provide basic knowledge rather excelling in one direction»

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»2 5%
I disagree»0 0%
I agree»21 60%
I strongly agree»12 34%

Genomsnitt: 3.22

Plasmonics should also be covered in this lecture.
32 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 3%
I disagree»10 31%
I agree»12 37%
I strongly agree»9 28%

Genomsnitt: 2.9

Lecture 3 - Thermoelectric materials

35. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- Good lecture...»
- the last parts of the lecture were not well eplained!»
- Good»

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»1 2%
I agree»17 48%
I strongly agree»16 45%

Genomsnitt: 3.37

36. Lecturer (Anders Palmqvist)

Comments regarding the lecturer, e.g. what you appreciated most, what the lecturer should improve on, willingness to answer questions, etc. (optional):

- confusing final part of the lecture. hard to learn from slides»
- It was good.»
- Good»
- nice»
- The main parts of thermodynamic material were covered in the lecture notes »

Lecture 4 - Nanomaterials

37. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- too detailed slides»
- to much slides.»
- Maybe more focused on sustainable development»
- Good»
- this lecture was well structured and the additional textes to some slides in the lecture notes were very helpful»

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
36 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»2 5%
I agree»17 47%
I strongly agree»16 44%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

38. Lecturer (Uta Klement)

Comments regarding the lecturer, e.g. what you appreciated most, what the lecturer should improve on, willingness to answer questions, etc. (optional):

- Very good with so many examples.»
- It was a biggg frustrating joke...I spent so many hours in understanding it .but still failed. the lecture could have been simpler and less lengthy.»
- not well presented»
- lecture slids must be reduce.»
- Good»
- A little more on nanomaterials in everyday products would be very interesting»
- nice»

Lecture 5 - Nanocomposites

39. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- Good»
- the topic was not categorized well and was not covered in proper way»

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»1 2%
I agree»23 65%
I strongly agree»11 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

40. Lecturer (Rodney Rychwalski)

Comments regarding the lecturer, e.g. what you appreciated most, what the lecturer should improve on, willingness to answer questions, etc. (optional):

- good presenter, calm and balanced presentation, very nice to follow!»
- Very good»
- very interesting, nice way to talk, good to follow»
- Good»
- I liked his attitude and his way of explaining concepts»
- nice»
- also nice lecturer. Teaching style made me more interested.»

Lecture 6 - Nanocatalysis

41. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- I"m not sure if this was the one right after the quiz, that we skipped many many slides, only to cover a generic presentation on "industry trends" and where nano was going in the future. I didnt" think this lecture was very enlightening. It was generic information and "hopeful" projections. I"d rather spend the time learning the technical aspects of various nanotechnologies.»
- Good»
- More nano stuff related to catalyst maybe.»
- - more slowly»

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»2 5%
I agree»17 48%
I strongly agree»15 42%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

42. Lecturer (Bengt Kasemo)

Comments regarding the lecturer, e.g. what you appreciated most, what the lecturer should improve on, willingness to answer questions, etc. (optional):

- he sped through the whole topic due to the quiz before!»
- good»
- much too fast»
- Good»
- This lecture was hard for non-experts to understand, especially when reviewing the slides later»
- nice»
- - I think Bengt couln"t repeat about introduction nanotechnology»

Lecture 7 - Environmental Catalysis

43. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- Good»
- I would have preferred to have this lecture before lecture on nanocatalysis»

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»3 8%
I agree»17 50%
I strongly agree»14 41%

Genomsnitt: 3.32

44. Lecturer (Magnus Skoglundh)

Comments regarding the lecturer, e.g. what you appreciated most, what the lecturer should improve on, willingness to answer questions, etc. (optional):

- not well presented»
- it was interesting»
- Good»
- nice»

Lecture 8 - Photocatalysis

45. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- Good»

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
36 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»1 2%
I agree»19 52%
I strongly agree»15 41%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

