|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENKÄTER | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visa resultatHär 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.
Modelling and simulation, ESS101, HT11Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2011-10-11 - 2011-10-25 Antal svar: 45 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 46% Kontaktperson: Madeleine Persson»
Your own effort1. 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.42 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.69 - So little because of other courses and projects, and i wish i spent much more» (At most 15 hours/week) 2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?43 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.51 - Two courses collided :-(» (50%) Goals and goal fulfilmentThe 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?41 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.09 - However during the course it was hard to follow in the book. It is critical that the student knows what to read each week.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn) 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.39 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.1 - The course covers too many different aspects for a such small period! thus, it"s difficult for the student to catch up with the course.» (No, the goals are set too high) 5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?40 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.52 - I think the high ratio of students that had questions to the examinator during the exam is a sign that the problems had a too vague formulation. And I think that the old exams have been very varying in difficulty. Hints that were given in one exam wasn"t always there the next time a similar problem shows up. That makes it very confusing to know at which level we are supposed to know stuff.» (?) Teaching and course administration6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?42 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.54 - Mistakes everywhere and lack of good explanations of stuff on top of that.» (Small extent) 7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?42 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.5 - More material should be given on correlation analysis» (Small extent) 8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?42 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.14 - Communication about which problems we should solve on our own (recommended problems) and which problems TAs will solve didn"t work.» (Rather badly) Study climate9. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?42 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.61 - It was easy to get help by mailing and such. good.» (?) 10. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?42 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.52 11. How was the course workload?41 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.46 - Very nice with just one lab report. I felt I had time to really try to understand stuff instead of being stessed out.» (Adequate) 12. How was the total workload this study period?42 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.52 - too be considered that im not enrolled in system control mech..» (High) Summarizing questions13. What is your general impression of the course?43 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.53 - More examples beside the theori, would make life easier :).» (Fair) 14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?- no idea»- Paolo» - the lab moment.» - Good lectures.» - The teacher and the whole environment that eacher and his assistants make. » - The course as it is organized is very good but the excution and the flow can be improved » - the comsol tutorial» - Exercises, tutorials and lectures» - I like the fact that a lab and a lab assignment has to be done.» - The lab. » - Labs and Exercise sessions» - the course content and the handout» - Paulo"s great attitude and enthusiasm for a topic that most of his students found difficult.» - The lab assignment, software tutorials, and of course, Paolo"s good performance!» - The home assignment» - Would have been interesting to go deeper into FEM or DAE, than just the brief introduction to both of them, that didn"t really help that much.» - The bond graphs. They gave a much better understanding of state variables etc.» - The tutorials» - Paolo, your energy and listening skills. You seem to know just what to repeat and what the class needs.» - Laboratory assignment» 15. What should definitely be changed to next year?- More computer simulation oppurtunities per week for counceling.»- the solutions to the exams. its really annoying.» - the number of the members for each group(lab) should be set at least 3» - I think that modelling of physical systems should a large part of this course. I suggest splitting into parts(mechanical systems, electrical systems, hydraulic systems, rotational systems, aerodynamical systems) and in each of this part we would learn how to make quality and complex nonlinear models which describe our system the best. Later its up to us to choose what simplifications should be made or to linearize the system. All of this was handeld in one or two lectures and i believe theres much work for whole semester.» - In the exercise lectures, some times there were two persons doing the example on the black board. That was really not god and just made things even more confusing. I think it would be better to do split classes (which would be really good and just as expensive?), or just have one teacher. » - The material of the course. It is huge for such a short period of time.» - More exercice» - The tutorials should be used to explain problems and the method we use to solve them and what steps and assumptions we use to solve each problem. The solutions of the excercises should be posted on the internet. In the beginning Paulo offered us extra material which was very good to get going and more of extra material and refrence needs to be added.» - Nothing» - What should and should not be done on the lab assignment is really unclear so that has to be changed. Since there is so many factors influencing the measurement in the lab it would have been better to do the lab properly (find bandwidth and all the stuff that was preset + measure) and then be given some data that we know would work. This would still be a good way to learn the process...» - Make clearer what has to be done in the lab, how and why to do things. Now we