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.

Computational fluid dynamics for chemical engineers, KKR072, sp 4 2012

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-05-14 - 2012-06-03
Antal svar: 19
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 51%
Kontaktperson: Inga-Lena Hagelin»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Kemiteknik med 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»1 5%
Around 20 hours/week»3 15%
Around 25 hours/week»6 31%
Around 30 hours/week»3 15%
At least 35 hours/week»6 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

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

19 svarande

0%»1 5%
25%»1 5%
50%»1 5%
75%»6 31%
100%»10 52%

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»6 31%
The goals are difficult to understand»1 5%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»3 15%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»9 47%

Genomsnitt: 2.78

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.

15 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»14 93%
No, the goals are set too high»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

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

15 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»5 33%
Yes, definitely»8 53%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

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»6 31%
Large extent»4 21%
Great extent»8 42%

Genomsnitt: 3

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»1 5%
Large extent»7 36%
Great extent»10 52%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

8. What part of the book was most difficult to understand

19 svarande

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

Chapter 3: Numerics»5 26%
Chapter 4: Trubulence»1 5%
Chapter 5: Mixing»11 57%
Chapter 6: Multiphase flow»1 5%
None»2 10%

- in turbulence only standard k-e model is described good the other models need more theory to understand why these are good. In multiphase alot of assumptions is missing for euler-euler models. » (Chapter 4: Trubulence, Chapter 6: Multiphase flow)
- Make fewer subtasks in tutorial 2 and a part where you with matlab construct the PDF. I think this will make it more understandible.» (Chapter 5: Mixing)
- I miss a list of variables, i mean if you miss what epsilon or <N> denotes, it is nearly impossible to find it out. Also I think it focus in many areas to much on closures, the course is not about solving the equations in details, it is about the general approach!» (None)
- Dålig bok, den borde ses över. Helst borde man byta kurslitteratur då den verkligen inte ger någonting när man försöker göra simuleringar.» (Chapter 3: Numerics)

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

19 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»4 21%
Rather well»10 52%
Very well»5 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

Study climate

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

19 svarande

Very poor»1 5%
Rather poor»2 10%
Rather good»6 31%
Very good»10 52%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

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

19 svarande

Very poorly»1 5%
Rather poorly»3 15%
Rather well»0 0%
Very well»14 73%
I did not seek cooperation»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.57

12. How was the course workload?

19 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»3 15%
High»11 57%
Too high»5 26%

Genomsnitt: 4.1

13. How was the total workload this study period?

19 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»3 15%
High»9 47%
Too high»7 36%

Genomsnitt: 4.21

Summarizing questions

14. What is your general impression of the course?

19 svarande

Poor»1 5%
Fair»2 10%
Adequate»1 5%
Good»6 31%
Excellent»9 47%

Genomsnitt: 4.05 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

15. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The tutorials and project should cover the same areas as this year.»
- Farideh and Mohammad»
- The tutorials and the project were relevant and I learned a lot from all of them. The supervisors were great and very supporting. Having the written exam early on in the course was good. »
- The tutorials and project.»
- The tutorials and project are really good.»
- tutorials and the project. but in the project there could be some different approaches to study different areas, to include all areas would require more time. »
- keeping prof Bengt Andersson in the department for ever and as the examiner in charge of the course»
- project»
- The plan of the course with a big project and the exam at the middle »
- The mix of tutorials, examinations, lectures... The work load, I actually but in close to 200h (about 170-180h) in this course. This is the first course on master level that I am actually close to this goal. People that screaming that it was to much to do cannot count. I mean if you put in 200h in just 6 weeks (where you do not study the first 1-2 weeks) it of course will be tough since we talk about full time studies in one course. Students needs to learn to prioritize. »
- Mohammad»

16. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The instructors for the tutorials and project are constantly occupied helping students. It takes a long time to get help if you get stuck. A solution could be to divide students into 2 groups and have more tutorial lessons. »
- It should not be possible for students that have not taken any course in transport phenomena to attend the course. I worked with a student with a background in electrical engineering that did not know anything about the background theory for this course and that made the work with the tutorial and project much more difficult for both of us. When asking for help during the tutorials and project you often got two different (sometimes contradictory) answers depending on which supervisor you asked. »
- If possible, more help during tutorials and project, 2 phd students is not enough. »
- /»
- For the project, I would like clearer instructions as to what it should entail from start. »
- Information about the project. I take three courses this period, all involving projects. Therefore it would have been nice to be able to work ahead when it comes to the project, but that is not possible since no information is given more than half a week in advance. Also it was not ok that 1 1/2 day before the project deadline we got information saying: If you want grade 5 you"ll have to do these two extra tasks. We knew that there were extra tasks, but not that they were mandatory. So all relevant information regarding the project must come at the beginning of the project!»
- The project desrciption could be clearer so that you know exactly what the purpose is and what you should investigate.»
- The lectures could be changed to get a better understanding»
- Change 7.5 to 15 credits for the whole course.»
- Check the compatibility of the software on the computers before the course start. It"s annoying having to waste lots of time on small things like that.»
- It has to be more clear what to analyse in the tutorials, the supervisors did not not always say the same thing and it was confusing»
- All information concerning the project should be available when the project starts. For instance did we not get the constraints that the inlet and outlet parts were supposed to be at leased 4 meters long until later. And the day before the project was due we got an email saying that to be able to get grade 5 the optional tasks had to be done. »
- In how short time frame can a course be held and still give CSN? I mean this course actually stops after 6 weeks, I think this is just wrong, the moments should be spread out more equally over the period.»
- The task asked for in the project/tutorial manuals were not the same as the supervisor wanted (they had other tasks on their slides).»
- The book, the excercises, the lectures. Går aldrig att få hjälp, det tar minst två timmar att få hjälp i de flesta fall, alldeles för få lärare per elev! Föreläsningarna ger ingenting, allt som sägs där står exakt i boken, föreläsningarna borde utveckla det som går att läsa i boken så man förstår någonting.»

