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.

Gas Turbine Technology, MTF171

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-12-08 - 2011-12-19
Antal svar: 15
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 50%
Kontaktperson: Tomas Grönstedt»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Maskinteknik 300 hp

You own effort

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

15 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»1 6%
Around 20 hours/week»9 60%
Around 25 hours/week»2 13%
Around 30 hours/week»3 20%
More than 30 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.46

- The lecture was not the main part. The main part I spend was on the designtask. The effort for it, especially for the first, was really high.» (Around 30 hours/week)
- it"s an average. Because we worked a lot for different assignments.» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

15 svarande

0-25 %»0 0%
25-50 %»1 6%
50-75 %»3 20%
75-100 %»11 73%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- sometimes the classes ware superficial respect what we ware asking. » (75-100 %)

3. Which master program do you follow

15 svarande

Applied Mechanics»7 46%
Sustainable Energy Systems»1 6%
Automotive Engineering»0 0%
Nuclear Engineering»0 0%
Other»7 46%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- Erasmus » (Other)
- No master program : ERASMUS student» (Other)
- Erasmus» (Other)

Goals and fulfilment

4. How understandable are the course goals?

The main goals for the course is that the student should be able to carry out preliminary design and analysis of several different gas turbine cycles (various stationary and aircraft engine cycles) as well as to apply turbomachinery design principles to the gas turbine engine.

14 svarande

The goals are not clear»0 0%
The golas give some guidance, but could be clearer»3 21%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»11 78%

Genomsnitt: 2.78

- the goals describtion at the beginning of each lec. was good. Like a good table of content what to learn today.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

5. Are the goals reasonable considering you background and the number of credits for this course?

15 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 6%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»13 86%
No, the goals are set too high»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2

- If I compare the hours/week I spend on this course in comparision with all my other courses, the CP are to low» (No, the goals are set too low)
- The subject is really too complex to gain good insight in only one month and a half (i.e. one quarter )... The goals could be reasonable compared to the exam, if one suppose an intense study of the subject by is own, and, however, it"s difficult to feel confortable about the turbomachinery desing with only a quarter of lectures...» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- The prerequisites should at least mention compressible flow.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

15 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»9 60%
Yes, definitely»5 33%
I dont know, I have not been examined yet»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.46

- Before the exam, I felt quite confortable about it, but then, during the examination I realized that it took me more thime than expected to do all the calculation and to fell really confortable about the exam ... I think it could be good to give some homework on real exam to gain some feeling about what you can assume and what you can"t... the task helps you but you have a lot of time to do it and, even if they took much time because of code writing, they are quite straight forward and they cover only a specific design that this field of study could ask for...» (To some extent)
- A little bit too turbomachinery focused» (To some extent)
- The amount of material and to little time on the exam made it hard show what you can do. Either limit the material on an exam or make the exam a 5-hour exam.» (To some extent)
- For some of the exam questions I felt not well prepared, although I attended the classes and did the offert execises and assignements.» (To some extent)

7. How do you rate the efforst of the lecturers? What could be improved?

You may write separate comments to Kostas or Tomas in the text box below

15 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 6%
Adequate»3 20%
Good»8 53%
Excellent»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.86

- Ditch the powerpoint nonsense. » (Fair)
- to both: Sometimes you explain things in the lec which was really easy and other difficicult part was explained to fast. The timemanagement was sometimes bad. Often breaks was not hold after 45min or a lecture needs more the 3 hours» (Adequate)
- Lectures have been good, but there are too many of them. Also, Tomas and Kostas really have to keep track of time. Not OK of Kostas to have 10 min break and go 25 minutes over time before lunch. Reduce number of slides.» (Adequate)
- Turbine and compressor lecture should be condensed into one lecture.... more space to labs and more problem solving...» (Good)
- Time management could be improved, both with breaks and with total length of lectures.» (Good)
- Kostas needs to have a better knowledge of the schedule and make the lectures in time. There were many times he extended the lecture time with 20-35 minutes by either shorten brakes and extend the lectures. Maybe he could use some of the exercise time, since we seldom used all, but give us a break before part 3.» (Good)

8. How do you rate the efforts of the course assistant?

15 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»0 0%
Good»9 60%
Excellent»6 40%

Genomsnitt: 4.4

- the uploaded pdf-files could be in more detailed. For guys who can t be in the exersice because of other courses it was hard to understand what happened and how to calculate the tasks.» (Good)
- I think Lars did a good job, always at hand. However, he needs to write /much/ larger on the blackboard.» (Good)
- Everybody has been really nice and made his job with passion» (Excellent)

9. How do you rate the course material?

Course book/handouts etc. You may add specific comments in the text box below.

