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.

MPWPS 1112-3 Fundamentals of photonics, MCC045

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-03-06 - 2012-03-21
Antal svar: 19
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 70%
Kontaktperson: Mattias Bingerud»

Read this before filling in the questionnaire

Keep in mind that everyone involved in the course will be able to read your comments. Comments and criticism are welcome, but should remain constructive.

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»5 26%
Around 25 hours/week»6 31%
Around 30 hours/week»4 21%
At least 35 hours/week»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.94

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

19 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»1 5%
50%»2 10%
75%»9 47%
100%»7 36%

Genomsnitt: 4.15

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»5 26%
The goals are difficult to understand»2 10%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»3 15%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»9 47%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

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.

14 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»3 21%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»11 78%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.78

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

14 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»7 50%
Yes, definitely»7 50%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

Teaching and course administration

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

19 svarande

Small extent»8 42%
Some extent»5 26%
Large extent»3 15%
Great extent»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.05

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»7 36%
Large extent»7 36%
Great extent»4 21%

Genomsnitt: 2.73

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

19 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»2 10%
Rather well»12 63%
Very well»5 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.15

- The lectures have been a little slow. Some things doesn"t have to be explained in several different ways. The tutorials haven"t been as good as they can be. I think they could be improved a lot by giving some directions to the tutor about how a good tutorial should be!» (Rather badly)
- There was some delay in the uploading of lec slides. » (Rather well)
- The administration was very well performed.» (Very well)

9. What is your impression of the lectures?

(i.e. level of difficulty, too much or too little overlap with previous course, teaching method, up-to-date material, inspiration and motivation for further studies, suggestion for changes etc.)

- Not good. You could studying the topic of one lecture in about an hour instead of wasting 2 hours if you went to the lecture»
- in Some level hard to follow»
- A bit slow. »
- good»
- no so good, no enough mathematic interpretation. »
- I didn"t really like the lectures during this course. Slides contain too much information, I have sometimes the feeling that the lecturer just discover the slides, all that make the lectures boring, whereas the topics are really interesting.»
- Already known things as scattering,maxwell were treated too much in detail whereby the laser description was rather bad explained.way of teaching was sometimes too close to the book and predictable, one might rather read some chapter from the book instead of following the lecture.»
- The lectures could have been held at a higher pace. I don"t want to be rude but sometimes it was a bit boring. He can try to learn it more by heart so it comes more natural rather than reading from the powerpoint.»
- TOO much overlap! I mean for a student following the program we have seen the wave-theory a couple of times and I guess most of us have dealt with it in the bachelor as well. I would like the course to dig deeper earlier on in the course.»
- too little»
- When johan had the lectures, he spoke in same tone level which made the most student sleepy. He was clear when he lectured us but the tone was too low. If he just varied the tone level, i think that more student would try to understand what he talked about. I think he is a great teacher. Sometimes small things makes big differences.»
- The lectures were on a to low level for me with a background in engineering physics.»
- lecturer is not as good as the numerical tutorial teacher.»
- The speed of the lectures was slow and about the first 2-3 weeks nothing new came up on the lectures, and that even for electrical engineering who doesn"t have any explicit optic course before. On the lectures it seemed that the teacher wasn"t prepared because it felt like he saw the slides for the first time and then just said the exact same thing that the slide said, which was huge contributer why it was so slow. »

10. What is your impression of the numerical tools?

(i.e. level of difficulty, too much or too little overlap with previous course, teaching method, up-to-date material, inspiration and motivation for further studies, suggestion for changes etc.)

- Very good »
- too much overlap with previous course»
- too much»
- quite good! teacher is also very responsible.»
- I really liked the numerical tutorials, even though it was quite demanding. This is really worth it I think. Probably one of the best part of the course.»
- quite comprehensive and time-consuming but really good introduction to relevant propagation methods and practical examples.»
- The numerical tutorials were excellent!»
- Good! Interesting subject! I really did enjoy to get a feeling how one can simulate light propagation!»
- very well»
- Jörgen had this thing that made students to envolve more in the numerical tutorials and "wake up". He made the most borings things to interesting stuff, that makes him a perfect teacher. HA4 was the most interesting hand in! »
- The numerical tutorials were good and interesting.»
- a little bit too much, but helpful»
- They were good, interesting.»

11. What is your impression of the exercises?

(i.e. level of difficulty, too much or too little overlap with previous course, teaching method, up-to-date material, inspiration and motivation for further studies, suggestion for changes etc.)

- Didn"t went to the excercises»
- a little difficult»
- Could be clearer in terms of theory. »
- good»
- it is ok.»
- Perhaps it would be good to go a little bit slower, at least good not to erase the solutions just after having given it.»
- too few explanations and close-minded approach to problems. But good answers of occasionally questions.»
- It was ok. A tip for next year is to explain the problems more in detail before starting to solve it and maybe have a discussion after the problem is solved. The problems can be solved in a slower pace also, since there was plenty of time. I think though that this will be better next year since it was his first time.»
- The tutor needs some direction about how he shold teach. I think that the way he uses now is unclear for the students! It would be better if he had some short repetition before the problems and then explain what the problems are about before starting. Then he also needs to explain what happens (both physically and mathematically) during the calculataion so that the students can get a more general understanding!»
- too boring»
- Well, here i think it wasn"t that good. When some students asked some exam questions, the exercise teacher didn"t have any clue. It"s acceptable sometimes but in this course, he actually didn"t solve in a pedagogic way, instead he solved more like: writing the things in his paper into the board. No explanation, No "why this is like this"... Last exercise, a exam should be solved but it wasn"t. He just said what formula was used . What i want from a exercise teacher is: Solving properly question and explaining. Not just saying this is this and that is that. I don"t think that he has been like this over the whole period. The last 2 weeks, he was like this.»
- The exercises were not good. The teacher should at least describe the problem before solving it, and explain the different equations used.»
- not so helpful»
- Quite good, little more explanation of the problems and the solutions could be needed.»

