|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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.
Introduction to nuclear reactors 2011, TIF215Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2011-11-03 - 2011-11-18 Antal svar: 20 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?% Kontaktperson: Anders Nordlund» Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers: masterskurs
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.20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.45 2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.1 - The other coarse sometimes had exercises at the same times that this one had lectures so I chose to attend the exercises.» (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?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.95 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
Genomsnitt: 1.86 - Consider the possibility of having:
6 credits for introduction to nuclear reactors
9 credits for physics of nuclear reactors
This would be a better justification.» (No, the goals are set too low) 5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?15 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.8 - Maybe a bit too easy» (To some extent) Teaching and course administration6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3 - Anders is great and his sidetracks expands the field of nuclear technology.» (Great extent) 7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.65 - Compendium was perfect, but the slides could have been better» (Some extent) 8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.55 - sudentportalen is better then pingpong» (Rather badly) Study climate9. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.25 10. How was the course workload?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.35 - Even though the other course is quite intense, it might be beneficial to move some parts from the "Physics of nuclear reactors"-course to this one to even out the workload over the entire semester» (Low) 11. How was the total workload this study period?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.65 - The nuclear chemistry course is tipping the balance of workload too much.» (High) Summarizing questions12. What is your general impression of the course?20 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.35 - Very good introductory course. I like the layout of introducing concepts without making it too mathematical» (Good) 13. What should definitely be preserved to next year?- Sidetracks, WANO seminar with Manfred. BWR smulator, fusion lecture.»- Anders» - The coarse literature, the lectures.» - Anders Nordlund» - the class style hand outs etc» - Things about nuclear safety and fusion，,» - - Guest lecture on the WANO association - Humor and experiences» - The reading materials are really good.» - It"s very good that you bring real stuff with you. It definitely help the understanding. » - The compendium» - Anders, and his good mood» 14. What should definitely be changed to next year?- The lectures should only be housed in one classroom, jumping from EDIT to V to K is not comfortable.»- Nothing.» - Nothing» - initial 4 chapters should be taught more slowly and clearly» - Maybe a visit to a nuclear power plant is preferable in order to give a generally concept of nuclear engineering.» - Slides could be much better» - Maybe add some simulation laboratory excercise.» - Add some assignments or labs to give a more practical dimension » - maybe a study visit?» 15. Additional comments- Anders is teh KING!»- The fusion lectures didn"t really contribute with much, felt mostly like an advertisement for the fusion course. I think that time could have been better spent on other things» - I think its a good course to get a proper idea of nuclear reactors.» - Really good course! I liked to get there and although it was Wednesday morning at 8 ,)» - I really think it is a good intro course to make us student prepared for the subject. But I wish some of the expressions could be better explained in the course material, e.g. cross section. »
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60%