15 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»4 26%
Good»9 60%
Excellent»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.86

- The book is unfortunatley not all that great. To much text, too little physics, too much drivel about irrelevant issues/stories, too long chapters. » (Adequate)
- Good material, but way too much! ~400 slides lecture notes excluding guest lecturers + Kostas lecture notes + book. » (Adequate)
- Didn"t seem as the book was the best for this course since such an amount of handouts was needed.» (Adequate)
- It is sometimes hard to find what we need in the book.» (Good)
- but a problem is maybe the amount of material. Lecture notes, lectures slides, book... I had problems to find the important stuff quick.» (Good)
- "Gas turbine theory" book is really suitable to get a good understanding of almost all fields covered in class.» (Good)
- Good lecture notes!!!!!» (Excellent)

10. How do you rate the design tasks?

Write separate comments on the design 1, design task 2 and the design task 3 in the text box below.

14 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»3 21%
Good»10 71%
Excellent»1 7%

Genomsnitt: 3.85

- Task1 is very helpful to make us understand the principle while takes a very long time to fill. Hope there is more time for this part. And Task 2 and three has equal time comsuming » (?)
- As suggested, they first two are quite long but don"t give too muche insight... we should spend more time analysing the data of task 3» (Adequate)
- a really interesting design tasks Task1: but the effort for it was really to high.» (Adequate)
- I put "adequate" because i found the first one really good and the latest ones less interesting. » (Adequate)
- enlarge the assignment and take away the exam/oral exam for the theoretical part. FEEDBACK! in my opinion there ware a huge lack of feedbacks for the assignments. these ware good for us to understand, but we didn"t really know if we succeeded in reaching good understanding level (especially for task 3, no feedback at all even if it was the most important one).» (Good)
- I think these were well thought out, with a good system of points, etc.» (Good)
- DT1 and 2 were good. DT3 was too large and had tricky questions. Got the impression that if we didn"t answer all questions correct, we would get a deduction. So it took alot of time to just write report. Frustrating to do this when I could study for exam.» (Good)
- The last task was kind of dull, just pressing the button and seeing what happens. The first task was really good» (Good)
- first two ones were very good, the last one could have been better prepared» (Good)

11. How do you rate the written exam ?

Additional comments below...

15 svarande

Poor»2 13%
Fair»3 20%
Adequate»5 33%
Good»5 33%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- Good questions, but if you had removed questions 4-6, then people perhaps could answer it in time. It is easily the largest exam I"ve ever written, and it"s absolutely impossible that anyone could have answered all questions correct. Theory part was nice, but the second part was just way too time consuming and I had time to answer around half of it. A part of the problem was also that it was so early in the examination week. I had about two days in total to study to it.» (Poor)
- More complex than expected ... Not difficult but 4 hour weren"t enough ... Even if it can seem to be straight forward with open book, searching for the right formula or for the reason behind an assumption could be really long considering the stress of the exam...» (Fair)
- we will see about the grad afterwards ,)» (Fair)
- To little time to be able to solve the problems I could solve even if I knew the solution (not having to search the material). An hour needs to be added and maybe simplify a calculation or two.» (Fair)
- It was a pretty hard exam I think.» (Adequate)
- quite long, but I liked the overall structure» (Adequate)
- Borderline too much for the time allowed and too much focus on turbomachinery when considering the examiner said there would be less focus on that part this year.» (Adequate)
- It was very long.» (Adequate)
- The written exam was quite long! Really hard to complete all tasks, but interesting.» (Good)

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

- Perfect!!! :_)»
- really good. All informationen avaible »
- good»
- good enought»
- That worked fine.»
- Very good!»
- It worked ok.»
- All is working well. Nothing to add.»
- good»

Special events

13. How do you rate the efforts of the industrial lecturer - Martin Nilsson

Former Volvo Aero

15 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»3 20%
Adequate»2 13%
Good»10 66%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.46

- 2 hours listening about general notions about CFD are too much... nowadays we are more than aware about the possibility of CFD and his applications ... I think we are more interested in a seen how to do a simulatio, even only a simple one, than in having a list of application we are already well informed about» (Fair)
- the topic was not so interesting for me» (Fair)

14. How do you rate the aircraft aerodynamics lecture (Henrik Ekstrand)

Comments on reading material?

