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.

V12 - Mechatronic design, SSY155

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-03-08 - 2013-08-20
Antal svar: 14
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 56%
Kontaktperson: Marie Iwanow»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers: masterskurs
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Övriga studenter

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.

14 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»0 0%
Around 20 hours/week»5 35%
Around 25 hours/week»4 28%
Around 30 hours/week»3 21%
At least 35 hours/week»2 14%

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- Assignments. Assignments. Assignments. 8 Assignments in this course and 3 of equal workload in the other course.» (Around 30 hours/week)
- Loads of work with the hand-ins» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

14 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»8 57%
100%»6 42%

Genomsnitt: 4.42

- No excercise sessions due to collisions with other courses» (75%)
- I missed the first week because a started in a different course and then changed courses. I also missed one or two computer exercises.» (75%)
- I skipped some of the exercise sessions» (75%)

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?

14 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»2 14%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»6 42%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»6 42%

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- None were presented in the course memo.» (I have not seen/read the goals)
- I have seen them but do not remember exactly, or rather, not at all» (I have not seen/read the goals)

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»1 7%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»13 92%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.92

- No goals presented.» (No, the goals are set too low)

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

14 svarande

No, not at all»1 7%
To some extent»9 64%
Yes, definitely»4 28%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.21

- No goals presented during the course. It is worth noting that 40% of the exam (20p, two out of 5 questions) related to ONE lecture (Describing function), nothing on the exam covered the first 3 weeks ( Motor selection etc ). This seems out of proportion.» (No, not at all)
- We have spent a lot of time in this course on dc-motors, optimizing gears and motors etc. This part was completely excluded in the exam and instead there was questions on topics that has been covered much less and actually very vaguely. I don"t find that as a suitable layout of the exam. It"s of course okey to include all topics but excluding the one that we have maybe spent the most time on is not acceptable.» (To some extent)
- Nothing about motors» (To some extent)
- Exam"s difficulty this year surpasses the difficulty level of previous exams by far in my opinion. I find it strange why there were 2 difficult questions from the same area (Describing functions) but none from the area "DC-motors and gear choice optimization".» (Yes, definitely)

Course content

The present shape of the course covers a number of topics all relevant in mechatronic design but somewhat disconnected from each other.

6. Any part which feels unnecessary?

- Although the parts on trajectory planning, computer vision and fault detection feels relevant it seems that the small coverage of the topics doesnt give anything, to small time for topics that by them selves could have been complete courses. The hand in assignment in fault detection feels completely unnessecarry, and to large. Especially since it is obvious that it is taken from a Course at linköping and awarded 1.5 hec. there. To have that as a two hour lab with only two lectures on the topic as preparation seems a bit to much.»
- The image part was only mention briefly in the las lecture. Since it was such a small part it could have been skipped.»
- Using the matlab software for servo dimensioning felt very unnecessary. While servo dimensioning felt very relevant and the lectures were good, the software used was very bad and did not have any educational value while it also felt like the experience with this software would not help me in my future as a professional.»
- No»
- servo dim exercise. learning to use that software and the assignment felt like a waist of time. it did not teach me a lot.»
- servodim, fault detection. at least in the way they were handled this year.»
- computer vision »
- 50% of the assignments. Especially the part of them involving lab things that actually doesn"t work properly. As a side note... The computers in the lab need a better processor and more RAM.»

7. Any part which should be covered more in depth?

- actuators and sensors, and th design and choice of these. »
- Fault detection was very interesting and certainly seemed good to learn but maybe it should be given some more time to be help full and maybe in another course even.»
- Not by introducing more content to the powerpoint slides, but well structured assignments for the Path planning, trajectory and computer vision would be interesting.»
- Computer vision should either be excluded or spent more time on. I don"t find it acceptable to only spend that little time on it and then let 20% of the exam cover this area.»
- No»
- not that I can think of»

Teaching and course administration

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

14 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»5 35%
Large extent»7 50%
Great extent»2 14%

Genomsnitt: 2.78

- Due to the many topics covered in the course the lectures seemed very disconnected from each other. » (Some extent)
- It doesn"t help when you don"t have time to study because » (Some extent)
- Falcone is good» (Large extent)

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

14 svarande

Small extent»6 42%
Some extent»5 35%
Large extent»1 7%
Great extent»2 14%

Genomsnitt: 1.92

- none, except the parts on describing functions and motor selection» (Small extent)
- The textbook was not so good. There are for sure better options in the market. The book is loaded with errors.» (Some extent)

