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.

Engineering Geology VGE022 2012, VGE022

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-10-30 - 2012-11-30
Antal svar: 17
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 30%
Kontaktperson: Hanna Landquist»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Väg- och vattenbyggnad 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.

17 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»0 0%
Around 20 hours/week»4 23%
Around 25 hours/week»6 35%
Around 30 hours/week»6 35%
At least 35 hours/week»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.23

- The group work took a lot of time. Not too much, but a lot. » (Around 30 hours/week)

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

17 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»1 5%
75%»8 47%
100%»8 47%

Genomsnitt: 4.41

- Skipped some parts of late lectures.» (75%)
- The lessons I missed were due to reasons other than that I didn"t want to attend. The lectures were in general very relevant. » (75%)
- I attended around 90%» (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?

17 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»3 17%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»8 47%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»6 35%

Genomsnitt: 3

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.

15 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»14 93%
No, the goals are set too high»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

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

15 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»10 66%
Yes, definitely»4 26%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.4

- Now I have not read the goals but I"m surprised about how detailed some "standard questions" were, asking about one specific list or table from one specific lecture or similar. Learning for such kind of questions is only a matter about memorizing tables, list and sentences from the lecture slides ... And, for example, how can the equation for storage capacity be worth 10 points ? There is no balance between the knowledge you need to answer the question and the points that the question gives. It should be like 4 points.» (?)
- Think the examination tested odd knowledge. » (To some extent)
- The exam consists of a combination of questions asking for very general knowledge, which prove that you have understood process, and very specific questions that require you to have read and memorized 100% of the literature. I"m not sure if the latter is the purpose...» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

17 svarande

Small extent»1 5%
Some extent»5 29%
Large extent»8 47%
Great extent»3 17%

Genomsnitt: 2.76

- except the guest teatchers» (Large extent)
- But the lecture abour raw material was not good at all ... it didn"t feel as it fit in the course. » (Great extent)
- Some lectures were very good and gave huge input, others not so good. » (Great extent)

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

17 svarande

Small extent»3 17%
Some extent»5 29%
Large extent»8 47%
Great extent»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.41

- Don"t like Walthams» (Small extent)

8. In specific, how helpful was the compendium for your learning?

17 svarande

To a small extent»2 11%
To some extent»7 41%
To a large extent»7 41%
To a great extent»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.41

- Didn"t have time to read the entire compendium. » (To some extent)
- I used it as a complement to the lectures and lecture slides and notes. I thought it was very good to read continually, that made me elaborate a lot on the contents of the lectures.» (To a large extent)

9. In the literature compendium, is there any section you would suggest was improved?

- No.»
- Not that i can think of»
- Geophysics»
- Not what I can remember, maybe the Goephysics, it does not say that much about it and it was hard to follow in the classroom»
- Öhm, no. I haven"t thought of anything.»
- the geophysics»
- No»

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

17 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»3 17%
Rather well»7 41%
Very well»7 41%

Genomsnitt: 3.23

- old exams was though appearing on the homepage very late ... too late, they were spread in the class from last year students instead. » (Very well)

Study climate

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

17 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»1 5%
Rather good»8 47%
Very good»8 47%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.41

- It was difficult to manage with the "rock stress calculation" in the project since we never got a chance to ask. Then, very late, a nice document appeared on the homepage but that was very late.» (Rather good)

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

17 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»4 23%
Very well»13 76%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.76

- Sometimes it felt that my groupmembers were playing more than working.» (Rather well)

13. How was the course workload?

17 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»6 35%
High»9 52%
Too high»2 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.76

- high in the end, okey the rest» (Adequate)
- The course project took too much time, especially when you consider that it don"t contribute to your grade and didn"t help very much to pass the exam. » (Too high)

14. How was the total workload this study period?

17 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»1 5%
High»11 64%
Too high»5 29%

Genomsnitt: 4.23

- Well, I have got symptoms of exhaustion this period so I would say it was too high. » (Too high)
- This course in combination with Water resources made the workload very high. » (Too high)
- Maybe not too high but very high! The highest i have experienced this far at chalmers but that"s maybe because is"t a master"s program ... higher level than bachelor so to say. » (Too high)

Summarizing questions

15. What is your general impression of the course?

17 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 5%
Adequate»3 17%
Good»9 52%
Excellent»4 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.94

- BUT the examn was not nice. I had prepared very, very well I must say - throughout the whole course - still, several of the questions felt totally surprising. For example, 2c (quaternary) and thermal aspects. Also the rock stress thing, with an equation that I haven"t seen before (it"s not in the exercise memo) and therefore didn"t know how to handle (using an average value for the stress or not). And also the investigation methods question - which was a good question, aksing about understanding of the subject - was very unlike other questions on the subject in old exams (I had exams from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011).» (Excellent)

16. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Group project, field trip. The exercise "STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING" should be paid more attention because many of us are still confused about this excercise.»
- Field trips, project»
- The group project»
- Field trips»
- Most. Everything. Improve the raw material lecture though. It was only about concrete this time ...»
- The feasibility study.»
- Field trip»
- The report, becquerel I learned a lot working with it. »

17. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Not clear.»
- Have a just a projcet or just an exam. If you want to have both make sure that the project is a help for passing the exam. If both parts should stay the workload for the project have to decrease. »
- The study visit we had to the tunnel was not the best. The guy from Trafikverket was not very comitted and to bring 60 students into a tunnel with bad acoustic and think that everyone will hear the information is not so good. It should have been mor structured, maybe divide the students into smaller groups that can get the information and get a chance to ask questions. It was though nice to be in a tunnel, but next time maybe you can try to structurize the visit so the students can get the most of it. »
- I liked the whole course. The only thing I didn"t like was parts of the exam which I described above.»
- Grade the feasibility study and include it in the total grade since a lot of work is put into it.»
- For some parts of the course, it was unclear why they were even brought up. Especially in the course project it felt like some areas were included just for the sake of including something. We had to include it, but didn"t really learn from it because of lack of time. One example is the calculations of rock stresses. Parts in the project work that don"t lead to any kind of conclusion or assessment should be removed. Also, it felt sometimes like we got too much responsibility having no clue what to do next in the project, and other times like we were treated like kindergarden kids, for example at the field trips ordering us to bring rubber boots and food... Furthermore, some lecturers didn"t really seem to know what other lecturers had brought up. More coordination needed? »
- No»
- A passed report should give some credits, at least 1,5 but rather 3, due to the amount of work that was put into it. The exam should not have 7,5 credits. »

18. Additional comments

- Satisfied with this course.»
- Maybe there is not another way than to have 1,5 day with lectures from the guestlectures from Lund. But many student droped off by the end of the second day, it is hard to stay focused for such a long time. It would be better to have the "experiments" o geophysics in the middle of the second day, rather than on the afternoon of the first day as it was this year. It is better ti listen 4 h the first day, and then lectures for some hours the next day with som "paus" after luncg with the experiments. It woud also be nice for the future students that you inform them that we are going to be outside for 2 hours so students can bring good clothes. When we went out the rain was pooring down and we didn"t know that we were going to be outside... »
- Good course! Interesting, nice, good with the project, field trips, exercises etc!»
- In general the course gave a very good insight in engineering geology, but it wasn"t until afterwords that I could see this. I guess that making it a bit more clear why all elements are needed during the course would encourage the students to perform better. Oh, and Johan Funehags lectures were very good. His approach on teaching a class, including what might be interesting for us instead of reading from the textbook, was very stimulating. Also, the lecturers from Lund did a fabulous job. They managed to make complicated physics really interesting - thumbs up! »

Kursutvärderingssystem från