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.

Project in applied mechanics, TME130

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-05-26 - 2011-09-03
Antal svar: 22
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 48%
Kontaktperson: Tomas Grönstedt»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Maskinteknik 300 hp
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Maskinteknik 300 hp

Your own effort

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

22 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»5 22%
Around 20 hours/week»11 50%
Around 25 hours/week»6 27%
Around 30 hours/week»0 0%
At least 30 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.04

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

22 svarande

0-20%»1 4%
20-40%»0 0%
40-60%»0 0%
60-80%»6 27%
80-100%»15 68%

Genomsnitt: 4.54

- Often unnecessary time due to no teacher assistance» (60-80%)
- The EMA part was highly disregarded» (80-100%)

Goals and fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

The course PM states:

After completion of this course, you should be able to:
•,,,, Use ANSYS Workbench to model fluid mechanics, solid mechanics and structural dynamics aspects of wind turbine blades. Every student will learn some basic “,,,,,howtos”,,,,, for all specializations and get more in depth knowledge for your particular specialization.
•,,,,, Depending on specialization you will learn how to:
- Develop structural dynamic models by system identification (Solid/EMA)
- Build up simple composite material models (Solid/EMA)
- Methods to preliminary design, CAD, mesh and compute flows around wind turbine blades (2D/3D) (Fluids)
- Collect pressure data on a 2D profile using the linear cascade testing facility.
- Design suitable stiffening structures for wind turbine blades.
- show insight and ability to work in teams and collaborate in groups with different compositions
- be able to give written and oral presentations of a larger technical investigation

22 svarande

No idea what they mean»1 4%
A bit fuzzy»1 4%
Understandable»11 50%
Quite clear»9 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

- The EMA lacks adequate goals. Without these it is somewhat unclear until team task 2 what will the EMA assigned students do» (Understandable)

4. To which extend did you have to establish the abilities that the goals state?

22 svarande

Not at all»0 0%
To some extent»5 22%
To a good degree»10 45%
To a very high degree»7 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.09

- Mostly it was developing knowledge» (To a good degree)

Teaching and course administration

5. How well did the course administration, course PM, web page, handouts work

22 svarande

Very poor»2 9%
Fair»4 18%
Acceptable»3 13%
Good»11 50%
Excellent»2 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

- Insufficient commitment through the whole course. No clear tasks/problems, many times the responsible didn"t know what/how to do. Computer labs with spontaneous information/lectures makes it impossible to plan your work obtain all information. Web page no organization or logic, spontaneous uploads without notification.» (Very poor)
- The wep page was a mess and all files (tutorials, etc) were very hard to find.» (Fair)
- Could be better organised» (Fair)
- the web page was a mess, no structure there what so ever» (Acceptable)
- Web page is not well organized.» (Good)
- The handouts could be better organised, it was sometimes hard to find data !» (Good)

6. How do you rate the Project management and Teamwork lectures?*

Please comment if it is too little of some subjecs, too much or anything missing.

22 svarande

Poor»1 4%
Fair»3 14%
Acceptable»4 19%
Good»12 57%
Excellent»1 4%
Did not attend/no opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- There is not much time to implement its content» (Fair)

7. What do you think of the layout, intro lecture, discussion meeting, follow-up lecture?*

Please comment if you would prefer another layout.
(NOW - Intro lecture in SW1, discussion before planning report deadline, follow-up in SW5.)

22 svarande

Poor»2 9%
Fair»2 9%
Acceptable»2 9%
Good»15 71%
Excellent»0 0%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- A little more theory at the start» (Good)
- Could be more incisive on the technical matters» (Good)

8. If you were a fluids student, how do you rate the specialization?

9 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Acceptable»2 22%
Good»4 44%
Excellent»3 33%

Genomsnitt: 4.11

- A little to easy. Not many things needed to be decided by ourselfs.» (Good)

9. If you were a solids student: how do you rate this specialization?

10 svarande

Poor»1 10%
Fair»2 20%
Acceptable»5 50%
Good»2 20%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- I achieved some skills using Ansys WB, but there was no help available which limited my learnign ALOT.» (Fair)
- Could have gained more with a better guidance. Instead of actually solving some minor problem, I was sometimes advised to choose completely different approach...» (Acceptable)

10. If you were an EMA student, how do you rate the specialization?

10 svarande

Poor»2 20%
Fair»2 20%
Acceptable»1 10%
Good»5 50%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.9

