Visa resultat

KBT135 - Waste Management 2011, KBT135

1. Course material/textbook

37 svarande

Yes»		10		27%
No»		27		72%

Genomsnitt: 1.72

- If you miss some lectures, the information from the slides are not always sufficient to make the questions, and sometimes even hard to understand. Better slides and it will be ok.» (Yes)
- I think there has to be at least a course compendium if the exam questions are going to be about something that is not on the slides.» (Yes)
- I think this course need a coursebook, or a compendium, mayby a compendium with some texts and the slides used in the course! » (Yes)
- Because the slides really don"t explain enough, sometimes it"s so summed up that it is incomprehensible» (Yes)
- It will be good if there is a text book that we can refer.» (Yes)
- If there is a special text book available, students will understand each concept in more detail.» (Yes)
- sometimes the lectures and lecture notes are difficult to understand. important to have somewhere else to turn, rather than having to search for it yourself on the internet. » (Yes)
- I prefere it just to have the slides from the lecture and to make notes during the lecture!!!» (No)
- maybe recommend some relevant reading materials » (No)
- It would be good if each lecturer could give a hint where the student in need for more information or some background knowledge could find this» (No)
- No but if it would be possible to make a course compendium, that would be an advantage» (No)
- But more links to articles would be nice.» (No)
- It´,s not to bad that there is no book but if you miss a class it´,s hard to gain the knowledge afterwards. Some lecture handouts are very hard to understand if you missed the class» (No)
- For students that are interested in further reading: the teacher can give some recommendations of books/articles/websites in the end of the lectures.» (No)

2. Several different lecturers were involved in the course. Do you think it is an advantage or a disadvantage if many different specialists are involved in a course? Please motivate!

Advantage»		31		83%
Disadvantage»		6		16%

Genomsnitt: 1.16

- Because you get the subject from different fews (University, Infustry,...) Its more interesting to have several teacher.» (Advantage)
- good to see different views....» (Advantage)
- They are entustiastic» (Advantage)
- it depends. as some specialists may not good at teaching, so the lecture may not interesting. » (Advantage)
- It is an advantage to have people that really know there subject and some change make the lectures more fun. The disadvantage is that not all lecturers seem to be aware of the different backgrounds of the students and as a consequence go too much into details that are not possible to follow if you don´,t have the background the lecturer thinks.» (Advantage)
- I thought it was nice to hear from people working with and specializing in different fields of waste management» (Advantage)
- But the different lectures have to be on the same level, and in this course I don"t think it fits to go too deep into different material. For example in the biodegradability lectures I did not think it was fitting to have those calculation exercises, at least not as an exam question. » (Advantage)
- different points of view and different way to teach» (Advantage)
- different Lectures, differet jokes. Also this course includes a wide range of areas discussed, so with more lecturers ( specilized in those areas) the lectures are more fullfilling.» (Advantage)
- Everyone is very good at their subject which is good» (Advantage)
- we can get different point of view about waste because even scientists do not fully agreed about the best way to follow» (Advantage)
- To be able to obtain knowledge and information from other fields that is relevant to waste management » (Advantage)
- There are different points of view which is really important in this kind of subject because a lot of changes are to be expected. Nevertheless, there is sometimes some repetitions and the specialists could check the content of the others" lectures before.» (Advantage)
- We will probably have to communicate with experts of some sorts as engineers, try to understand their field from now is a relevant training as well.» (Advantage)
- So you get to know a lot of different views on a topic. But a disadvantage is that the quality of the lectures is different.» (Advantage)
- Great to get access to deep knowledge and hear about some sharp experiences from those.» (Advantage)
- Different lecturers have different specialization, so it is good since "waste" have a broad scope, so each lecturers can explain more on their expertise.» (Advantage)
- Sometimes different teachers got different point of view and some data can change from one course to another... maybe it would be good to have a more homogeneous course.» (Disadvantage)
- They have often not a clue about what we know -> some of the lectures are very basic and thus boring. » (Disadvantage)
- Several times the teachers talk about same thing, I can"t rememb how many of them that descirbe the boiler and it"s components, difficult for each teacher to know what the other teachers described to the students before.» (Disadvantage)
- The content becomes so "basic" that I dispute it"s advanced level.» (Disadvantage)
- better to a few teachers » (Disadvantage)