10. Would it be better to buy one (maybe expensive) course book than to use several free internet books?

14 svarande

Yes»4 33%
No»8 66%
No opinion»2

Genomsnitt: 1.66

- definately, if it was used to a large extent.» (Yes)
- The distribution of material through chalmers student portal has not worked well mainly because of chalmers IT systems malfunctionen very much to often.» (Yes)
- Sometimes. Alot of printing to get all the material.» (Yes)
- If there is a book that fits the course then it would be better. But I liked when there was material from different sources.» (No)
- although it would be better if the studying material was more compact. there were lots of different papers for almost the same topic. » (No)
- i like the articles. they explained the topics well and i don"t think a textbook would do the same job that well.» (No)
- If the quality of the free material is close to that of the textbook, then it is advisable, but when there are TOO MANY references and some of them are not really helpful, it slows down the learning process and disappoints the students. » (No opinion)
- Both have their pros and cons» (No opinion)

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

14 svarande

Very badly»1 7%
Rather badly»4 28%
Rather well»6 42%
Very well»3 21%

Genomsnitt: 2.78

- Need a file system when handing in assignments. » (Very badly)
- no news posted at the webpage, unclear and changing deadlines for handins, extremely long time before retrieving corrected hand ins. AS of today ( two days after the exam ) only 4 out of seven has been returned. It is really hard to know if you have followed completely erronous lines of thought. Further, the information regarding the labs have been really bad, for example it was not stated that you could not use the PID block in simulink for regulator design, since the computer in the lab room used a older version of MATLAB. this made the whole point of doing the lab hard to get (comparison between model and plant). Also some details regarding the plant simulator (the special gain that was needed) was only given oraly, to some persons, by the TA at the lab, and concequently unnessecary misstakes were made.» (Rather badly)
- Ping pong is alot worse than the old web. Also ping pong doesn"t allow insight to the course before being registered and the course have started, that is one of many problems. Also this is the second course where I"v had to use dymola and it is the second time that problem with licenses and more with dymola has delayed my work. I like dymola, I think it has greate relevance to my education and I wan"t to learn it but it has caused to many problems. There has also been problems with the network at chalmers during this course which have cost me alot of time. I blame IT services for many difficulties I had during this course.» (Rather badly)
- No administration system for the assignments makes it hard to keep track of all the uploaded files and notice response from TA regarding the assignment. Also, communication about general info like software flaws (Dymola-MatLAB communication crashes frequently) and lab sessions would also be nice.» (Rather badly)
- the web page could have been more frequently updated» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

14 svarande

Very poor»1 7%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»8 57%
Very good»5 35%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.21

- The assignments were hard and we could not ask the teaching assistent since the consultation time was to close to the dead line and if we sent emails we didn"t recive any answer» (Very poor)
- But, it would be nie if solutions to all excercises could be posted on the web, or made avaliable for purchase.» (Rather good)
- It was hard to get help with so many students but TA:s have been very helpful and understanding when ever they have time.» (Rather good)
- Problem Solving Session felt somewhat "chaotic" at some times, a clear and structured problem solving session would cover the more detailed aspects of the course. I don"t understand why there wasn"t meant to be any problems solved at these sessions, but only for students to arrive and ask questions regarding tasks they are stuck with. General & well structured guidelines of how to solve a typical problem is very appreciated before trying to solve problems alone.» (Rather good)
- All credit to Azita.» (Very good)

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

14 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»1 7%
Rather well»4 28%
Very well»9 64%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.57

- The only way to get help on the assignments» (Very well)

14. How was the course workload?

14 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»2 14%
High»7 50%
Too high»5 35%

Genomsnitt: 4.21

- The course content was easy. The assignments took a lot of time.» (Adequate)
- To many hand ins. Would have been ok if all information was present and it was clear from day one what the course would cover. A clear recomendation is to skip, or remake the assignment in fault detection. It was too big.» (High)
- to many assignments, and they were not mentioned from the start. » (High)
- The workload was unnecessarily high, instead of focusing on just a few topics and get an in-depth knowledge, there was a deliberate effort to include AS MANY THINGs AS POSSIBLE.» (High)
- Too many assignments. No doubt.» (Too high)
- Too many assignments and/or too poor (instructions were sometimes not enough) PM documents for the assignments.» (Too high)
- It would have been easier if we would have been given all info correctly from the start.» (Too high)
- Assignments. Assignments. Assignments. 8 Assignments in this course. Consumed too much time.» (Too high)

15. How was the total workload this study period?

14 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»1 7%
High»9 64%
Too high»4 28%

Genomsnitt: 4.21

- Assignments. Assignments. Assignments. 8 Assignments in this course and 3 of equal workload in the other course. That is, 11 in total. I didn"t have time to study for the exam until the saturday before the exam week and that"s not ok at all.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

