ENKÄTER

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

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.

Turbomachinery, TME210

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-10-23 - 2011-11-04
Antal svar: 18
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 40%
Kontaktperson: Tomas Grönstedt»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Maskinteknik 300 hp

Your own effort

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

18 svarande

At most 15 hours/week» 2 11%

Around 20 hours/week» 12 66%

Around 25 hours/week» 4 22%

Around or more than 30 hours/week» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.11

- But more than 30 the 3 weeks before the exam.» (Around 20 hours/week)

2. To which extent did you take part of the teaching offered?

18 svarande

0-20%» 0 0%

20-40%» 0 0%

40-60%» 1 5%

60-80%» 5 27%

80-100%» 12 66%

Genomsnitt: 4.61

3. Balance during study quarter?

During the study quarter how does the time spent on this course relate to the other courses:

18 svarande

I spent a lot more time on other courses» 0 0%

I spent somewhat more time on other course» 3 16%

I spent roughly equal time on this course» 10 55%

I spent somewhat more time on turbomachinery» 2 11%

I spent a lot more time on turbomachinery» 3 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

- spent way more time on exam preparations in this course than my other courses.» (I spent roughly equal time on this course)
- I read a CAD course, which was very easy...» (I spent a lot more time on turbomachinery)

Goals and fulfilment

4. How understandable are the course goals?

The course PM states that after completion of the course you should be able to:

* Explain how turbomachinery is applied in various fields of power generation such as nuclear and combined cycle power plants,
wind and hydropower engineering and process industry.

* Formulate turbomachinery design criteria for a range of applications.

* Carry out preliminary design of a range of turbomachines

* Be able to apply commercial tools to outline more detailed turbomachinery design

18 svarande

No idea what they mean?» 0 0%

A bit fuzzy» 2 11%

Understandable» 11 61%

Crystal clear» 5 27%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

- something I didn"t understand on the power and which efficiency we have to use in some formula.» (A bit fuzzy)

5. To which extent did you establish the abilities that the goals state?

18 svarande

Not at all» 0 0%

To some extent» 9 50%

To a high degree» 9 50%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

Teaching and course administration

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

18 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Acceptable» 1 5%

Good» 11 61%

Excellent» 6 33%

Genomsnitt: 4.27

- Only missing the exercise calculations done by egill on the homepage» (Good)
- Maybe it is better to email the students about important updates since not everyone checks the student portal. One of the days we had to find Egill in the morning to know where the class was since it was not on the PM or on the student portal. Also I missed the lecture on Ch. 10 because I was sick when it was announced in class two days before that the schedule had changed (and I chose to attend a lecture in another course instead of what I thought would be more exercises that day).» (Good)

7. How do you rate the learning impact of the computer lab (2D turbine CFD)?

18 svarande

Poor» 1 5%

Fair» 5 27%

Acceptable» 7 38%

Good» 5 27%

Excellent» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

- Did not learn much more than I already knew» (Fair)
- Not very usefull in my opinion, and very difficult to use those new softwares when you have never used them before.» (Fair)
- It was very good to do computer lab but we don´,t understand exactly what the different parameters means or changes» (Acceptable)
- Ansys Workbench is a really crappy program...» (Good)
- It was good to learn about the program but we kept making so many mistakes and didnt realize it until too late since we were unfamiliar with the program. We spent about 3 times as long on the project as I expected.» (Good)

8. How do you rate the participation at the ISABE conference

18 svarande

Not relevant for the course» 0 0%

Relevant» 1 5%

Relevant and interesting» 17 94%

Genomsnitt: 2.94

- It"s nice to know about the latest research topics» (Relevant and interesting)
- I enjoyed the conference, even if I didnt always understand 100% of what was being said.» (Relevant and interesting)
- Very interesting, but the paper sessions were difficult to understand!» (Relevant and interesting)