3. Should additional teaching/learning activities be included?

36 svarande

Yes»		6		16%
No»		30		83%

Genomsnitt: 1.83

- since u include it on the exam, 10/50 points even... kind of silly to not have any example sessions except some random lecture very few attended to...» (Yes)
- If the bioreactor-part and calculation is going to make up such a big part on the exam, it would have been good with some kind of tutorial lecture on that part or at least more examples with solutions available so that the students could practise.» (Yes)
- Tutorial lectures would have been good» (Yes)
- I do not think they will contribute to pass the exam.» (No)
- It would mean to cut into the number of lectures, which is not desirable. » (No)
- But I would like to have the option to do more than one study visit because they all sound interessting.» (No)

4. Lecture: Introduction to waste management and to the projects (Christian Ekberg)

34 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		1		2%
3»		12		35%
4»		11		32%
5»		10		29%

Genomsnitt: 3.88 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I couldn"t attend this one» (?)
- Interesting content but the way the course was presented made me think about dropping out since ChE really made a big thing about his rudeness and how he didn´,t like to have comments about it. » (3)
- strong swedisch accent» (3)
- quite interesting» (5)

5. Lecture: Ashes: Composition, treatment and use/or disposal (Britt-Marie Steenari)

33 svarande

1»		1		3%
2»		1		3%
3»		13		39%
4»		11		33%
5»		7		21%

Genomsnitt: 3.66 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- No idea, was not there!» (?)
- more enthusiusm please! it was hard to follow» (1)
- The lecturer was really good at explaining her subject and you got the feeling that she really was an expert. Relevant subject as well» (4)
- The handouts were good» (4)

6. Lectures: Waste flows in society: amounts and composition (Magdalena Svanström)

35 svarande

1»		1		2%
2»		1		2%
3»		3		8%
4»		10		28%
5»		20		57%

Genomsnitt: 4.34 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I think it was to much diagrams that only had one purpose and that was to highlight some thing. For example householdwaste compered to waste rock, offcourse waste rock will be hugh! » (1)
- Waaay to much numbers and I do not always agree with her definitions. I dispute her "methods": she did produce 30kg waste, but then all the "waste" that was carried to the återvinningen wasn"t accounted for. » (2)
- Better then her usual lecture, this seems real.» (4)
- you see she lives for her topic» (5)

7. Lecture: Waste flows in society: management strategies (Magdalena Svanström)

35 svarande

1»		1		2%
2»		1		2%
3»		4		11%
4»		11		31%
5»		18		51%

Genomsnitt: 4.25 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Same as question 6» (1)
- Waaay to much numbers and I do not always agree with her definitions. » (2)

8. Lecture: Hydrothermal waste treatment methods (Magdalena Svanström)

35 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		2		5%
3»		5		14%
4»		17		48%
5»		11		31%

Genomsnitt: 4.05 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Relevant subject. Good pedagogic skills.» (4)
- clear and good lecutre notes» (4)

9. Lecture: Recycling of plastics (Ignacy Jakubowicz)

34 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		2		5%
3»		13		38%
4»		13		38%
5»		6		17%

Genomsnitt: 3.67 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The fisrt half was way to basic... » (2)
- To much slides that say not this much» (3)
- Relevant subject. Good lecturer that knew what he was talking about. The number of slides could perhaps be decreased. Better to have time to talk more about fewer than to race through this thick bundle» (3)
- The handouts were a little hard to follow» (3)
- Too much slides. Its realy kind to print the slides fore everyone and it should be continued with this but please dont print one slide per page also if the lecture is about recycling of plastic and not paper ... the lecture is waste management! Beside it is realy hard to read one slide per page 3 or 4 per page are ok.» (3)

