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.

Physics of nuclear reactors, TIF210

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-01-20 - 2012-03-06
Antal svar: 19
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 70%
Kontaktperson: Christophe Demaziere»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Teknisk fysik 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.

19 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»2 10%
Around 20 hours/week»8 42%
Around 25 hours/week»6 31%
Around 30 hours/week»2 10%
At least 35 hours/week»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.57

- More time in average closer to the exam.» (Around 25 hours/week)

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

19 svarande

0%»1 5%
25%»0 0%
50%»1 5%
75%»9 47%
100%»8 42%

Genomsnitt: 4.21

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?

19 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»1 5%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»6 31%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»12 63%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

- They do, but i believe that the goals are wrong. There"s absolutely no reason for us to learn equations by heart. The focus should be on understanding them instead. The lack of time and the span of this course didn"t make that possible. » (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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.

19 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»17 89%
No, the goals are set too high»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.1

- But once again, they were misdirected.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Perhaps the goals are somewhat leaned towards someone having a physics/mathematics background rather than chemical/electrical/mechanics etc» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Too high meaning that it"s way to much focus on remembering different equations and too little focus on how to actually use to formulas in problem solving. » (No, the goals are set too high)

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

19 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»7 36%
Yes, definitely»10 52%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.73

- It is of course hard to cover all goals in one exam. But the exam followed the goals.» (To some extent)
- It was possible to pass the exam without having learned anything new in the course» (To some extent)
- A great mix of calculations and derivations.» (Yes, definitely)
- But all the equations learned for the exam are now forgotten because there wasn"t enough time to understand them. The focus for passing the exam was to just print the equations into your head.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

19 svarande

Small extent»1 5%
Some extent»3 15%
Large extent»11 57%
Great extent»4 21%

Genomsnitt: 2.94

- Christophe and this course is like Radium and Beryllium , a perfect source (read: information).» (Great extent)

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

19 svarande

Small extent»1 5%
Some extent»2 10%
Large extent»10 52%
Great extent»6 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- The lecture notes were great and even better, for free!» (Great extent)

8. Teaching methods

The teaching method was based on rather detailed lectures notes that the students were asked to read prior to each lecture and on lectures pointing out the main points of the lecture notes. How did this method work for you?

19 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»1 5%
Rather well»12 63%
Very well»6 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

- I read mostly AFTER the lecture.» (Rather badly)
- The teacher in charge of the thermal hydraulics tutorials did not seem very interested in teaching the students anything. He was just standing by the blackboard mumbling. Cheuk was excellent though.» (Rather well)
- Would prefer if the lecture notes were complete, without question marks for answers.» (Rather well)
- Good, however the lecture notes should have a white background so that it is easier to write own notes on them» (Very well)

9. Expectations from the teaching staff

Did you have a clear idea of where you were going and what was expected from you in this course?

19 svarande

No, definitely»0 0%
No, to some extent»3 15%
Yes, to some extent»7 36%
Yes, definitely»9 47%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

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

19 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»6 31%
Very well»13 68%

Genomsnitt: 3.68

- Nothing unusual, ping-pong was much more stable than the study portal. Very appreciated that the material was reachable 24/7.» (Rather well)
- Making the compendium available on the course page on pingpong is a great way to early see what the course is about.» (Very well)
- Never attended a course that was managed this good.» (Very well)

11. Tutorials

The tutorials always started with a summary of the main key points of the corresponding chapters. How useful did you find those summaries or concept maps?

19 svarande

Very much useless»1 5%
Rather useless»2 10%
Rather useful»11 57%
Very much useful»5 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- The summeries themselves were fine, but the tutorial would have been a lot better if they didn"t involve how easy and how obvious everything is. Sure, it obvious if you are a PHD student and read this course before and had excercises over the years, but that does not mean its extremely obvious for a first time student. » (Rather useless)
- It is a good idea to introduce the theory before jumping into the task» (Very much useful)

12. Group work

How did your group function in the group assignments (laboratory exercises and hometask)?

19 svarande

Very badly»1 5%
Rather badly»2 10%
Rather well»9 47%
Very well»7 36%

Genomsnitt: 3.15

- My group was got the worst score on the hometask, "nuff said". The lab exercises went well with the group.» (Rather badly)
- There"s always someone in a group that don"t contribute as much as the others.» (Rather well)
- I think this was a very good thing for the learning.» (Very well)

Study climate

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

19 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»2 10%
Very good»17 89%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.89

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

19 svarande

Very poorly»1 5%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»6 31%
Very well»11 57%
I did not seek cooperation»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.57

15. How was the course workload?

19 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»7 36%
High»10 52%
Too high»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

- Again, my oppinion is that the course focuses way too much on the theoretical aspect and too little on how to actually use the equations to solve real problems. » (Adequate)
- With a course that has a lot of derivations and few calculations it is difficult to consider oneself finished for the day but if one starts early with reading and understanding the compendium and course material it is not so bad.» (High)
- Since its an important field, this is needed.» (High)
- 90% of the time spent studying was at this course.» (Too high)