9. How do you rate the industrial lecture by Arne Karlsson (steam turbine lecture)?

18 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 3 16%

Acceptable» 4 22%

Good» 10 55%

Excellent» 1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

10. How do you rate the water turbine lab?

Comments on preparatory material, contents etc

18 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Acceptable» 2 11%

Good» 11 61%

Excellent» 5 27%

Genomsnitt: 4.16

- Short but interesting lab. I liked it.» (Good)

11. How do you rate the study visit to the Olidan power plant?

18 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Acceptable» 1 5%

Good» 9 50%

Excellent» 8 44%

Genomsnitt: 4.38

- I couldn"t hear everything during the visit» (Acceptable)
- Good to see real applications and not only the books.» (Good)
- I enjoyed this very much. It was very interesting to see the actual set up.» (Excellent)

12. How do you rate the lectures/lecture material?

You may provide specific comments to either Tomas Grönstedt and/or Håkan Nilsson and/or Arne Karlsson

18 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Acceptable» 1 5%

Good» 9 50%

Excellent» 8 44%

Genomsnitt: 4.38

- There were too many equations and proofs during the lectures. I didnt really understand much until I started doing the problems on my own and realized what Tomas was discussing. I would have learned more in the beginning if there was less of a focus on the derivations of formulas.» (Acceptable)
- it is a very hard subject to "teach". One learn a lot more while sitting working with it.» (Good)
- Especially Håkan"s lectures were good» (Excellent)
- The slides were really a great help to prepare for the exam, since they are summaries of the chapters.» (Excellent)

13. How do you rate the exercises with respect to quality content etc?

18 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 1 5%

Acceptable» 1 5%

Good» 13 72%

Excellent» 3 16%

Genomsnitt: 4

- I think it will be better if the student try to do the exersice in classes with the teacher´,s help. And only after he gives a correction» (Fair)
- The book has very often wrong results stated in the appendix of the book. This should be told before students work on a problem, because the search for an error gets annoying if you didn"t do any.» (Good)

14. How do you rate the course book?

Did all chapters have the same quality. Do you think that some sections should be excluded for next year or should something else
be included?

18 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Acceptable» 4 22%

Good» 10 55%

Excellent» 4 22%

Genomsnitt: 4

- Many errors, but it was still a helpful book.» (Acceptable)
- Too much errors in the books...» (Good)
- The errors in the book should be stated more clearly.» (Good)

15. How do you rate the wind turbine special lecture?

As given by Hamid Abedi

17 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 3 17%

Acceptable» 4 23%

Good» 9 52%

Excellent» 1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.47

- Some parts were difficult to understand.» (Good)

General questions

16. What should be preserved for next year?

- Most, it was a good course»
- Study visit is a nice "feature".»
- Exercise classes, the 3 or 4 mandatory problems handed in during the course, study visit, providing solutions to recommended problems»
- Everything»
- All chapters were very iteresting.»
- Keep the same quality.»

17. What should be changed for next year?

- Remove or change the guest lecture and special lecture. »
- I see no need for a change.»
- revise cfd project»
- I think it will be better if the student try to do the exersice in classes with the teacher´,s help. And only after he gives a correction»
- Much less focus on proofs during lectures. It seemed like I was only memorizing for many of the problems on the theory part of the exam, not actually learning anything.»
- Maybe make the problems compulsory.»
- Maybe the assignements will be a part of the mark»
- I spent to much time on the computer lab because the coefficient flow was too hight and the computer couldn"t converging. Terms should be more explained (e.g pressure ratio, formula differences between a turbine and a compressor (+ or - signs)) »
- Maybe a longer introduction can be helpful. It took me about a week to see what exactly we were talking about.»

18. What is your overall rating of the course?

18 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Acceptable» 1 5%

Good» 10 55%

Excellent» 7 38%

Genomsnitt: 4.33

- Very good work of all lecturers!» (Good)
- Very happy with my choice for this course.» (Good)
- Basics knowledge on turbomachinery are reached. We have some starts to design a compressor or a turbine.» (Good)
- Good but very difficult, and the description sounds like more practical lectures and not so much calculation, but it"s ok.» (Good)
- I liked the course a lot, but it took me some time to get into the subject.» (Excellent)

Kursutvärderingssystem från