Visa resultat

Heat and power systems engineering, MEN120

Your own effort

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

23 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		2		8%
Around 20 hours/week»		4		17%
Around 25 hours/week»		4		17%
Around 30 hours/week»		8		34%
At least 35 hours/week»		5		21%

Genomsnitt: 3.43

- More like 16-17 hours/week» (Around 20 hours/week)
- It was too much work for the case study compared with the theorotical parts, which means we could not really work on calculations or learning» (Around 30 hours/week)
- i spent my time in class and the rest of the time was spent on the project/case study. There were no time for self study (calculations)» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

23 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		1		4%
75%»		8		34%
100%»		14		60%

Genomsnitt: 4.56

- To many guest lectures. Could have been intresting if we didnt have so much to do in the course. Felt like we wasted valuable time going to the guest lectures.» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the learning outcomes?

I have not seen/read the goals»		4		18%
The goals are difficult to understand»		1		4%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		10		45%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		7		31%

Genomsnitt: 2.9 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The theoretical part of the course, what to learn due to the exam, was really unclearly (not the calculation part)» (The goals are difficult to understand)

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

19 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		0		0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		14		73%
No, the goals are set too high»		5		26%

Genomsnitt: 2.26

- The optional part of the course (case study) was to heavy» (No, the goals are set too high)
- Det är bliv för mycket och göra så man han inte blugga! teorin är för mycket och man vet aldrig vad är det för teori frågor som kan komma på tenta, hade varit bra att få alla terori frågorna som man bör kunna så att man kan svara på när man läser i boken!» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

No, not at all»		2		9%
To some extent»		11		50%
Yes, definitely»		5		22%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		4		18%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- The exam was too focused on the small details and did not capture the overall course goals! The exception beeing the calculation part» (No, not at all)
- The theory questions was to specific and detailed.» (To some extent)
- the theory part of the exam didn"t cover much of what they said in the lecture. for example there was a task about exergy 5 out of 30 points. this is not fair because the teacher did just mention this concept.» (To some extent)
- good calculation exercises but the theory questions didn"t correspond to the focus on the lectures» (To some extent)
- Question courses were to my mind a bit too far from what we learned during this course. Our background helped us to different extent to answer the questions.» (To some extent)
- Det var så mycet och göra så jag han inte göra övningsuppgiftena...och självklart leder det till att man inte kan göra tentan!» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.9

Teaching and course administration

6. Did you find powerpoint presentations to be helpful?

Small extent»		3		13%
Some extent»		6		26%
Large extent»		11		47%
Great extent»		3		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

- wery much slides that felt realy unnesesary» (Small extent)
- It seams like the book is more important to explain the detailed concepts.» (Small extent)
- Could use more information because some things was nly said on the lectures and was not available on the slides nor in the book which is very bad.» (Some extent)
- Good powerpoint presentations but a lot, and not clearly what to learn for the exam from this» (Large extent)
- Slides are informative and capture the main ideas of the lectures.» (Large extent)
- The PP was helpful but was somewhat tricky as they didnt give direct answers in some cases.» (Large extent)
- it is very good that the powerpoint lectures are printed out by Klas. » (Large extent)
- More or less only prepared for the exam by using the powerpoints...» (Great extent)

7. What was your overall impression of the lectures?

Poor»		0		0%
Moderate»		5		23%
Good»		13		61%
Excellent»		3		14%

Genomsnitt: 2.9

- Didnt realy get an understanding under the lectures on what was important and not. Ofcourse everything is important but if nothing sticks out everything just flows together» (Moderate)
- Too many guest lecturers and too few calculation examples in class.» (Moderate)
- Good, but once again, a lot of information but no clear explanation of what of interest to the exam» (Good)
- some guest lecture made the overall grade lower» (Good)

8. What was your overall impression of the case study?

Poor»		0		0%
Moderate»		6		26%
Good»		13		56%
Excellent»		4		17%

Genomsnitt: 2.91

- Information was scarce with was annoying. More license of Ebsilon is needed because it"s very hard to work when the license are out. Best would be if we could get a license for use with our own computers because it was sometimes impossible to find a free computer making it hard to work outside scheduled hours.» (Moderate)
- It was really a great way to learn, but it was to much to swallow! » (Moderate)
- Bad planing, took to much time in the end for something you only can pass!» (Moderate)
- Information in this course and case study is realy messy. Everything is spread out and its impossible to get an overwiev on what is needed to be done.» (Moderate)
- It was too much compare the course. We spent larger part of our work at case study and we missed lot of thing because we didn"t have time enough. » (Moderate)
- » (Good)
- The case study is interesting and good for learning but it takes too much time seen that we also have a lot of theory to learn. Perhaps the number of simulated plants could be just 2 or 3 to equilibrate. » (Good)
- very much work that had to be done...» (Good)
- The modelling of the Nordjyllnadsvearken took way to much time. The instructions was not significant to work in advance which made it hard to start the other model in advance. The Nordjyllnadsvearken could have been done with in two weeks instead of almost 4 weeks. That would have given significant time for the "real" models and a possibility to have the deadline for the others earlier which will give some more time to study to the exam.» (Good)
- Time-consuming and ambitious, but we definitely learned a lot from the autonomy we had.» (Good)
- but too much work asked in little time» (Excellent)
- It was really good, but is too much work for no grade. Additionally, the case study can be divided into more handing, in orther to receive feedback before handing the final report.» (Excellent)

9. What did you think of the study visit at the power plant?

Poor»		2		8%
Moderate»		4		17%
Good»		9		39%
Excellent»		8		34%

Genomsnitt: 3

- It was interesting. I woulnd"t have minded a trip to the Chalmer"s power plant. It"s a shame to waste such a good resource, specially since lecturers refer to it all the time.» (Good)
- It is always good to connect the theory to real life technology.» (Good)
- Very fun and interesting!» (Excellent)
- interesting to see how a power plant works in "real life"» (Excellent)

