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.

Risk management and safety (IPE061) Quarter 2, HT 2011

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-11-17 - 2011-12-16
Antal svar: 11
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 11%
Kontaktperson: Pooyan Seddighzadeh»

General Information

1. Program:

11 svarande

Master student»8 72%
Exchange student»3 27%
Others»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.27

2. What is your background, i.e. production development, industry or chemical engineering?

- Mechanical engineering»
- Production engineering»
- management engineering»
- Chemical Engineering»
- environmental measurement and assessment»
- Production Engineering»
- Industrial economics»
- Production Engineering»
- Chemical Engineering»

3. How did you find out about the course?

- Recommendations from people, student portal»
- It was recommended for the master program»
- Overall good impression. »
- course searching via student portal»
- I found the course in a list with optional courses for my track. »
- It was one of the elective ones.»
- course presentation last year at Gustav Dahlen salen»
- Generally good»
- Chalmers home page»
- From the courses list»

4. Why did you choose the course?

- Interesting topic, recommendations from people»
- It seemed to be an interesting subject»
- i thought it was an interesting subject»
- Expect to learn something new on safety and risk management. Get a chance to engage in a project group and work with others »
- interested in the topic of course»
- No final exam is the main reason for me that I choose this course. »
- Sounded interesting with risk.»
- My work college told me that risk management was very important in todays environment.»
- it was recommended»
- Interesting with risk management»
- It was important for a chemical engineer to know the risk involved»

This questionnaire gives you the opportunity to express your views about this course.

The results will be used as part of an overall assessment of the effectiveness of this course and for course improvement.

Please note that you can write your comments about all issues related to the course at the end of this questionnaire. If you like to clarify your answers to the questions below, you can explain it at the end of the questionnaire too.

Course Content

5. What did you think about the workload of workshops?

11 svarande

Too little»0 0%
Little»1 9%
Good»6 54%
Much»4 36%
Too much»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

6. Do you think the workload of home assignment was evenly distributed?

11 svarande

Too little»0 0%
Little»0 0%
Good»9 81%
Much»2 18%
Too much»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

7. What did you think about the workload of project?

11 svarande

Too little»0 0%
Little»1 9%
Good»7 63%
Much»2 18%
Too much»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

8. How useful did you find study visit to Preem?

8 svarande

Very poor»1 12%
Poor»0 0%
Good»6 75%
Very good»1 12%

Genomsnitt: 2.87

9. How useful did you find study visit to AkzoNobel?

6 svarande

Very poor»1 16%
Poor»0 0%
Good»4 66%
Very good»1 16%

Genomsnitt: 2.83

10. What percentage of lectures did you attend?

11 svarande

0%»0 0%
20%»1 9%
50%»0 0%
70%»6 54%
100%»4 36%

Genomsnitt: 4.18

Course Organization

11. Quality of course outline:

(i.e. document concerning course aim and content, organisation of teaching, assignments, reading, assessment, etc.)

11 svarande

Very poor»4 36%
Poor»1 9%
Good»5 45%
Very good»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.27

12. Course expectations:

(i.e. what was expected of you)

11 svarande

Very vague»2 18%
Vague»3 27%
Clear»6 54%
Very clear»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.36

13. Organisation of lectures:

11 svarande

Very poor»2 18%
Poor»4 36%
Good»5 45%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.27

14. Organisation of Workshops:

11 svarande

Very poor»2 18%
Poor»4 36%
Good»5 45%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.27

15. Organisation of guest lecturers

11 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»4 36%
Good»7 63%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.63

16. Organisation of Lab@Risk

9 svarande

Very poor»1 11%
Poor»2 22%
Good»5 55%
Very good»1 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

17. When do you prefer to have deadline for home assignments?

11 svarande

Weekly (as it was in this study period)»10 90%
At the end of the course»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 1.09

18. How did you find the course literature?

11 svarande

Very poor»3 27%
Poor»4 36%
Good»4 36%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.09

19. How well did the course literature correspond with the course objectives?

11 svarande

Very poor»2 18%
Poor»2 18%
Good»7 63%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.45

Teaching and learning support

20. Helpfulness of teacher

11 svarande

Very unhelpful»0 0%
unhelpful»2 18%
helpful»6 54%
Very helpful»3 27%

Genomsnitt: 3.09

21. Helpfulness of tutor

11 svarande

Very unhelpful»1 9%
unhelpful»0 0%
helpful»8 72%
Very helpful»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 3

22. Availability of course material (e.g. website, handouts, etc)

11 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»3 27%
Good»6 54%
Very good»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 2.9

23. How effective did you find the course book?

11 svarande

Very poor»3 27%
Poor»3 27%
Good»5 45%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.18

24. How effective did you find the course homepage?

11 svarande

Very poor»1 9%
Poor»1 9%
Good»8 72%
Very good»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