16. What is your general impression of the course?

14 svarande

Poor»1 7%
Fair»4 28%
Adequate»6 42%
Good»3 21%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.78 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The course felt at some places unprepared and ill planed. Really bad that the course goals are not made clear in the beginning.» (Poor)
- It felt like the course was put together in a hurry. » (Fair)
- the information about assignments has been really bad. the TA should hold a briefing for all the class about what to do and things to think of. Now she just told those who asked, and it was easy to miss important stuff. » (Fair)
- The course could have been designed and presented much better. It was far below the other courses that I had taken since then, in terms of quality.» (Fair)
- The course included interesting and relevant topics but some times felt too disconnected. Assignments were too many and some times very poorly and hastily written. The parts using dymola could have benefited a lot from more time spent on dymola introductions and supervised exercises. The part about computer vision should probably be left out, there simply wasn"t enough time for it. One major issue was the LAB! The equipment simply wasn"t working at any time. The plant did strange things that the TA could not explain. The computers randomly shut down several times during the lab, causing measurements to be lost. Everything took like 50% more time at least because of the computers shutting down and having to investigate problems with the mechanics.» (Adequate)
- Could have been better if the assignments were better. That spoiled it a bit» (Adequate)
- Would possibly have been better if I would be given some free time to actually study.» (Adequate)
- About the exams the first two questions involved the same part of a topic.Although there were many exercises for the other parts of the topic, the one that has been asked in the exams was hardly mentioned in the exercise section. » (Good)

17. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Labs are good, if all information is availiable before hand.»
- The assignment 1-5. »
- modelling and simulation with both dymola and simulink, nonlinearities in mechatronics and control, path planning»
- the quest lecturers were nice.»
- motor-gearbox calculations, »
- Pathplanning»
- Azita was really helpful, Nicolc was ok. Guest lectures were nice.» (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

18. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Redo lectures to a more coherent whole, remove maybe the lectures on computer vision and trajectory planning.»
- The servoDim assignment and the fault detection assignment. They where poorly written and the Matlab program was buggy. The voluntary path and trajectory assignment could have been mandatory since it was an interesting assignment.»
- The lab needs to work. It was a catastrofy this year. servo dimensioning could do good from using software a little bit more probable to encounter in the industry. Over all assignments need to get worked through more and the tools used need to be more reliable.»
- I believe in "learn by doing" when it comes to stuff like path planning, trajectory and computer vision. Path planning problem should be compulsory and structured in such a way, that it is not so hard to begin. For example, predefine a set of functions needed to solve the problem with required input data and output data. Trajectory planning should have a predefined code skeleton with self explanatory code and comments. Computer Vision assignment could be something about those white worms(or whatever the picture in powerpoint presentation resembles). Students could somehow try to find the centerpoints and the line which defines the orientation.»
- We spent much time on motors in the course. Where was the question on that on the exam? Instead there was two about backlash? If it is assignments with deadline week after week there is good to have feedback of it. I still only got feedback, and when I call that feebback I am very kind, of three of seven assigments. How should I know if I was absolutely wrong about something? This was very bad!»
- servo-dim! using a program that crashes really often, to play around and not really learning that much, is not worth it. Also, it is really bad that the fault detection was just copypasted from linköping, and it was not clear how much of it we should do. »
- The assignments»
- You need to design the course in way that different topics keep some relation to each other. There should be more integrity between the topics covered in the course. What is the relationship between "sensor technology" , path-planning, fault isolation, motor selection? too cluttered. »
- Assignments! Less and more essential -with working equipment-. Also update the code skeleton for the fault detection. It would be nice if you could actually use it when you get it, without needing to do 100 modifications to the pre-coded skeleton first. That assignment also need some update. It was said to "skip the tasks that has to do with fault isolation" but it wasn"t said which tasks these were.»

19. Additional comments

- To many hand ins. If there skuld been this many they have to be better written and explained.»
- The amount of exercises wasn"t enough and the variety was dull, specially the describing functions.»
- The comunication between the different responsible teachers was pretty bad. »
- Azita was very helpful. The course was interesting because it covered a wide range of topics.»
- Why are PM:s about the assignments handed out, if we should change some values and skip some parts (which weren"t given from start, but given when we bumped into problems)?»
- 1-More integrity in lecture materials please, and 2-please check the assignments before posting them on the course homepage, they are mostly vague, with a lot of errors, lacking key details, and disorganized.»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.78

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 2.78
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.44

Kursutvärderingssystem från