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.

Production Logistics HT2011, TEK240

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-01-17 - 2012-02-17
Antal svar: 18
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Sara Algestam»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers: masterskurs

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

18 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»6 33%
At most 20 hours/week»4 22%
At most 25 hours/week»6 33%
At most 30 hours/week»1 5%
At most 35 hours/week»0 0%
More than 35 hours/week»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- Greatest part of the share due to project» (At most 25 hours/week)

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

18 svarande

0%»1 5%
25%»1 5%
50%»7 38%
75%»5 27%
100%»4 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

- Mostly exercises and lectures by Anna.» (50%)

3. How understandable are the course goals?

18 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»5 27%
The goals are difficult to understand»1 5%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»7 38%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»5 27%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- no PM» (I have not seen/read the goals)

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

16 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 6%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»15 93%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.93

- not read the goals» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

18 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»8 44%
Yes, definitely»7 38%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»3 16%

Genomsnitt: 2.72

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

17 svarande

Small extent»3 17%
Some extent»9 52%
Large extent»2 11%
Great extent»1 5%
Did not attend»2 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.41

- Some of the lectures did not corelate to the lecture slides... It felt like the lectureur was talking about something else than the slides were saying.» (Small extent)
- Lectures were somewhat confusing, especially by Mats. » (Some extent)
- It was good with lot of guest lecturers and the author of the book was vert pedagogic.» (Large extent)

7. To what extent has the exercises been of help for your learning?

17 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»5 29%
Large extent»5 29%
Great extent»6 35%
Did not attend»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.17

- Good to understand a little bit how to apply the theory. Still confusing, and Sara made mistakes all the time.» (Some extent)
- Sara is happy and inspiring, » (Large extent)
- Great! Here I acctually learnt something, I suppose.» (Great extent)

8. To what extent has the case project been of help for your learning?

18 svarande

Small extent»1 5%
Some extent»8 44%
Large extent»7 38%
Great extent»1 5%
Did not participate»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.61

- Was good to deeply think about the matter. unfortunately a lot of this thinking was more general and not specifically course related. too many assumptions to make» (Some extent)
- The case was released too early and the new methods of the course where to hard to understand at that time, leading to solving the case with old experience » (Some extent)
- Project was to early» (Some extent)
- Nice to applicate/practice the knowledge from lecteurs to some kind of "reality".» (Large extent)

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

18 svarande

Small extent»2 11%
Some extent»7 38%
Large extent»5 27%
Great extent»4 22%

Genomsnitt: 2.61

- some extent, at least on Patrik"s lecteurs.» (Some extent)
- I did most of the learning with the book.» (Great extent)

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

18 svarande

Very badly»1 5%
Rather badly»5 27%
Rather well»10 55%
Very well»2 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.72

- There really should be a course PM where information is gathered» (Very badly)
- Slides of mats not good in print-out version - several fields covering each other, thus hiding information.» (Rather badly)
- Scedule on student portal wasn"t optimal. Prefer to have it on timeedit.» (Rather badly)
- No course PM, » (Rather badly)
- No probs.» (Very well)

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

18 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»5 27%
Very good»10 55%
I did not seek help»3 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.88

- Very good, especially during exercise opportunities.» (Very good)

12. How was the course workload?

18 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»4 22%
Adequate»10 55%
High»3 16%
Too high»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- Workload of the project too high compared to the share of the grade» (Too high)

13. To what extent have the guest lecture by Emil Jonsson from Volvo Truck Corp helped you understand the subject?

18 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»4 22%
Large extent»3 16%
Great extent»3 16%
Did not attend»8 44%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

14. To what extent have the guest lecture by Fredrik Helgesson from Nobel Biocare helped you understand the subject?

18 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»6 33%
Large extent»4 22%
Great extent»2 11%
Did not attend»6 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

15. To what extent have the guest lecture by Roger Lindau from Arvin Mentor AB helped you understand the subject?

18 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»4 22%
Large extent»6 33%
Great extent»1 5%
Did not attend»7 38%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

16. What is your general impression of the course?

16 svarande

Poor»1 6%
Fair»3 18%
Adequate»6 37%
Good»6 37%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.06

- Good, » (?)
- I was disappointed by the course. much room for improvement in terms of quality - lectures, exercises and project.» (Fair)

17. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Guest lectures»
- MOre calculations, they were very good»
- the calculation exercises»
- Exercises.»
- The exercices sessions.»
- Guided exercise sessions.»
- Maybe stick with this setup, lot of different lecturers! »
- Case and the presentations. Exercises. guest lectures.»
- Exersices and Sara, ,)»

18. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Course PM»
- more structured lectures.»
- Try to rearrange the lecture content. Maybe it is good to mention some kind of "learning outcomes" in the beginning of every lecture. This will make the student aware of what is important to know.»
- Make the course more practical.»
- - Lecture contents: More structure in Mats Lectures - exercise sessions: Better preparation, less mistakes causing confusion - Weight of case study: Amount of work was even higher than learning for the exam. should have somewhat 25-50% weight for the course grade. - case descriptions: More precision, better link to course contents. it was very unclear what indeed was requested. too much assumptions to make.»
- Mats should be more instructive during lectures and maneuver English in a better way so that more students can be intrigued.»
- Prepare the case study instructions better. More information should be in the case description. I really didn"t have much fun to work with the case, because of too little information. The lectures were really too boring. Prepare the slides more interesting and don"t separate the normal lectures and the guest lectures in that way, that the normal lectures are just give the student theoretic information. There should be given more examples from companies of the real world and some exercises for the students (in the lectures), as well. »
- The case, smaller, more in line with the methods in the course»
- Non-atteding lecturer»

19. Additional comments

- None»

Kursutvärderingssystem från