10. Lecture: Recycling of metals (Christian Ekberg)

35 svarande

1»		2		5%
2»		0		0%
3»		14		40%
4»		13		37%
5»		6		17%

Genomsnitt: 3.6 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Interesting subject. Good lecturer.» (3)
- I didn´,t attend this lecture, therefore I put 3...» (3)

11. Lecture: Principles of bioremediation (Claes Niklasson)

35 svarande

1»		3		8%
2»		3		8%
3»		8		22%
4»		16		45%
5»		5		14%

Genomsnitt: 3.48 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- This teacher is very bad, the explications are not clear, the board is difficult to read, and the exercises are poorly explained. I was totally unable to do the bioremediation exercises after his lectures.» (1)
- It was difficult to understand it, and I think the problem was that he wanted to include to much stuff. The tiem used for calculation description was to short, and the exam was asking for that knowledge.» (1)
- I can see the relevance of this as a treatment option but I wonder whether the focus could be different to make it possible for all students to follow.» (3)
- interesting and a good speed» (5)

12. Lecture: Material balances for biological methods of handling waste (Claes Niklasson)

35 svarande

1»		4		11%
2»		3		8%
3»		10		28%
4»		11		31%
5»		7		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.4 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- -"-» (1)
- Does this really belong to the Waste management course? I find it to detailed and to brief at the same time. The knowledge the students get, is not good enough to use. The interested students can take other courses and really know how to make material balances. » (2)
- More tutorial is needed for the calculation part» (3)
- Good to get all the basics that we didn"t got in the Adv. sep. tech. » (4)

13. Lecture: Sludge treatment (Britt-Marie Wilén)

34 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		1		2%
3»		9		26%
4»		12		35%
5»		12		35%

Genomsnitt: 4.02 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I don´,t remember this lecture so it can´,t have been too bad nor too good.» (3)

14. Lecture: Thermal waste treatment methods (Christer Forsgren)

34 svarande

1»		1		2%
2»		2		5%
3»		14		41%
4»		11		32%
5»		6		17%

Genomsnitt: 3.55 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Very bad lecture, explications are not clear when you don"t have a background in this topic.» (1)
- There was not enough information on the slides» (2)
- We are good at incineration, not the rest, the slides did not work to study to the exam. » (3)
- Relevant subject but the lecturer seemed unaware about the different backgrounds of the students. He was surely very competent but used abbreviations without explaining what it was. The focus on the lecture seemed to be to show as many picture on different boilers as possible. Not so interesting for all students.» (3)
- The lecture was good but the handouts were not that good» (3)
- The lecture was good but the notes were not easy to follow.» (3)
- Please more slides with information otherwise it is hard to study for the exam without material and only the mind map» (3)

15. Lecture: Handling of radioactive waste (Christian Ekberg)

33 svarande

1»		1		3%
2»		2		6%
3»		4		12%
4»		18		54%
5»		8		24%

Genomsnitt: 3.9 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Missed the lecture, was very hard to understand the slides because of that, even headings were missing (like the swedish-finnish model)» (?)
- Relevant subject but with no or very little knowledge about nuclear power, it was not possible to understand everything. And under the circumstances (a couple of students really interested in nuclear) it wasn´,t an atmosphere that invited to questions. Some complementary material for students not so familiar with the subject could help.» (2)
- I did not understand the point of his question at the exam according to the course. Link with waste?? » (3)
- Maybe too fast, but without any background it must have been difficult to understand everything.» (4)
- Very interesting subject, but I think it was difficult to understand what happend in the reprocessing/recycling processes, and how the waste was affected.» (4)