13 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»1 7%
Good»10 76%
Excellent»2 15%

Genomsnitt: 4.07

- We could have spent even a whole day discussing about it, but I think should be better to have a short introduction from the teachers some days before and having some material to read before the inveted lecture... this way we could have been more prepared to ask and debate about flight missions» (Good)
- Good for both reading and lecture parts.» (Good)

15. How do you rate the industrial lecture of Richard Avellán?

Gas turbines and environment (Volvo Aero)

14 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 7%
Adequate»7 50%
Good»6 42%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- Really nice topics, but a bit confused about the message the speaker tried to give...» (Adequate)
- Bad placement in study week 7 when exam is first saturday» (Adequate)
- Could have been more prepared» (Adequate)
- He did very well. Maybe you shouldn"t interrupt him as much as you did.» (Good)

16. How do you rate the study visit at Rya-verken?

15 svarande

Poor»2 13%
Fair»6 40%
Adequate»1 6%
Good»4 26%
Excellent»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- I think it was fairly pointless and most people would probably have preferred to study for the exam in week 7. I really don"t understand how you figured that people would like to go on trips that late. The only thing it gave was a sense of scale, which could just had been /said/ in mere minutes, saving half a day. Otherwise just a waste of time. Drop it. » (Poor)
- Didn"t add much knowledge for the time spent. I would much rather spending the time in study week 7 by preparing for the exams. Maybe if you were able to visit before the turbines start so you could have a closer look at them.» (Poor)
- Nice, but not thet much compared to the one to the hydropower plant during turbomachinery course: the employr from the plant didn"t seem to be prepared to our visit and only made us have a look without any useful information about the plant.» (Fair)
- the presentation was really boring. He just repeat and read the slids. The walk was interesting but your guide could not explain so much. Maybe another plane would be more interesting.» (Fair)
- Bad placement in study week 7 when exam is first saturday» (Fair)
- Never got too see any turbines..» (Fair)
- Compared to the Hojum and Olidan visit during the turbomachinery course, this was not as good. Ok, the environment is totally different» (Adequate)
- I think it"s a good idea to do a study visit like turbomachinery course. But I think it should be longer and we could see more thing.» (Good)
- It would have been nice to get more technical explanations about the whole power systems.» (Good)
- But still too short!» (Excellent)

Study Climate

17. How was the opportunities for asking questions?

15 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»0 0%
Good»11 73%
Excellent»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 4.26

- Lars helped out and was generally very good. » (Good)
- Very good opportunity to ask questions. Both lecturers and course assistant was very helpful.» (Good)

18. How well has cooperationg between you and your fellow students worked in this course?

- Quite well, even if sometimes it was hard to find some time to work together.»
- Not so good... I didn"t complain until the last task, but I had to do most of the job in task 1 and 2 »
- After the 1. design task, the work with my group was bad. They only talk french. For grouping it s maybe important that at leat 2 different origin in one group so that they have to speak english.»
- the task require a lot of cooperation, very good task really»
- optimal»
- Pretty good I would say.»
- Very good»
- Very good. Good to be able to choose who to work with when there was so much time spent on design tasks.»
- Nothing to complain»
- All was perfect! »
- good»

Overall questions

19. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- If the exam will be regarding flight missions, we should give it more space... During the exam it"s difficult to concentrate in many calculations... 1 hour is commonly spent on the tehory part... 3 hours seem to be a lot, but it"s easy to lose the way in the calculation and spend a lot of time searching for the right formula ( lot of material means lot of time to find the right stuff )... if many students have taken turbomachinery condansate turbine and compressor lecture»
- less reading material, better organisation of the course material, other study visit»
- feedback approach, examination method, »
- No study-visit nonsense. Less powerpoint. Bigger writing on the blackboard.»
- Exam...»
- Some exercises from each chapter for the students to work on would improve learning a lot.»
- Kostas needs to look over the time spent on his lectures. The exam needs to be reworked either less problems or more time.»
- Maybe the number of exercices in the exam otherwise it"s a very good course. »
- The last design task, study visit»
- It may be interesting to work on compressor and turbine design in a design task: inlet angles in both stator and rotor, diffusion, ...»
- students should be better prepared for the exam»

20. What should definitely be preserved for next year?

- The way of teaching was good and even the teachers... More exercise and some homework... even simple ones, but with particular case like the ones we found in the exam... at home they won"t take more than one hour ... more lectures about altitude,mach number SFC SFN SRange and thir correlations...»
- the designtask but with lower effort or more CP.»
- similar task»
- assignments (1 and 3 especially, the second one was just a matter of correlation, not so interesting in my view).»
- The design tasks are very good. »
- DT1 & DT2»
- The design tasks were good.»
- All.»
- The first design task»
- Design task one and lecture about aircraft performance with a pilot.»
- design task 1»

21. What is your general impression of the course?

15 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»1 6%
Good»12 80%
Excellent»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 4.06

- (almost excellent)» (Good)
- I liked the course a lot even if I wasn"t able to summirize all the notions I collected» (Good)

22. Additional comments...?

- Very competent teaching team!»

Kursutvärderingssystem från