25. How do you evaluate the quality of the presentation Modelling and simulation: applying @RISK by Simon Pallin

(only if attended)

9 svarande

Very poor»1 11%
Poor»1 11%
Good»7 77%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

26. How do you evaluate the quality of the presentation Supply risk management by Ulf Paulsson

(only if attended)

5 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 20%
Good»4 80%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

27. How do you evaluate the quality of the presentation Constructing Safety –,, Obstacles and support by Marianne Törner

(only if attended)

8 svarande

Very poor»2 25%
Poor»1 12%
Good»4 50%
Very good»1 12%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

28. How do you evaluate the quality of the presentation Constructing Safety –,, Obstacles and support by Anders Pousette

(only if attended)

6 svarande

Very poor»1 16%
Poor»1 16%
Good»4 66%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

29. How do you evaluate the quality of the presentation Probabilistic safety assessment by Carl Sunde

(only if attended)

6 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 16%
Good»5 83%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.83

30. How do you evaluate the quality of the presentation Maintenance, dependability and safety by Torbjörn Ylipää

(only if attended)

8 svarande

Very poor»2 25%
Poor»3 37%
Good»3 37%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.12

31. How do you evaluate the quality of the presentation Human factors - Man, technology, organisation (MTO)/ Control Room Design by Per Christofferson

(only if attended)

6 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 16%
Good»5 83%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.83

32. How do you evaluate the quality of the presentation Technical design of equipment and systems design by Mats Lindgren

(only if attended)

5 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 20%
Good»4 80%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

33. How do you evaluate the quality of Risk of poor ergonomic by Annki Falck

(only if attended)

7 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»2 28%
Good»4 57%
Very good»1 14%

Genomsnitt: 2.85

34. How do you evaluate the quality of the presentation Risk of Maintenance by Magnus Evertsson

(only if attended)

6 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»5 83%
Very good»1 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

35. How do you evaluate the quality of the presentation What can go wrong by Andrea Menne

(only if attended)

5 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 20%
Good»4 80%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

36. How do you evaluate the quality of the presentation Complexity in logistics systems: controlling chaos using cybernetics by Per-Olof Arnäs

(only if attended)

4 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 25%
Good»2 50%
Very good»1 25%

Genomsnitt: 3

37. How do you evaluate the quality of the presentation Risk management in complex systems by Roland Örtengren

(only if attended)

5 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»5 100%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3

38. Overall, how would you rate guest lecturers?

11 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»5 45%
Good»6 54%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.54

39. Overall, how would you rate this course?

11 svarande

Very poor»1 9%
Poor»4 36%
Good»6 54%
Very good»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.45

Your perspective

40. Good features of this course:

- I am part of a good group for the group work. The topic is interesting but I don"t think it is presented in a good way.»
- Interesting subject and I have a good group to work with»
- learnt risk management from different aspects, ie chemical engineering, supply chain management»
- Nothing.»
- How positive Shahriari was.»
- Self reading through home assignments, group project and workshops.»

41. Poor features of this course:

- Lack of feedback on home assignments, lack of structure, unclear grading system, unclear amount of points, unclear mandatory sessions, unequal amount of lectures/workshops depending on background, extremely poor and messy course literature with very poor english. Workshop introductions not useful, the assistants read exactly what is written on the assignment paper and that"s it.»
- Unstructured, unclear with examinations. How many points you can get what is needed to pass etc. Need to get a better focus and structure. Poor English in the course book and unclear instructions»
- The course outline could be clearer, for instance, highlight clearly which session is seminar, lecture, workshop and etc. »
- I have talked with the course evaluator and refer to what he will inform you about the course.»
- I do not feel that the course have corresponded to what was said on before hand. More or less everything is focus on chemical risk. If that should be the case maybe just students studying chemistry should be able to take the course. The course PM was not as clear as it could have been and did not include the points of each home assignment. These points was given to us, if I remember it right, after the first deadline. The deadline for the report hand-in was changed late in the course. I do not think that is okay.»
- there was no motivation for attending the guest lectures the topic was often not related to any assignments and sometimes we where hearing the same things again.»
- too much workload from home assignment»

42. Other comments:

- The guest lectures left blank we have not had yet. The ones we had so far did not connect to the course content and was not very useful. Marianne Törner had a very unprofessional and negative attitude towards us students and I think her class should be left out.»
- Strange that we always had problems concerning where/if and when to hand in assignments. Such as should we hand in presentation slides? »

43. How could this course be improved?

- Feedback on home assignments, clear grading system, clear amount of points, same amount of lectures and workshops for everyone»
- Make a c completely new structure and think through what should be included and what is vital in the subject »
- The home assignment should be related to the lectures given so that student will be more focused during lecture. Currently, the home assignments do not have much relation with the lecture»
- I have talked with the course evaluator and refer to what he will inform you about the course.»
- Se question 41.»

Thank you !

Kursutvärderingssystem från