16. Lecture: Modelling and simple optimization of biological treatment systems (Claes Niklasson)

33 svarande

1»		3		9%
2»		4		12%
3»		10		30%
4»		11		33%
5»		5		15%

Genomsnitt: 3.33 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Same as before» (1)
- Too difficult and I don´,t see the relevance. Do we really have to know how to make these calculations ourselves (which I don´,t think we do, not even after this course)? Shouldn´,t it be enough that we know that someone else can calculate such things? If you insist about keeping the calculations in the course, then more exercises with solutions would be good so that the students have the possibility to practise.» (2)
- maybee nice for non chemical background. but not for me.» (2)
- More tutorial» (3)

17. Study visit: Lillesjöverket, Uddevalla

25 svarande

1»		1		4%
2»		0		0%
3»		4		16%
4»		6		24%
5»		14		56%

Genomsnitt: 4.28 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- not done» (?)
- N/A» (1)
- It"s a pity that it was too noisy that we couldn"t ear everything» (3)
- did not do it» (3)
- It was really interessting and I was really pleased with my choice going to udevalla!! Such trips are very important for me to get the connenction beween theory and reality.» (5)

18. Study visit: Sobacken, Borås

15 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		2		13%
4»		7		46%
5»		6		40%

Genomsnitt: 4.26 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Interesting to see some waste management in reality but to go all the way to Borås seems a bit far. Doesn´,t we have waste in Gothenburg?» (3)
- not bad, felt like a giving session.» (4)

19. Study visit: Ryaverket, Borås

18 svarande

1»		1		5%
2»		0		0%
3»		2		11%
4»		9		50%
5»		6		33%

Genomsnitt: 4.05 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- not done» (?)
- N/A» (1)
- did not do it» (3)
- Have seen a lot like this before, but all together it was impressive, didn"t learn very much.» (4)
- the guide was not really good, had difficulties to speak...» (4)

20. The project

37 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		3		8%
4»		14		37%
5»		20		54%

Genomsnitt: 4.45 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- not really and completely useless for the final exam (ceramic waste)» (3)
- Acctuly kinda good, you got some new insights to different problems in the waste...» (4)
- they were indeed, though the outcome can be discussed...» (4)
- The topic was interessting but the comunication with the superviser was unclear and in general the introduction in the project was unclear a long time we have been unsure what this is all about and what to do» (4)

21. Project group size

37 svarande

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

2»		5		13%
3»		19		51%
4»		27		72%
5»		7		18%
6»		0		0%
7»		0		0%
8»		0		0%
9»		0		0%
10»		0		0%

- I was really pleased with the size of group» (4)
- I think 4 for a project of this size works well. Three would also be good. A bigger group would make it difficult to divide the work so that everyone does something and a group of less (2) would mean more work than the points offered are worth.» (3, 4)
- But to see 30 group precentations would be horriable. » (2, 3, 4)
- if there are too many people, there are always the workers and the ones who benefit from other"s job...» (3, 4, 5)
- Exceeding 3 members, more time is spent on splitting the work than on doing the actual job.» (3)

22. Project bonus

36 svarande

Yes»		33		91%
No»		3		8%

Genomsnitt: 1.08

- But in my opinion it could give more point. 6 points are to less for that amount of work.» (Yes)
- It"s good if they are corrected and you somehow find out how many extra points you get before the exam (I still don"t know)» (Yes)
- why not, you put effort into it, and you learn more from a project then a by heart based exam.» (Yes)
- If the project is mandatory, it is always good to get something for it. It also makes you do a better work. But, a bonus from the project could also be very unfair since it party depends on the supervision you get. I know from my own experience in this course that it is perfectly possible to make a good project even without supervision but it might help to have some. It would also be nice to get some kind of feed-back after the project explaining why a certain project got that many bonus-points and so on. Perhaps you give 6 points to everyone and the talk about "up to 6 bonus points" is just something you fool us poor students with. Some kind of tranparency would increase the credibility.» (Yes)
- But I think it is important for the students to know how the grade is made, what should be included to get X bonus points and so on. it wa shatrd do dont know what should be included and whats enough.» (Yes)
- i think that the system of bonus points is really good because it is nice to be rewarded if we have made a good project work but if the work had not be sufficient because of, for example the other members of the group, it is appreciable that it does not remove points to the final grading» (Yes)
- it should give more than 6 points to the final exam because we spent a lot of time doing it» (Yes)
- Thats a nice system to have the possability to increase the final grade. Because it is a lot of work to do the project. But for presenting the project it would be better if everyone or two people from the group present it so everyone can train presentation skills.» (Yes)
- give more credit for a well accomplished projects» (Yes)
- No but the quallity is better with yes.» (No)