12. What is your impression of the laboratory exercise?

(i.e. level of difficulty, too much or too little overlap with previous course, teaching method, up-to-date material, inspiration and motivation for further studies, suggestion for changes etc.)

- Very good»
- quite good »
- Fun. »
- good!»
- good»
- good.»
- The lab was really interesting, well presented, and the fact that there is no lab report due is really appreciated.»
- interesting inview in practical optical examples»
- It was good!»
- Good, but it might be too similar to the previuos course Electromagnetic Waves and Componets!»
- nice»
- We made similar lab in the course Electromagnetic waves and components. Still i liked it. »
- Interesting and fun.»
- good»
- Good and very interesting»

13. What is your impression of the home assignments?

(i.e. level of difficulty, too much or too little overlap with previous course, teaching method, up-to-date material, inspiration and motivation for further studies, suggestion for changes etc.)

- hard »
- Very interesting. »
- less assignment would be better, 3 instead of 5!»
- so good»
- good, but the workload is too heavy. i think the material should give more instruction. »
- It was really demanding, maybe a bit too much, but it was definitely worth it.»
- see numerical tools»
- The home assignments were quite tough. It depends for sure if you read other courses with home assignments in them but these were really time consuming. A suggestion is maybe to have 4 HAs instead of 5 next year and spread them out a little bit more.»
- They were interesting. The took a lot of time though, but really worth keeping!»
- They are very challenged but you can feel a lot of self-fulfillment after finishing them.»
- Well, i think that all of them were very educational (matlab). But the workload was too heavy! Every week we had a hand in but there were heavy matlab simulations so it took a bit more than 20 hours for me to complete it. Jörgen understood us and reduced some workload, i respect that. I didn"t argue that much about this because he was helpful.»
- Very interesting and fun.»
- too much of them. three is better»
- It took up a huge part of the time, both from this course and the other course in this period. So I wasnt able to make so many excercises for both courses.»

14. What is your impression of the final exam?

(i.e. level of difficulty, too much or too little overlap with previous course, teaching method, up-to-date material, inspiration and motivation for further studies, suggestion for changes etc.)

- good »
- Balanced. »
- well-designed exam and was match with the goals»
- normal»
- it is ok»
- quite fair assessment due to theoretical questions and home assignment part. indeed, not useful to relate directly to course literature in an exam for example see lecture slide 8... it has to be said that lecture slides necessary instead of allowed»
- It was rather easy. I don"t know how well it went yet in my case but I would say that the exams" difficulty could have had a higher level.»
- It was fine, with the content of the course in mind.»
- The distribution is not fair. The lecture notes are the major parts for the learning but the question from the lecture note is much less. »
- I think it was okey, maybe many questions but basic. The difficulty was reasonable.»
- it"s ok»
- I found it quite easy, the whole first question could be taken from the lecture slides that we could bring. The hardest part was to remember som small things about the home assignments, especially for the one I didn"t do. But the exam reflected probably the difficulty of the course in general.»

Study climate

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

18 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»9 50%
Very good»7 38%
I did not seek help»2 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

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

18 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»1 5%
Rather well»6 33%
Very well»10 55%
I did not seek cooperation»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

17. How was the course workload?

18 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»4 22%
High»10 55%
Too high»4 22%

Genomsnitt: 4

18. How was the total workload this study period?

18 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»4 22%
High»9 50%
Too high»5 27%

Genomsnitt: 4.05

Summarizing questions

19. What is your general impression of the course?

18 svarande

Poor»1 5%
Fair»6 33%
Adequate»5 27%
Good»5 27%
Excellent»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.94

20. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The numerical excercises»
- Home assign. but with bonus points. »
- numerical homeassignment»
- the numerical tutorials and the home assignments.»
- home assignments»
- The home assignments (but a bit changed) and the lab.»
- Numerical tutorials, maybe some change in the amount of assignments (or time to do each).»
- numerical tutorial»
- Hand in and the numerical tutorials»
- The numerical tutorials and the home assignments.»
- lab»
- The numerical tutorials was good and the home assigments was quite intresting but it was to much work. Lab was good.»

21. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Not such heavy workload on the numerical excercises and you should get credits for them if it is this kind of workload.»
- the teacher"s lecture style. we need more mathematic explanation and examples»
- maybe the slides should contain less information. Maybe try to find a way to make the lecture a bit more attractive and dynamic.»
- weak point was the lecture»
- Faster pace on lectures.»
- Tutorials need to get better! They need to be more pedagogical! The content of the course could really be deeper. It is a course mainly for the masterprogram and after 6 month of studies! It feels to easy. (note: comment not rellevant for numerical tutorials)»
- excises and lectures. Maybe finding another teacher with much teaching skill is the better choice.»
- How exercises is handled and reduce some workload when it comes to the Jörgens part»
- The exercises.»
- workload»
- The speed of the lectures.»

22. Additional comments

- It is a problem that the students have so different knowledge background. The overlaps quite much with the engineering physics optics course.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från