Lecture 9 - Solar cells

46. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- I haven"t understand a lot of parts of this lecture»
- Good»
- The lecture was too much about the lecturer research and didn"t give in my opinion a good general overview. »
- The introduction was a little poor. Either one introduces the concept of solar cell to a good extent or one just skips it I think (especially as the p-n junction, core or most solar cells, had already been introduced in lecture 2)»
- probably for those who doesnt have relevant background the lecture might be confusing »

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»0 0%
I agree»16 45%
I strongly agree»18 51%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

47. Lecturer (Alexander Dmitriev)

Comments regarding the lecturer, e.g. what you appreciated most, what the lecturer should improve on, willingness to answer questions, etc. (optional):

- Very hard for me to follow the last part of the lecture, the one about the research. So many graphs that I gave up trying to figure out what conclusions I should draw from them. Too advanced for me.»
- Hard to follow. Went too quick. Didn"t explain the concepts very well.»
- worst presentation ever heard in university! bad diagrams, he is talking about stuff he does not introduce.....»
- not very easy to follow»
- Good»
- Slides were a bit confused»
- nice»
- I couldn"y understand many things from his lecture»
- good lecturer»

Lecture 10 - Hydrogen Production

48. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- Good»
- content of presentation and slides were vague and weak and must be changed completely»

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
36 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»1 2%
I agree»18 50%
I strongly agree»16 44%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

Lecture 11 - Nuclear fission

49. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- Very interesting, but too much historical background. Less trivia and more nanomaterials please!»
- loved the lecture...Thank you»
- More focus on N&N perhaps, not only the last three slides.»
- Good topic, very important and clear. I loved it»
- Good»
- A little more on applications on nanotechnology would be very interesting (if possible, maybe N&N is not used there a lot yet...)»
- I guess it needs more relevant article to Nano area»
- content of presentation and slides were vague and weak and must be changed completely»
- really enjoyed it»

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»2 5%
I agree»15 44%
I strongly agree»16 47%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

50. Lecturer (Anders Nordlund)

Comments regarding the lecturer, e.g. what you appreciated most, what the lecturer should improve on, willingness to answer questions, etc. (optional):

- Excellent presentation»
- very nice way of presenting stuff»
- Very good teacher, interesting, dynamic, understandable. Just perfect»
- Good»
- Very interesting lecture even if the nanotechnology part was small.»
- I appreciated his attitude and clarity when speaking and explaining»
- nice»
- I like the way you teach.»

Lecture 12 - Hydrogen Storage

51. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- I missed this class and the hand-out was very unhelpful.»
- It was interesting to get familiar what is the chalmers research team doing, but the lecture contents were too abstract and not complete. please just have a look at the slide contents, its ridiculuous.»
- hard to follow in the end»
- To much slides»
- Slides not clear, too many slides that the teacher has just skipped. The slides were not helpful at all to remind the lecture»
- Good»
- content of presentation and slides were vague and weak and must be changed completely»

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
36 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»3 8%
I agree»18 50%
I strongly agree»14 38%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

52. Lecturer (Igor Zoric)

Comments regarding the lecturer, e.g. what you appreciated most, what the lecturer should improve on, willingness to answer questions, etc. (optional):

- Excellent presentation»
- he is a good presenter, but the slides were totally overloaded in some cases. he is very much into his topic and by that sometimes hard to follow. the slides he showed were not good.»
- Difficult to understand. I didn"t know what to focus on when I was studying this part. Not clear»
- Good»
- Tell him to teach the hydrogen storage Method by proper way not explain his own project work instead of hydrogen storage.»
- I believe that Hydrogen storage is one of the most important part of this course and the procedure was explained very well.»
- the lecture was more complicated than usual lectures»

Lecture 13 - Fuel Cells

53. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- Not »
- Good»
- content of presentation and slides were vague and weak and must be changed completely»
- very nice lecture and very interesting»

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
36 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»0 0%
I agree»9 25%
I strongly agree»26 72%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

54. Lecturer (Björn Wickman)

Comments regarding the lecturer, e.g. what you appreciated most, what the lecturer should improve on, willingness to answer questions, etc. (optional):