23. Course administration

36 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		13		36%
4»		14		38%
5»		9		25%

Genomsnitt: 3.88 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- You can´,t expect that everyone reads mail all the time. Please inform about lectures not taking place earlier than the night before. To come to Chalmers at eight o´,clock on a monday morning and understand that you could have stayed home sleeping, isn´,t very nice. Other things worked rather well. I thougth the normal thing was to send out course evaluation more close to the course and the exam, but better late than never.» (3)
- Cancelled lectures in the last second was easy to miss since the mail came late the night before morning lectures» (3)

24. Exam

36 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		2		5%
3»		13		36%
4»		16		44%
5»		5		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.66 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The problem is that the questions asked things that where not always written in the slides!» (2)
- Way to much numbers, if i need them, i google them. The exam doesn"t really test the way of thinking.» (3)
- It reflected the lectures but the question is whether the lectures reflected the course description. Is the calculation on bio-reactors so important in a waste management course» (3)
- The questions are mainly on specific details, it"s not good. » (3)
- Nice, it covered all subjects.» (3)
- Question 5 is a little bit difficult students except chemical engineering field. But that part is quite useful.» (4)
- I thought the exam reflected the course quite well, however, I would have liked the calculation example to count for fewer points, at least from my point of view, I thought this part of the course was the least useful and didn"t really fit in with the other course material» (4)
- It was not fitting to have a biodegrade question weighing so much, because the Claes Niklasson had said that if he would have this kind of example on the exam it would be very simple. I understood all the examples he had done in the lectures, but the exam question was too different, because we had not opportunity to practice calculating different examples! » (4)
- I think that some questions were too specific and the exercice (marked 10points) did not reflect what had been seen in class. Moreover I think it is better to have several questions for each topic.» (4)

25. Comments/suggestions in general

- The course definitely increased my interest at this subject!!»
- decide a path, either more or less chemistry and more or less sustainable discussions.»
- .»
- The supervision my project group had, was nonexistent. The supervisor didn´,t seem to understand was he was supposed to do and ha obviously didn´,t prioritize this project. Please make sure that the supervisors involved know what they are supposed to do (what kind of feed-back on the report, the general gudielines for the project for example in what order the report should be approved by supervisor and send to examiner), got time for supervising (not disappear on vacation) and are motivated and perhaps even motivating. A course good for general knowledge about waste treatment but not really what I expected since the general role wasn´,t visible in all lectures. Make sure that all the involved lecturers know that the students have different backgrounds so that either lectures couls be adapted to this, or extra material provided for those not knowing as much as the rest in a particular subject.»
- It is a very bad idea that only one person present the project. It is a team work, so the whole team should present its work, not only one random member. In addition, a member of my group did absolutely nothing, so if he was choosen the presentation would have been awful, does the presentation affect the project grade? I hope not...»
- Regarding the final presentation of projects: I think it would be great if each group know (in advance) who should present the work! Because the work is a group work in which everyone attempt to do his/her best. it shouldn"t be destroyed with a non-professional presentation skill. I think the most important part of the project is when you demonstarte the results. So my suggestion is you think for other ways of identifying the presentor! Thanks»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.86