16. How was the total workload this study period?

19 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»10 52%
High»6 31%
Too high»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

- Had an additional project besides the two master program courses so it was very high. It is ok otherwise.» (High)
- mainly beacuase of too many labs in applied nuclear chemistry» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

17. What is your general impression of the course?

19 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»3 15%
Adequate»2 10%
Good»9 47%
Excellent»5 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.84

- Overall very good, except the exam which focus to much on learning things by heart.» (Good)

18. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Hometask, all labs. Enthalpy rise in a heated channel is most important in chapter 5 and should be kept.»
- Tutorials and assignments.»
- Everything, especially the home task!»
- Hometask»
- Christophes good lectures! »
- Mot things»
- The layout of the lectures as well as the practical laboratory exercises.»
- The pedagogical lecturing of Christophe»
- The homework exercise.»

19. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Fluid mechanics and thermodynamics are common courses in all programs except electrical engineering. By stating a requirement in thermodynamics and fluid mechanics, chapter 1 and 5 can be reduced considerably and more focus can be applied at chapter 3, 4 and 6. Enthalpy rise in a heated channel is most important in chapter 5.»
- The goals thats tested at the exam.»
- The tutorials. »
- -»
- A lot less emphasis on memorizing equations and derivations, and more emphasis on qualitative descriptions of different phenomena and/or calculations The first or last chapter (especially the first), which are somewhat separate from the rest, could be moved to the introduction to nuclear reactors course, since there is a lot of space to fill in that course. If Christophe feels that Anders won"t do the chapter justice, he could be a guest lecturer in that course for that chapter. This would also reduce the work load in the Physics of... course.»
- Nothing bad I think.»

20. Difficulty of the course

How easy/difficult did you find the different chapters?

Matrisfråga

Chapter 1
16 svarande

Too easy»2 12%
Rather easy»9 56%
Adequate»3 18%
Rather difficult»1 6%
Very difficult»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.37

Chapter 2
16 svarande

Too easy»3 18%
Rather easy»6 37%
Adequate»5 31%
Rather difficult»1 6%
Very difficult»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.43

Chapter 3
16 svarande

Too easy»0 0%
Rather easy»0 0%
Adequate»6 37%
Rather difficult»7 43%
Very difficult»3 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.81

Chapter 4
16 svarande

Too easy»0 0%
Rather easy»0 0%
Adequate»5 31%
Rather difficult»8 50%
Very difficult»3 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.87

Chapter 5
16 svarande

Too easy»0 0%
Rather easy»0 0%
Adequate»4 25%
Rather difficult»9 56%
Very difficult»3 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.93

Chapter 6
16 svarande

Too easy»0 0%
Rather easy»0 0%
Adequate»4 25%
Rather difficult»8 50%
Very difficult»4 25%

Genomsnitt: 4

Chapter 7
16 svarande

Too easy»0 0%
Rather easy»2 12%
Adequate»7 43%
Rather difficult»5 31%
Very difficult»2 12%

Genomsnitt: 3.43

21. Possible change of the course contents

Do you think the following chapters should be part of a course dealing with the physics of nuclear reactors (suggestions for additional topics can be given as comments)?

Matrisfråga

- It would in my opinion be better if the course was divided into two separate courses. One dealing solely with the neutronics and one solely on the thermal hydraulics. That way one can put bigger focus on the fields and one could study them more thoroughly. Also the part with thermodynamics could be moved to the introduction to nuclear reactors course, that way that course will get some more substance.»
- The 2 first could be in the introduction course.»
- One possible thing to change is to move the thermodyncamis chapter and chapter 2 to the introduciton course. On that way one would be more prepared for this course and the structure of this course. »
- chapter 1 and 2 could be in the introduction course since this is a rdicilously easy course.»
- Instead of chapter 1 maybe a short memory refresher on the mathematics (fourier methods) behind following chapters.»

Chapter 1
15 svarande

Yes»8 53%
No»7 46%

Genomsnitt: 1.46

Chapter 2
15 svarande

Yes»9 60%
No»6 40%

Genomsnitt: 1.4

Chapter 3
15 svarande

Yes»12 80%
No»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 1.2

Chapter 4
15 svarande

Yes»12 80%
No»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 1.2

Chapter 5
15 svarande

Yes»12 80%
No»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 1.2

Chapter 6
15 svarande

Yes»12 80%
No»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 1.2

Chapter 7
15 svarande

Yes»12 80%
No»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 1.2

22. Additional comments

- "Forcing" students to derive reactor solutions for the six reactor cases in chapter 3 was a very good idea. Christophe should mention his special formula for calculating final grade in the beginning of the course so students don"t think that it is 5 points but rather 3.»
- The course is too theoretical. Just rembering equations without understanding them is not the best way to learn i think. It should perhaps have been better with a second home excersice on the later chapters, the first one was very good»

Kursutvärderingssystem från