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.

Finite Element Method - Applications, VSM014

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-04-20 - 2011-05-10
Antal svar: 25
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 33%
Kontaktperson: Fredrik Larsson»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers: masterskurs

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.

25 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»0 0%
Around 20 hours/week»9 36%
Around 25 hours/week»12 48%
Around 30 hours/week»4 16%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

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

25 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»3 12%
50%»1 4%
75%»10 40%
100%»11 44%

Genomsnitt: 4.16

- All lectures, not all computer labs.» (75%)
- Probably closer to 80 or 90 %» (75%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

25 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»4 16%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»10 40%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»11 44%

Genomsnitt: 3.12

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.

22 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»22 100%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

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

23 svarande

No, not at all»1 4%
To some extent»7 30%
Yes, definitely»13 56%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»2 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.69

Teaching and course administration

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

25 svarande

Small extent»2 8%
Some extent»5 20%
Large extent»10 40%
Great extent»8 32%

Genomsnitt: 2.96

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

25 svarande

Small extent»2 8%
Some extent»4 16%
Large extent»12 48%
Great extent»7 28%

Genomsnitt: 2.96

- I prefer to pay for a well written text with examples and more pedagogical thoughts behind it. The text is too concise. » (Small extent)

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

25 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»12 48%
Very well»13 52%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

Study climate

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

25 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»2 8%
Very good»23 92%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.92

- All teachers was very help full both in the lectures, by mail and when you just go to there rooms even if it wasnt lecture hours.» (Very good)
- Very much thanks to Jim» (Very good)

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

25 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»1 4%
Rather well»4 16%
Very well»20 80%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.76

11. How was the course workload?

25 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»12 48%
High»12 48%
Too high»1 4%

Genomsnitt: 3.56

- Maybe because we already had introduction of FEM on the term before, so when we were facing FEM application. We already knew the flow ar path how to learn the lecture.» (Adequate)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

25 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»10 40%
High»11 44%
Too high»4 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.76

- I do formula student and study full time...» (Too high)


The examination of the course consisted of computer assignments, one mandatory lab and one final (written) exam

13. How was the workload in CA1: Mechanical Analysis of the Hoover Dam?

25 svarande

too low»0 0%
low»2 8%
adequate»17 68%
high»6 24%
too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

14. To what extent was CA1 interesting and helpful for learning the topic?

25 svarande

Small/no extent»0 0%
Some extent»5 20%
Large extent»13 52%
Great extent»7 28%

Genomsnitt: 3.08

15. How was the workload in CA2: "Elasto-plastic analysis of a slit tube using total deformation theory"?

24 svarande

too low»0 0%
low»0 0%
adequate»8 33%
high»12 50%
too high»4 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

- The theory of the assignment was pretty straight forward, however implementation in Matlab proved difficult and alot of time was spend searching for errors in the code» (too high)

16. To what extent was CA2 interesting and helpful for learning the topic?

25 svarande

Small/no extent»1 4%
Some extent»6 24%
Large extent»13 52%
Great extent»5 20%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

17. How was the workload in CA3: "Stress and buckling analysis of thin-walled steel plate"?

25 svarande

too low»0 0%
low»2 8%
adequate»15 60%
high»7 28%
too high»1 4%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

18. To what extent was CA3 interesting and helpful for learning the topic?

24 svarande

Small/no extent»0 0%
Some extent»7 29%
Large extent»11 45%
Great extent»6 25%

Genomsnitt: 2.95

19. To what extent was the mandatory lab with ABAQUS interesting and helpful for learning the topic?

25 svarande

Small/no extent»9 36%
Some extent»9 36%
Large extent»4 16%
Great extent»3 12%

Genomsnitt: 2.04

- The complexity of the software together with the almost impossible troubleshooting was unfortunately making the learning outcome very limited.» (Small/no extent)
- 2 hours is not much time. » (Small/no extent)
- I guess it is nice in order to be able to compare the results to the third project, but I feel that most of us already have a good knowloedge of Abaqus.» (Small/no extent)
- It was interesting, but why is that the only mandatory part of the course? One could think you get money from the Abaqus company...» (Large extent)

20. How was the level of the written exam in terms of difficulty?

25 svarande

too low»0 0%
low»3 12%
adequate»14 56%
high»7 28%
too high»1 4%

Genomsnitt: 3.24

- One should not be allowed to have all the course material on the exam. This would open for question more which have more understanding rather than just re-iterate formulas. » (low)
- Personally, I think this exam was harder than those in the last years. But anyway, it was ok.» (high)
- Very hard to pass the course if you don"t make a good result with the labs.» (high)
- Since some problems addressed issues not covered earlier in the course there was too little time to get aquantied with the problem in the exam.» (too high)

Summarizing questions

21. What is your general impression of the course?

25 svarande

Poor»1 4%
Fair»2 8%
Adequate»3 12%
Good»13 52%
Excellent»6 24%

Genomsnitt: 3.84

- Weak connection bewteen lectures and Computer excercises. No real calculation excercises showing how to actually show problems by hand. No real connections to real life problems. » (Fair)
- I really really enjoyed the course. It was interesting, and Fredrik managed to present topics I"m usually not that interested in, very interesting. Jim in the exercises did also a very good job - I think it"s very good, that he didn"t write solutions into Matlab when questions occured but gave us hints to think about the problem. Very well job...» (Excellent)
- Very good course that provides a good introduction in advanced finite element methods.» (Excellent)

22. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The assignments»
- I like hints from one of the assistant the project (Andreas). He worked a lot I think to make student understand about the projects. »
- »
- Computer assignments.»
- Calculation excercies. »
- Assignements»
- Everything.»
- General course outline which gives a good introduction to nonlinear finite element method and stability problems.»
- The project work should be keep like this. It gives idea about the course. »
- general outlook of the course is ok.»
- The labs are very good for the understanding»

23. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The exam »
- none»
- »
- I want calculation excercises! Better understanding on what the knowledge acquired in the course actually can be used for. For example, writing a lot of matlab code for analysis of a small plate element in a beam seems a bit unnecessary, when the same can be done in abaqus considerably faster (and probably better)»
- The lectures»
- I think its weird that anyone that are studying for 2-3 days are able to pass the exam, even without reading the course. »
- I thinks its a good idea to change the projects quite much from the past year so the students cant copy old projects without really work with the projects!»
- Maybe some more description of the course on the internet, so it would be easier for exchange students to be prepared better. For example, the course book could be stated and interested students could read it in advance, as the base knowledge from different universities differs.»
- Less concentration on stability (maybe restriction to one element, either beams or plates)»
- There should be more exercises in the class in addition to the project works.»
- i missed the physics and principles... too much time spent on math.»
- The Abaqus part, didn"t give anything to me atleast...»

24. Additional comments

- Really liked the course ! »
- »
- I want to point out, that Fredrik and Jim are both people who are able to motivate people (or maybe just me). Their behavior regarding to students is extraordinary and I"m not used to such a good working climate. Thank you very much.»
- Generally the course was critical and important for our field structural engineering and building physics.Keep it this way with some improvement. Thank you for your unlimited support!»

Kursutvärderingssystem från