- Best lecturer. Really enjoyed it.»
- best presentation, very clear, accurate speed, accurate slides: perfect!»
- Interesting, very good»
- very very good structured lecture, easy to follow, good presentation paste and style»
- Good»
- This was my favorite lecture in the course. Very informative and well presented.»
- I liked his attitude and the way the lecture was structured, for instance the summaries after every section»
- Nice»
- the lecturer presented in a very clear fashion»
- good lecturer, teaching style made me more interested»

Lecture 14 - Nanosafety and Nanoethics

55. Lecture content

Matrisfråga

- I think this part should be more included in the lectures. It"s as important to know about the risks and the ethics as the storage and the production when we talk about energy ans science in general»
- Good»
- It would be nice also to have a guest lecturer for half of this lecture who is expect on the matter (if possible)»

This lecture was an important part of the course and should be kept for next year.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»1 2%
I agree»16 47%
I strongly agree»16 47%

Genomsnitt: 3.38

Lab tour

56. The cleanroom tour aided my understanding of the course content

35 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»0 0%
I agree»9 64%
I strongly agree»5 35%
I did not attend the cleanroom tour»21

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- Was there a cleanroom tour?! I completely missed that information, but would have loved to attend.» (I did not attend the cleanroom tour)
- I have already been to clean room.» (I did not attend the cleanroom tour)

57. The dates for the cleanroom tour were coordinated well with the course content.

33 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»1 7%
I agree»9 69%
I strongly agree»3 23%
No opinion»20

Genomsnitt: 3.15

- its important which help us in thesis work also.» (I strongly agree)

58. The cleanroom tour should be offered also next year.

33 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»0 0%
I agree»12 50%
I strongly agree»12 50%
No opinion»9

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- I had been to a cleanroom tour in another course and I think that it was really great.» (I agree)

Quizzes

59. Quizzes

Matrisfråga

- It helps learning much more to have quizzes instead of a final exam. However, I have heard several people bragging about copying from the people sitting next to them. Perhaps a booking a bigger room to be able to have space between people could solve this problem?»
- It would be helpful to provide some discussion on the answers to the quizzes.»
- Some questions of the quizzes were not discussed in the lectures! »

Quizzes were an appropriate way of testing my knowledge.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»3 8%
I agree»18 52%
I strongly agree»13 38%

Genomsnitt: 3.29

The level of the quiz questions was appropriate.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»2 5%
I disagree»2 5%
I agree»23 65%
I strongly agree»8 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

The time available for the quizzes was appropriate.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»3 8%
I disagree»6 17%
I agree»20 57%
I strongly agree»6 17%

Genomsnitt: 2.82

The quiz results were available shortly after the quiz.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»3 8%
I agree»17 48%
I strongly agree»14 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

The quiz results corresponded to my expectations.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»2 5%
I disagree»4 11%
I agree»20 57%
I strongly agree»9 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.02

The quizzes were discussed in an appropriate way.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»4 11%
I agree»22 62%
I strongly agree»8 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

The quizzes have added to my understanding of the course content.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»3 8%
I agree»20 57%
I strongly agree»12 34%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

Projects and Symposia

60. Projects and Symposia

Matrisfråga

- I think that it is better just to attend your own symposia. In other courses where all of the symposias where compulsory people are often tired and not willing to give feedback. It should be compulsory to read the report of the presentation you should review.»
- I disagree that all symposia should be compulsory because sometimes there are the same topics and therefore it would be boring to hear everything twice.»
- I think it would be more interesting if the same topic would be covered in different symposia so that there will be no repetitions and mor topics can be learned in one simposium»
- Was a nice method of learning Fun symposia, tack for the coffee also»
- page limit is negotiable because the topics and their content extention were different.»