were just told "run this file and save the data". If we knew exactly what we fed to the system and what we got out it would have been much easier. The calibration was also very confusing and there didn"t seem to be any way to completely stop the motor without turning off the power which made it hard to start measuring from a known state. The built in logging mechanism was also very bad, it wraps around at +/-180 degrees but with a built in low pass filter making it impossible to detect exactly when overflow happens. The paper with the assignment is also unclear, for example the drawing of the system does not match the gearbox-parameters in the table. More on DAE, variances and FEM.» - I think that we didn"t get quite enough background to do the lab assignment. Even when I left the lab I was still confused about what we were supposed to do. Maybe a more detailed lab pm with more theory about the methods would help.» - None» - The compulsory and non compulsory simulations were between 8-10. On all occasions, the tutorials didn"t start until 8.20 which basically made the whole appointments worthless. It would have been better to allow the students to read through the material at home.» - Either make the lab more advanced, with working equipment, and use that as an examination method or use an exam. The assistants for the problem solving sessions need to actually know what they are doing. While Sahar is somewhat good at explaining, she can"t handle a question or an error. Roozbeh is really bad at explaining things and jumps past steps that are not self explanatory. He also has a pretty bad ability to answer questions. Both of them also make alot of errors. Even Paolo himself have made alot of errors. One can argue that everyone can make a mistake once in a while. While that is true, it"s the teachers that need to do the fewest mistakes or their mistakes will be passed on.» - more time to introduce or guild the experiment» - The slide should be cooperate with exercises» - Add more illustrations and figures to prove a point or describe something. » - more support and guidance would be appreciated in the tutorial sessions and assignment» - The tutorials was quite bad prepared as well as the exercise sessions.» - The book.» - More exercises during lectures in order to understand how the theory can be used in exercises or real life.» - The project topic should be clearer.» - The Robot arm lab was in a sense fun, but the handin.pdf was out of date and explained VERY bad what you were supposed to do. In some places it was plain wrong and first after asking the TA"s we know what to do.» - The system identification part was a bit shallow sometimes. Maybe more examples?» - Have same notation inbetween slides when dealing with previously discussed subjects. This year (on DAE lecture) the E matrix suddenly became the U matrix and so on between slides. Confusing.» - No change, but perhaps some hand in problems, optional, may be given after completion of each part of the course.» 16. Additional comments- nothing»- » - I found problem solving sessions complete waste of time. The TAs mostly copied the questions from paper rarely explaining the background of the story. It was a very common thing to solve the problem in a wrong way. Most of the students questions received a poor answers. If this is the way a problem solving session should be conducted i suggest that they should be canceled and just the solutions to the problems should be uploaded on the web. » - The mandatory simulation toolbox exercise took far more than 2 hours to do thoroughly, and the document you should follow during the exercise were hard to follow if you were new to it.» - Each lecture should be equipped with some information about where to read about this is the course literature and offered extra material. For my self I had really hard time in the physical modelling part since my physics knowledge was very poor in the beginning of the course. For the tutorial a problem sheet should be formed so the student knows what to prepare for tutorial so he doesnt waste two hours per week practing handwriting. The tutorials should assist the students in understanding the steps needed to be taken to formulate the problem. Many problems were fairly simple when the theory behind them was understood but if you didnt understand you were pretty much left in the dark. This course deals with a really interesting subjects of modelling and simulation. If the tutorials and lectures is better in synergized together the outcome will be better. This material is fairly easy when approached in a systematic manner however a large gaps were left to the students wasting time in trying to seek where to find correct information. The first problem on the final exam was a great excercise in formulating a problem in a creative way. http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html» - The exam was a bit higher than what we were prepared for.» - Comsol was quite interesting to learn even though it didn"t reflect back to the course so much.» - Additional material for the System Identification part would be really usefull to fully understand this part of the program that most of the time the book can"t explain properly.» - The hand in assignment took a lot of time. The hand in is a good exercise but the data collection lab could be better.» - Paolo"s accent, however, is very nice to listen to. I do not mean this in a sarcastic way. Others don"t seem to like it, but I do. His english is fluent and easy to follow. Though it would be easier to understand if his "c" didn"t look like an "e" for example.» - if possible, it"s better to add some biomedical modeling content into the course.» - Very good teaching performance during lectures even though it feels like the presentation material(power points) has very good improvement potential. » - Don"t like the "layout" of the exam. I think you lose too many points if you don"t "get the description" on the first question and we were from the lectures not good prepared for questions like that. It is not fair of you to give formulas to the students when around three hours of the exam has passed. I heard that you (Paolo) wrote a key formula on the blackboard for the second question just a minute after I handed my exam in and that is just not fair play I think.» - The teaching assistants were not enthusiastic about the exercises and gave rather poor explanations to many problems. Also, emails about the lab report were not answered. » - Very good over all!»
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11%