- Not enough help/guidance, especially scheduled time. Too much trial and error work, without any clear steps or goal with the specialization. Responsible had completely different views on what to do. Introducing new tasks in the last minute.» (Poor)
- Really bad information about everything. No teachers to ask about the problems you encountered and when you could ask then the teachers told differently.» (Poor)
- The experiment planning could have been part of team task 1 instead of being completely disregarded. Other than that it has more to do with handling computers rather than actual theoretical content» (Fair)
- It would be better if there were some printed material about the theory in modal analysis.» (Good)
- we did not get any help between the lab and SW4, so it would have been good to have a supervisor at the lectures.» (Good)

11. What is your overall rating of this course?

22 svarande

Poor»3 13%
Fair»2 9%
Acceptable»2 9%
Good»11 50%
Excellent»4 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- It was very disorganized, lack of information, and no possibility to get good help. It also seems that the grade was based only on the report and not on the actual time put in the "computer rooms"» (Poor)
- The course this year was not acceptable. The teachers were too detached/unorganized to deal with the course.» (Poor)
- Can be improved in several areas. The guidance can be better organised and the teachers should try to set up some stages and at each stage should gather the students and discuss the problems/solutions used - this would apply to all 3 areas» (Acceptable)

General questions

12. How does this course differ from other courses you have read in the program?

- You are not graded after your personal engagement, but rather on how your group manage to do the final report. And it doesn"t seem to be any focus on results but on how you present them.»
- To easy to get a high grade.»
- It allows for a much more practical approach to a wide variety of contents therefore making the students easily interested »
- Nice to work in project form»
- I just had a few beers.»
- Too unorganized, little learning compared to the hours spent.»
- For the first time in my life I was dealing with a "real" problem in all its complexity, with a large project group. I find it very rewarding...»
- Well it is unique in the sence that it combines all of the previous courses in a good way, due to that one gets a feeling how projects are handled in reality etc.»
- This course trained us how to make plan and how to cooperate with people from different fields. While in other courses we just finished our assignment individually or in a small group.»
- its a project, not a exam. thats the difference,»

13. What should definitely be preserved for the next year?

- The general idéa with 3 specializations.»
- The knowledge on how to solve the specific problem. The teacher or the instructor should have solved the problem himself first so there is a possibility to ask some questions.»
- The time available is exactly the necessary one»
- No mandatory lectures»
- The structure, intro- lectures, computer classes, the feedback etc.»
- Everything»

14. What should definitely be preserved for the next year?

- "Definitely be CHANGED?"... the whole organization of the course.»
- The knowledge on how to solve the specific problem. The teacher or the instructor should have solved the problem himself first so there is a possibility to ask some questions.»
- The hands on approach »
- The person from ANSYS that was the "help" should not get paid. He didn"t know anything and couldn"t help at all. The whole course management was so bad that I wouldn"t want to do this course again if I could go back in time.»

15. Additional comments

- Much lower grades. There is an inflation in grades. Anything else then a 5 is not good.»
- The language is something important but it should not be presented as a single argument in the feedbacks unless it is completely unreadable. Better goals or intermediate goals should be set up so that not so many things are given by the teachers»
- The team feedback was awkward. In my opinion one should very clearly divide team feedback and individual feedback and not make individual comments in front of the whole team. That is very unprofessional since this is a school and we"re actually here voluntarily. In the fluid part, ANSYS worked out pretty well since Xin was so helpful and competent. But from what I heard from the solids, it was not that easy for them. I also heard that Mats and Tomas A gave different leads on what to do in the EMA part when making the orthotropic material. It would be good if all the teachers knew what and how everything would be implemented. Misunderstanding usually wastes a lot of valuable time... Licenses has also been a problem, it makes the workflow very bumpy.»
- Remake the course»
- I think that the course has a great potential, but some changes has to be done. From mine point of wiev: 1. Eighter have more teachers that can handle the software Ansys because one often get problems. Or try to integrate the software in a course before the project so that you get a feeling for it. 2. The timeframe is quite minimized, it might be better to have the course througt the whole spring (lp3 and lp4), then an introduction period to ANSYS could be obtained, instead of trying to integrate it in some other course. 3. Have a variation when it comes to the tasks, ex som year windturbine, the other a jet engine etc. »
- 1. Reorganize the folder of handout. Sometimes it was really time-consuming to find a file we wanted. 2. The course of applied structural dynamics in the 2nd year may be given in the same quater as this course.»

* obligatoriska frågor

Kursutvärderingssystem från