The suggested project topics were interesting and balanced.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»2 5%
I agree»14 41%
I strongly agree»18 52%

Genomsnitt: 3.47

The workload related to the project was appropriate.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»0 0%
I agree»24 70%
I strongly agree»10 29%

Genomsnitt: 3.29

The project supervision was appropriate.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»3 8%
I agree»22 64%
I strongly agree»9 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.17

The project has contributed to my overall understanding of the course content.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»5 14%
I agree»16 47%
I strongly agree»13 38%

Genomsnitt: 3.23

The project has contributed to a more detailed understanding of selected aspects related to the course.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»2 5%
I agree»18 52%
I strongly agree»14 41%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

I consider a written report an appropriate way of assessing my project.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»4 11%
I agree»20 58%
I strongly agree»10 29%

Genomsnitt: 3.17

The page limits for the written report were appropriate.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»5 14%
I agree»15 44%
I strongly agree»13 38%

Genomsnitt: 3.17

I consider an oral presentation an appropriate way of assessing my project.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»0 0%
I agree»19 55%
I strongly agree»15 44%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

The time available for the oral presentation was appropriate.
33 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»6 18%
I agree»16 48%
I strongly agree»11 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.15

The presentations of my colleagues have improved my own understanding.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»2 5%
I disagree»2 5%
I agree»19 55%
I strongly agree»11 32%

Genomsnitt: 3.14

Reviewing another presentation has improved my own understanding.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 2%
I disagree»4 11%
I agree»21 61%
I strongly agree»8 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

The feedback I got from the reviewer(s) regarding my presentation was helpful.
33 svarande

I strongly disagree»1 3%
I disagree»3 9%
I agree»20 60%
I strongly agree»9 27%

Genomsnitt: 3.12

*All* symposia should be compulsory (rather than having just one compulsory symposium).
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»6 17%
I disagree»17 50%
I agree»8 23%
I strongly agree»3 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.23

Grading

61. Grading

Matrisfråga

- If you fix the problem of people cheating, 50% would be more appropriate for the quizzes, 40% report and 10% presentation.»
- I think 30% to the report and 30% to the presentation would be more appropriate»
- quizzes should has a bigger weights. Maybe 50 % quizzes and 35% report and 15% presentation. »
- my be for weights should be 50% quizzes, 40% report, 10% presentation»

The grading criteria were communicated clearly.
34 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»1 2%
I agree»18 52%
I strongly agree»15 44%

Genomsnitt: 3.41

The weights put on the different moments (40% quizzes, 40% report, 20% presentation) were appropriate.
35 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»7 20%
I agree»15 42%
I strongly agree»13 37%

Genomsnitt: 3.17

Follow-up mid-term evaluation

62. The issues raised at the mid-term evaluation were addressed appropriately. (If you disagree, please leave a comment and indicate which issues you think were not solved appropriately.)

31 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»0 0%
I agree»23 82%
I strongly agree»5 17%
I do not know which issues were raised.»3

Genomsnitt: 3.17

- Good to have a timer at the quiz!» (I strongly agree)

Questionnaire

63. This questionnaire is an appropriate way of evaluating the course.

35 svarande

I strongly disagree»0 0%
I disagree»1 2%
I agree»25 71%
I strongly agree»9 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.22

- its quite a lot of questions» (I disagree)
- Very thorough! But also very long, could deter some people from completing it.» (I strongly agree)
- well, but this is a long questionnaire...» (I strongly agree)

Additional comments

64. Any additional comments are most welcome and can be given here!

- A very interesting and motivating course that opened my eyes to the advantages (and perils?) of nanotechnology.»
- i think the course is good.»
- Very interesting, knowledgeful and helpful in different fields.»
- Very good course, I will recommend it to my friends who are coming in Erasmus at Chalmers next year»
- Thanks for publication such a nice course...»
- Zach, you are great lecturer! You served totally as a teacher and did so well preparation to this course. Thank you very much Zach!»
- - I think over all of the course was very good»
- good course!»
- thank u for designing a nice and healthy course :)»

Thank you very much for taking your time to provide us with your feedback!

Kursutvärderingssystem från