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.

Modelling and simulation, ESS101, HT11

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-10-11 - 2011-10-25
Antal svar: 45
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 46%
Kontaktperson: Madeleine Persson»

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.

42 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»5 11%
Around 20 hours/week»15 35%
Around 25 hours/week»11 26%
Around 30 hours/week»10 23%
At least 35 hours/week»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.69

- So little because of other courses and projects, and i wish i spent much more» (At most 15 hours/week)
- This kind study of material provides a very steep learning curve so much time was spent trying to solve problems by staring» (Around 25 hours/week)
- There was no time to study since everything went into doing projects and labs in both courses on MPSYS. What nobody seems to learn is that it"s important to synchronize the workload in parallell courses.» (Around 25 hours/week)

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

43 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»4 9%
75%»13 30%
100%»26 60%

Genomsnitt: 4.51

- Two courses collided :-(» (50%)
- Corse colliding with other course.» (50%)
- The lectures were not very good. Always alot of defintions that was hard to understand and almost no information about how you can use it and what it is in words. Lectures gave pretty much no understanding.» (50%)
- Nearly all» (75%)
- I left in some of the tutorials since I had already calculated the material or the tutor wasnt giving any usefull insight» (100%)
- Only lectures, no exercises.» (100%)
- I attended all the time. However I regret that. I should have watched youtube videos regarding the subject instead.» (100%)

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?

41 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»6 14%
The goals are difficult to understand»1 2%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»17 41%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»17 41%

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)
- Very good actually. Maybe could contain some more info that a lot of statistics is used.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- Some things whern"t up-to-date (like modelica)» (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

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»35 89%
No, the goals are set too high»4 10%

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

No, not at all»1 2%
To some extent»23 57%
Yes, definitely»10 25%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»6 15%

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.» (?)
- Some question required you to make a few assumptions which could be confusing as it was unclear whether you had to make them or not.» (To some extent)
- It was hard to understand how to attack the problems since they were so "undefined", i.e not many given parameters, unclear problem formulation.» (To some extent)
- For example, one learning outcome is to motivate a technical solution in oral presentation. This oral presentation is never done.» (To some extent)
- The exam didnt not cover bond graphs very much. Relied heavily on knowledge about physics which is my weakpoint and I were not able to derive the graph even though I know how to use bond graphs very well.» (To some extent)
- I didn"t like the second question, just remembering a formula. And not the two last theory questions, it is better to ask about things we have paid attention to in the course.» (To some extent)
- The questions in the exam should be more clear. » (Yes, definitely)
- But the exam was much harder than most of the previous years. Not same focus either.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

42 svarande

Small extent»5 11%
Some extent»12 28%
Large extent»22 52%
Great extent»3 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.54

- Mistakes everywhere and lack of good explanations of stuff on top of that.» (Small extent)
- I think this is my own problem(international student) cos it is all about communication barrier.» (Some extent)
- most of the teaching was covering theoritical knowledge of the course although in the exams we had to deal with exercises. I would prefer more exercises as this was what I had to deal with in the examination» (Some extent)
- It has mostly given me general understanding on a higher abstract level about mod & sim. It has given me very limited knowledge which is useful for the exam.» (Some extent)
- TA"s and exercise was helpfull» (Some extent)
- The lectures gave a good overview over the subject. However the tutorial session didnt correspond well enough with the lectures. It is my understanding that during tutorials the tutor should give a further insight into how to solve problem and what kind of analytical thinking. Engineering is not a subject of plugging a numbers into a equation. It is a subject which deals with observering a problem and forming a solution. To much time was spent on writing numbers on a board which is a waste of everybodies time.» (Large extent)
- I got the impression that the PhD:s didn"t really know what they where teaching about. They just wrote their notes on the board. And when they got question they could rarely answer.» (Large extent)
- understandably there is a lot of information to get through is such a short period of time.» (Large extent)
- Paolo is great!» (Great extent)

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

42 svarande

Small extent»4 9%
Some extent»18 42%
Large extent»15 35%
Great extent»5 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- More material should be given on correlation analysis» (Small extent)
- The book was very boring. It covered the subjects but just like the lectures often didn"t explain in in english, just mathematical formulas.» (Small extent)
- I"ve focused on old exams and attend all lectures because it feels like old exams gave me detailed knowledge on how to solve a problem, and lectures general "good to know" knowledge.» (Some extent)
- The book was not so good.» (Some extent)
- Some parts of the course, specially system identification need more material. It is hard to look for study material that deals explicitly with our course » (Some extent)
- The book was very good. When I had aquried the swedish version of the solution manual i finally started understanding the problems» (Large extent)
- might be useful if the library carried copies of the recommended text in English and not just Swedish» (Large extent)
- I like the book.» (Great extent)

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

42 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»3 7%
Rather well»30 71%
Very well»9 21%