17. Additional comments

- /»
- The course i really good and I have learned alot but the workload is very high and I think that the course represents more than 7,5 points.»
- Sadly, this course collided with a semi compulsory course for us from the Sustainable Energy Systems master. This is bad since several people wanted to take this course but couldn"t due to the bad scheduling. I also felt that the schedule did not allow me to spend the time I wanted on this course. I had hoped to get a better grader but this was impossible now.»
- I think the idea of having a oral examination was thrilling. But oral examinations is in general (and also here) not an appropiate way of examinate people on because its lack of both anonymously and legal security. The course in general should try to focus more on real problem and less about closures and other details thats not in the aim of the course.»

18. To what extent did the tutorials help you understand the theory in the textbook (e.g. by doing hands on calculations of turbulent mixing and multiphase flow simulations)?

19 svarande

Small extent»1 5%
Some extent»5 26%
Large extent»9 47%
Great extent»4 21%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- Bättre koppling behövs, samt bättre texter i boken» (Some extent)
- I think they were good, but please, stop give us three different versions of the tasks that should be performed (one in the excercise formulation, one on the power point and finally one oral version).» (Great extent)

19. To what extent did the tutorials help you understand limitations with CFD analysis, and building a critical attitude towards CFD results?

19 svarande

Small extent»1 5%
Some extent»5 26%
Large extent»10 52%
Great extent»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.78

- Of course we learned a lot from the project, but I think that most of the class still has no feeling when it in reality is possible to use CFD as a tool and when it is just impractical. Let the students during week 7-8 (when we have nothing to do..) evaluate different real situations. This can replace the oral exam..» (Some extent)

20. How well do the pedagogical approach using multiple loops in the tutorials work (i.e. first running a quick analysis then going back and assess how numerical methods, boundary conditions etc affects t

19 svarande

Very badly»1 5%
Rather badly»3 15%
Rather well»10 52%
Very well»5 26%

Genomsnitt: 3

- More questions in each loop will give better understanding» (Rather badly)
- The tutorials could be made clearer. The text is bad in some areas where it"s not clear where to look for the menus. The highlighted text for the menus is also not very clear. It"s common practice to mark each step with an arrow, now it was hard to see what part was a menu entry and what part was the next entry. » (Rather well)
- This could be more clear» (Rather well)

21. How well do the examination project (Design of a SCR system) assess your ability to use CFD simulation (CAD, mesh, calculation) as a tool for design and analysis of engineering applications?

19 svarande

Very badly»1 5%
Rather badly»2 10%
Rather well»8 42%
Very well»8 42%

Genomsnitt: 3.21

- Dåligt utformad. Jätterörig och dålig strukturerad. Bättre upplägg behövs samt genomgångar för att man ska förstå vad som gäller» (Very badly)
- As this was done in pairs it depended a lot on who you worked with. » (Rather badly)
- But the time is not enough because of new areas introduced that takes time to understand» (Rather well)
- The task itself could be made clearer. » (Rather well)
- Had been better with a more clear discription of what was supposed to be done in the project, a clear discription of that was achieved two days before hand-in. » (Rather well)
- I thought it was good that the presentation only involved three groups at a time» (Very well)
- Although the project did take a lot of time, it was very rewarding and should definitely be kept. » (Very well)
- That was the aim of this course.» (Very well)

22. Should we include more tutorials and projects that the students can choose between?

Students in the course have different background e.g. chemical engineers, mechanical engineers etc. Different tutorials and projects might be more motivating. A consequence might be that the supervisors are not that familiar with the details in the tasks.

19 svarande

Yes»8 42%
No»11 57%

Genomsnitt: 1.57

- At least split so that hade presentation tomater have differentiering subjects. It would probably be more interesting to listen to.» (Yes)
- Yes it is not simple for students from mechanical engineering to reason about a catalyst.» (Yes)
- Eller gör den mer generell som maskins kurs som brukar få väldigt bra kritik för att den är såpass applicerbar» (Yes)
- I think the tutorials were good and I think it may become unstructured/messy if more tutorials are introduced. » (No)
- It is of greatest importance that the supervisors know how to simulate the tutorials and projects since this knowledge is hard to fins yourself» (No)
- No, please make it simple for your self and for us students!» (No)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 4.05

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 4.05
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.76

Kursutvärderingssystem från