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

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		4		17%
Large extent»		18		78%
Great extent»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

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

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		8		36%
Large extent»		10		45%
Great extent»		4		18%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

- Det var svårt att hitta och slåupp i boken!» (?)
- Really difficult to navigate in the book (course literature). Dont like the book at all.» (Some extent)
- The literature was good but was in some cases hard to follow. It gave desctribtions how stuff work but some details was left to the reader to know. » (Some extent)
- almost never used the book» (Some extent)
- The reason is that during the exam two of three theoretical questions were not even mentioned in corresponding chapters of the course book. » (Some extent)
- I liked Khartchenko book very much, because it does not consider anything obvious and starts every chapter with basics.» (Large extent)

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

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		1		4%
Rather well»		11		47%
Very well»		11		47%

Genomsnitt: 3.43

Teaching staff and guest lecturers

13. Please rate Filip Johnssons lecture

Poor»		0		0%
Moderate»		6		31%
Good»		12		63%
Excellent»		1		5%

Genomsnitt: 2.73

- Did not have time to go to this lecture, was working on the case study» (?)
- Put moderate but actually dont remember this guy! » (Moderate)

14. Please rate Klas Anderssons lecture

Poor»		0		0%
Moderate»		2		9%
Good»		10		45%
Excellent»		10		45%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

15. Please rate Jan Kjaerstads lecture

Poor»		2		9%
Moderate»		4		19%
Good»		13		61%
Excellent»		2		9%

Genomsnitt: 2.71

- for example to much numbers and text in the power points » (Poor)

16. Please rate the overall impression of the quest lectures from industry

Poor»		0		0%
Moderate»		6		26%
Good»		9		39%
Excellent»		8		34%

Genomsnitt: 3.08

- Yes, it was a bit angled but still good» (Good)
- Vattenfall quest lecture was inpiering» (Excellent)

17. Please rate the tutoring during the case study

Poor»		1		4%
Moderate»		4		18%
Good»		7		31%
Excellent»		10		45%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- They could have gone through the basics for ebsilon more in the beginning. » (Moderate)
- Long wait to get help» (Moderate)
- The tutors were very helpful and had always time for us.» (Good)
- All questions always got answered.» (Excellent)
- Very helpful, and needed.» (Excellent)

18. Please rate the tutoring during the calculation tutorials (räkneövningar)

Poor»		2		9%
Moderate»		5		22%
Good»		13		59%
Excellent»		2		9%

Genomsnitt: 2.68

- If I didn"t already have some knowledge it would have been very difficult, especially the exam solving for the steam plant!» (Poor)
- the first calculation tutorial gave me nothing and the other one i missed.» (Poor)
- Steam part was quick and a bit messy. Better pictures and clearer calcualtion would have beed appreciated.. Gas part was OK.» (Moderate)
- sometimes the jumped over some calculations steps and it was hard to follow.» (Moderate)
- More tutorials in class whereas it is a large part of the exam and important too understand the concepts.» (Good)
- The ones on gas power plant was really good» (Good)

Study climate

19. What did you think about the work load in the case study?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		2		9%
High»		10		45%
Too high»		10		45%

Genomsnitt: 4.36

- To much at end, little in beginning!» (High)
- to low at first then to much» (High)
- It was messy and schould have started earlier. To give students 4 days to write a tecnical report on 15 pages and the lectures are going on as usaly and at the same time some student groups need to hold in an debate and presentation in the same week its not realy fair if you whant the report to be serius. Schould you miss out all the lessons that week to get the report and simulations done or is it suposed that everybody can sit there until 10 in the evenings? Schould you use one day for the debate in the other course and three to this report or whats fair do you think? maby split it so 2 evenings for the report and 2 evenings for the debate and presentation? So 15 pages tecnical report in 2 days.. That kind of system and tutoring dont belong in a good education at this level.» (Too high)
- Handings» (Too high)
- The deadline for the rapport should not be the week before the exam. It is better if the deadlines are in week 6 or so.» (Too high)
- The work load was too high towards the end of the study. It is very difficult to finish the simulations, write the report and study the theory for the exam. Mission impossible! Don"t forget we have also another course contemporarly.» (Too high)

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		1		4%
Rather good»		5		22%
Very good»		16		72%
I did not seek help»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.68

- It was good that we had the opportunities to come to the office and ask questions.» (Rather good)
- Daniel Kuehnemuth was of great assistance and took the time to really help, great stuff!» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		1		4%
Rather well»		5		21%
Very well»		17		73%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.69

22. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		4		18%
High»		11		50%
Too high»		7		31%

Genomsnitt: 4.13

- Case study took significant amount of time» (High)
- Basically we work hard and a lot on the case study - wich doesn"t influence your mark, at the same time as we don"t have time for the theory and the calculations which actually gives us the final mark. This doesn"t make sense! It is unfair. Either the case is made smaller, and the theory remains the determinant for your mark or the written exam should be smaller and the mark should be 80% depending on the case.» (Too high)

23. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		5		22%
High»		10		45%
Too high»		7		31%

Genomsnitt: 4.09

- It was too high and it was not depending on the sustainable energy futures course!» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

24. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		2		8%
Adequate»		6		26%
Good»		11		47%
Excellent»		4		17%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

- Good course for people with real interest in those things!» (Adequate)
- I liked the course really much, but since the work load was so much, the course unfortunently went from fun to being a pain in the a...» (Adequate)
- Seems very practical and useful course.» (Good)
- The course is great...just make it less heavy..!» (Excellent)

25. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

26. What should definitely be changed to next year?

27. Additional comments