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)
- Even though we asked for which questions that the TA"s would solve, it only happened once that they actually posted it on the course webpage...» (Rather badly)
- The computer assignments were given out very late. In the case of the comsol assignment the exercises were given out 30-40 minutes AFTER the exercise had started.» (Rather badly)
- The lectures were available however the problem solving sessions were poorly organised and it seemed like a little effort had been put into them » (Rather well)
- OK at first, Really good towards the end of the course.» (Rather well)
- Please upload slides earlier and stop changing slides and dates all the time. Preferably all course material should be fixed and available first day. Also make sure all calendars are synced so theres not conflicting or missing info in timeedit/pdf-schedule/studentportal. » (Rather well)
- News was posted rather late and schedule changes were not synced with time edit.» (Rather well)
- Everytime there were a computer exercise we had to wait for the tutorial to be uploaded, very annoying! It would be good if it was uploaded a couple of days before so one could prepare in forehand...» (Rather well)
- Perhaps some regular optional hand in problems are needed so that the students know how they should know after each topic is finished.» (Rather well)
- Perhaps could the material for the computerbased tutorials have been uploaded on the web a couple of days in advance, instead of 10-20 minutes after the tutorial has started.» (Very well)

Study climate

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

42 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»1 2%
Rather good»17 40%
Very good»21 50%
I did not seek help»3 7%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

- It was easy to get help by mailing and such. good.» (?)
- The Ph.D"s were not competent in all fields of the course. Bond graph"s for example, which is a large important part of the course was all on us to learn.» (Rather good)
- The opportunities were good. The help, not as much.» (Rather good)
- although the problem solving sessions tended to be monopolized by the same group of students which did not leave enough time fr the rest of the group.» (Rather good)
- The teacher was very helpfull and was always encouraging us to ask questions.» (Very good)
- Very helpful TA"s. However, sometimes wrong info was told regarding the lab assignment, depending on who you asked... » (Very good)
- I always got help when I needed.» (Very good)
- The teaching staff was extremely helpful. » (Very good)

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

42 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»3 7%
Rather well»15 35%
Very well»23 54%
I did not seek cooperation»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

11. How was the course workload?

41 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»24 58%
High»15 36%
Too high»2 4%

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)
- This course was pretty diffucualt because of the forgotten knowledge from earlier years.» (High)
- I felt very uncertain before the last week since it felt like there was much new content added to the course without removing old content. The fact that we were handed out DAE problems and the TAs solved DAE problems without any proper introduction about it, made me feel uncomfortable. The amount of FEM content should stay this way, DAE should either be properly introduced earlier or removed completely.» (High)
- the tutorials for the software programs we had to learn could have done with a lot more support.» (High)
- The course workload was extremely high because except the many different aspects that the lecture covers, we had to deal with the lab exercise, which is quite difficult for students who are no so familiar with matlab. As result, the whole course workload (lectures, exercises and lab) is extremely high for such a short period.» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

42 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 2%
Adequate»23 54%
High»13 30%
Too high»5 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

- too be considered that im not enrolled in system control mech..» (High)
- Definately too high. The fact that the lab equipment doesn"t work as it should doesn"t help anything either. One doesn"t know wether the equipment makes the strange numbers or if the formulas one have come up with are wrong. That might be the case in real life, but here we are learning to see what is right, not trying to do a real life job. Lots of hours hae gone to searching and trying to find out what is wrong just because something is wrong and it might as well be the numbers from the equipment.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

43 svarande

Poor»2 4%
Fair»4 9%
Adequate»11 25%
Good»21 48%
Excellent»5 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.53

- More examples beside the theori, would make life easier :).» (Fair)
- Thought it should be more practical knowledge and application of simulation rather than defintions and formulas to memorize.» (Fair)
- Too many topics to cover in the course.» (Adequate)
- Perhaps it isn"t so meaningsful to try to introduce the theory behind PDE:s in one lecture and then asking questions about it on the exam. If one shall really understand the theory it would probably take a full course in this topic. » (Good)
- I would prefer though the course to be taught in not such short period, as it covers a lot of interesting aspects.» (Good)
- With some minor adjustment it can be excellent» (Good)
- the course depended a lot on prior knowledge of some fundamentals that were not necessarily covered in Bachelors studies, especially for some who were coming from more of an electronic background. » (Good)
- It"s a really useful course that gives you valuable insight on solving real world problems, however, The software tutorials could have been better, I mean it"s a good idead to improve the one related to SIMULINK. for example, introduce more advanced examples. The tutorial for COMSOL was a little lengthy, but it was really great, thank you for that. » (Good)
- It is a good course, but the variety of subjects covered are too vast for one study period. But I really appreciate the effort the professor put into making an otherwise not so interesting course, more interesting.» (Good)
- teacher is nice and helpful, TA as well, I have nothing to blame with this course but I should study harder....» (Excellent)
- Useful and very fun actually!» (Excellent)

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!»

Kursutvärderingssystem från