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.

Product Life-Cycle Management 2011 (PPU110), PPU110

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-10-25 - 2011-11-25
Antal svar: 15
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 34%
Kontaktperson: Lars Almefelt»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers: masterskurs
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Maskinteknik 300 hp

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.

15 svarande

At most 15 hours/week» 0 0%

Around 20 hours/week» 4 26%

Around 25 hours/week» 8 53%

Around 30 hours/week» 3 20%

At least 35 hours/week» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

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

15 svarande

0%» 0 0%

25%» 1 6%

50%» 4 26%

75%» 4 26%

100%» 6 40%

Genomsnitt: 4

- Lecture information were interesting, but I found it easier and more time efficient to read lectur slides on my own.» (50%)
- Had an other course with lectures with exactly the same schedule. » (50%)
- 90%» (75%)

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?

15 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals» 3 20%

The goals are difficult to understand» 4 26%

The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer» 5 33%

The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn» 3 20%

Genomsnitt: 2.53

- Nothing was clear in this course.» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- Good described at every lecture slides, impossible to miss.» (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.

12 svarande

No, the goals are set too low» 0 0%

Yes, the goals seem reasonable» 8 66%

No, the goals are set too high» 4 33%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- In the beginning it´,s hard to understand what to do really. But while you practice and learn the time goes by and it´,s already exam week and you are so stressed with the dugga/exams that you loose so much time over everything just because of the cpu-project.» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

13 svarande

No, not at all» 3 23%

To some extent» 4 30%

Yes, definitely» 6 46%

I don"t know/have not been examined yet» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.23

- The duggor, particularly the second one, seemed to test rote memorization than true understanding of the PLM concepts. I feel like I left the course with a good understand of PLM capabilities and when and how to implement them. I do not feel like the duggor, particularly the second one, tested this knowledge.» (No, not at all)
- The dugga is absolutely insanely unessecary! Especially when you are doing the time-consuming lab...Totally not a clue why we do it.» (No, not at all)
- I believe the duggas did. However, the project (which was a very large part of the course), ended up focusing mainly on CAD (and PLM is much more than only parameterizing a CAD model)» (To some extent)
- I think that more focus should be on the project, because I think that you learn the most from that.» (To some extent)
- Good to have duggas and a project.» (Yes, definitely)
- There could have been a little less focus on the development of the cad parts in the project and instead more focus on developing and reasoning about a good PLM solution. » (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

15 svarande

Small extent» 5 33%

Some extent» 7 46%

Large extent» 2 13%

Great extent» 1 6%

Genomsnitt: 1.93

- The project was badly administrated, hard to know what to do for a pass and hard to get the help needed.» (Small extent)
- I think that the lectures could be clearer. Maybe more computer exercises?» (Small extent)
- Teaching got the points across but was often repetitive. Teaching also needed to be delivered more interestingly.» (Some extent)
- Really good with small exercises during lectures! Though, each slide had soooo much text on it (it almost became "reading-material". might be better to reduce amount of text on each slide and talk more freely about the material.» (Some extent)
- Lectures have overall been good but it was hard to find a "röd tråd", they became a bit hard to follow sometimes.» (Some extent)
- Have got more help from other students then from the teaching. » (Some extent)
- It was sometimes hard to receive help at the supervisions due to queue.And sometimes the supervisors could not help since the software was not consistent. » (Some extent)
- Otherwise it would have been difficlt to understand the lecture slides.» (Large extent)
- The supervisors, especially Anna was great! Anna helped out mostly and she is very kind and shows why you do something wrong. She understands that it´,s difficult so she sits down to explain and show on the program how things worked out. That´,s very practical. I would definetely always keep her as a supervisor.» (Great extent)

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

15 svarande

Small extent» 6 40%

Some extent» 4 26%

Large extent» 4 26%

Great extent» 1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Course literature taught me very little, just useful for the exam.» (Small extent)
- The SmarTeam training material was very good.» (Large extent)
- Good with tutorials, but some of them can be improved. Some good information was missing, for example on the one that describes the publishing part of the catia. Better tutorials would save time for the supervisors.» (Large extent)
- The lecture slides and the old duga questions were cruicial for passing the duggas.» (Large extent)

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

15 svarande

Very badly» 2 13%

Rather badly» 0 0%

Rather well» 8 53%

Very well» 5 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.06

Study climate

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

15 svarande

Very poor» 0 0%

Rather poor» 2 13%

Rather good» 8 53%

Very good» 5 33%

I did not seek help» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- Help only available during computer lab sessions. Due to a bevy of computer errors, lab time was spent troubleshooting problems and thus little time was available for actual project help.» (Rather poor)
- You could ask questions but getting answers was hard.» (Rather poor)
- Good opportunitites to ask for help regarding dugga questions. Regaring project, sometimes you had to wait a very long time to get help during project time. Moreover, all supervisors had not enough knowledge in all areas to be able to help. » (Rather good)
- It"s hard to ask question about the more simple things because the teachers don"t understand how we cant understand. » (Rather good)
- To much queue to get help sometimes.» (Rather good)
- It was rather loud in the PPU lab.» (Rather good)
- Good, but i think that the tutors should be more on the same level, they did disagree on several things when we asked questions. » (Very good)

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

15 svarande

Very poorly» 0 0%

Rather poorly» 0 0%

Rather well» 5 33%

Very well» 10 66%

I did not seek cooperation» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

11. How was the course workload?

15 svarande

Too low» 0 0%

Low» 0 0%

Adequate» 9 60%

High» 4 26%

Too high» 2 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.53

- To much focus on Catia parameterization in the project.» (High)
- Unbelievably high while you are doing the manufacturing process course.» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

15 svarande

Too low» 0 0%

Low» 1 6%

Adequate» 5 33%

High» 8 53%

Too high» 1 6%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

15 svarande

Poor» 5 33%

Fair» 2 13%

Adequate» 6 40%

Good» 2 13%

Excellent» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- The general concepts were delivered adequately. The duggor, particularly dugga 2 did not test concept knowledge adequately. The project, although good at teaching the general capabilities of PLM, was a disaster. Nothing worked. Well over 50% of the time was spent troubleshooting broken hardware and software. We never received access to the PPU lab, making working outside of lab time impossible. Of the actual time spent working on the project, well over half was spent in CATIA. CATIA was already taught to us as a mandatory course, including a parameterization exercise. Although I appreciate the knowledge gleaned from the project, the project was extremely inefficient and if anything scared me away from future PLM work.» (Poor)
- A big part of the course was the project in the program SmarTeam which worked very poorly. Errors, crashes, very time consuming and little knowledge gained.» (Poor)
- I see the need for the course and what it taught but does it need an entire 7.5hp course? Sometimes it felt like there wasn"t enough to teach so therefore it became a bit too in-depth.» (Fair)
- I think that more focus should be on understanding SmarTeam. Right now the focus is on doing the project and maybe understanding the program. Less focus on CAD, right now there is too much focus on parametrization.» (Fair)
- I would not accept a job if it had to do with PLM unless I was desperate. Or maybe if I had more knowledge within the field. But I´,m thankful for having the course. I think many of the people feel the same way. It´,s a subject which is rerely touched upon, and a new one as well.» (Adequate)
- The idea with the course is great. However, it was way to much emphazis on the catia-part in the project.» (Adequate)
- I think that the subject PLM is very important, however I think that the course can be improved, especially the project could be adjusted a bit. » (Adequate)
- A lot of different information condensed in one course. The hard thing reading for the duggas was to to find the "read thread" in the text. A lot of details from different areas. » (Good)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- General course content, lectures»
- Skip the duggas for the students sakes. It is very excausting....»
- the guest lectures, however this year they were scheduled when i would have needed to work with the project. perhaps schedule them a week ealier next year.»
- Course content»
- Dugga instead of final exam. Since a lot of different information and details that would be very hard to read in for a dugga. Easier to read for dugga. Smarteam project. Good to see PLM in real life how it could work.»
- Project, guest lecturers.»
- Project.»
- The duggas,»
- The project with the different parts and the reflecting report.»
- Guest lectures in the beginning of the course instead, to inspire the students. »

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The project needs to be improved»
- Make the project goals clearer, make sure that the persons supervising actually knows the program.»
- Everything »
- Have access to the PPU Lab in order to work on the project whenever we want to.»
- Skip the duggas»
- The supervisor need to sync their requirements. More time is needed for developing "additional functionality". Though, by reducing the cad-part, this might be solved. »
- This can be an optional course for those who want their career to be in PLM field. People who want their career in core R&D my just learn user end of PLM and need not customize it in short period.»
- Obligatory lectures in the beginning to enthusmiasm people with PLM (although students don"t have the knowledge base of PLM early in the course)»
- Move the guest lectures to an earlier point in the course to increase the learning from these.»
- Take the catia parametrzation part out of the project, that was weeks focusing on something that should rather have been in a CAD course, that time could be better used focusing on PLM stuff.»
- Have the guest lecture earlier in the course, not the last week. Have clear statements what should be done to pass the project because now the different teachers say different things and it was very difference depending on who you were asking. Don"t have so much Cad focus in the project because now it takes to much time with the models and it had been better if they were almost finished and then focus more on SmarTeam.»
- Both duggas should be held earlier, the second maybe in beginning of reading week 6 and enable more focus on the project in the end of the period. Also the mandatory guest lectures which were very good, should be held little earlier to leave room for the project in the end and also to give some more time to reflect over the whole view of a PLM system that the guest lectures gave. »
- Less focus on Catia parameterization in the project. Unfortunatley as it is today we used 90% of the time to parameterize, and hence we couldn"t spend so much time on optimizing the PDM system. This also resulted in less understanding about the PDM systems possibillities and a lot of frustration due to the struggles with understanding how the parameterization was to be done. The pre-parammeterized part was more confusing than helping, try to make a pre-parameterized part with dimensions equal to the dimensions in the drawing of the cylinder. The understanding about how it changes comes much later to the students. Keep in mind that many students are not used to work in Catia and might only have taken one course in it. The focus should be on the PDM system, not on Catia parameterization, right?»

16. Additional comments

- This is by far the most boring and useless course I have taken during my 4 years at Chalmers.»
- Interesting course but content and focus in the project could be considered one more time to improve it even more. Also the make the supervisors judge the project work on the same basics. As it was this time it mattered which supervisor you presented to. Some of them gave you pass much easier, and didn"t seem to be as strict as the other.»
- Interesting subject. It is good with exercises in the lectures! »

Kursutvärderingssystem från