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.

Project course in Applied Mechanics, TME130

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-05-23 - 2012-09-14
Antal svar: 19
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 47%
Kontaktperson: Björn Pålsson»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Maskinteknik 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

- Last week probably 12 hours a day.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- Hard to distinguish between the work done in this course and the model validation course since the methodology and programing for this project was to large extent just a simplification of what was performed in the mod val course.» (Around 20 hours/week)

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

19 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»1 5%
50%»0 0%
75%»5 26%
100%»13 68%

Genomsnitt: 4.57

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?

The course PM states:

After completion of this course, you should be able to:
•, Use ANSYS Workbench to model fluid mechanics, solid mechanics and structural dynamics aspects of wind turbine blades. Every student will learn some basic "howtos”,, for all specializations and get more in depth knowledge for your particular specialization.
•, Depending on specialization you will learn how to:
- Develop structural dynamic models by system identification (Solid/EMA)
- Build up simple composite material models (Solid/EMA)
- Methods to preliminary design, CAD, mesh and compute flows around wind turbine blades (2D/3D) (Fluids)
- Collect pressure data on a 2D profile using the linear cascade testing facility.
- Show insight and ability to work in teams and collaborate in groups with different compositions
- Be able to give written and oral presentations of a larger technical investigation

19 svarande

No idea what they mean»0 0%
A bit fuzzy»2 10%
Understandable»10 52%
Crystal clear»7 36%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

- however the requirements for each team task was only fully understandable after completing the course.» (Understandable)
- The requirements from the company(Nordic Windustries) could have been more clear.» (Understandable)

4. To which extent have you established the knowledge and skills that the goals state?

17 svarande

Not at all»0 0%
To some extent»5 29%
Most of it»9 52%
Perfectly»3 17%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

- as mentioned above the technical knowledge required for this course was mainly acquired from the model validation course.» (?)
- Feels like you didn"t learn so much new from this course as it mostly was like "do this" and then nobody explained why we were doing this.» (To some extent)
- Mostly from the parallel course, Structural Dynamics Model Validation.» (Perfectly)

5. 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»2 10%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»17 89%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.89

Teaching and course administration

6. How do you rate team task 1?

19 svarande

Poor»1 5%
Moderate»7 36%
Good»10 52%
Excellent»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.57

- easy to overdo» (Moderate)

7. How do you rate team task 2?

19 svarande

Poor»4 21%
Moderate»5 26%
Good»9 47%
Excellent»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.36

- Very vague information, especially for EMA. Communication was bad with the teachers (supervisors in the exercises) and the program we were supposed to use, APDL, well. The teacher didn"t really know how to use it. He was very familiar with workbench but we could not export the data needed from there. This took many hours for no good. The vibrations test was a failure and although I can see the learning experience from having bad test data it would not have taken many hours to redo the test, getting a faulty "wrong" stack-up was bad enough.» (Poor)
- however, whatever, forgot it » (Good)

8. How do you rate the planning report review session?

19 svarande

Poor»1 5%
Moderate»6 31%
Good»11 57%
Excellent»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.63

- The objectives of the planning report could have been clearer.» (Moderate)
- Better guidelines should be given during the review» (Moderate)
- Good and constructive feedback. We really knew what you wanted us to improve upon.» (Excellent)

9. How do you rate the final presentation and opposition session?

19 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Moderate»1 5%
Good»14 73%
Excellent»4 21%

Genomsnitt: 3.15

- 6 min for the opposition wasn"t enough. Especially since every group member should be active.» (Good)
- Should have better time management» (Good)

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

19 svarande

Poor»3 15%
Moderate»4 21%
Good»11 57%
Excellent»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.52

- information was often insufficient and often inconsistant » (Poor)
- Upload everything at the beginning of the course so we wont have to come and ask you to upload it for us. » (Poor)
- Once heard this from a supervisor, "I will put it on the web this afternoon, search around the net for now". This is very lame, I mean what can we find if we don"t know anything? The web page in it self worked very good and stuff like that, deadline dates etc.» (Moderate)
- material needed for modeling of the composite material was handed out too late.» (Good)
- A bit messy on the web portal. Condense the specifications for TT2 to one place.» (Good)

11. If part of it - how do you rate the supervision related to the fluids specialization?

9 svarande

Poor»1 11%
Moderate»1 11%
Good»3 33%
Excellent»4 44%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

- Very inconsistent answers and often you left more confused than before asking for help.» (Poor)
- Just enough info.» (Excellent)
- Ayyoob was very helpful.» (Excellent)

12. If part of it - how do you rate the supervision related to the solids specialization?

9 svarande

Poor»4 44%
Moderate»2 22%
Good»2 22%
Excellent»1 11%

Genomsnitt: 2

- See above. Didn"t know APDL and gave in a sense "false" or misleading information.» (Poor)

13. If part of it - how do you rate the supervision related to the EMA specialization?

6 svarande

Poor»2 33%
Moderate»2 33%
Good»2 33%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Is this question a joke!? What EMA supervision, seriously!? There was no EMA specialist on the computer sessions, we had to go knock on Thomas office and he is not always there so a lot of times we got stuck and had no one to ask. » (Poor)
- The help we got was good but we always had to go up ask ask for it and didn"t really get any information in the beginning as the two other groups. In a sense good to work out everything on our own but unfair maybe and hard to start TT2.» (Moderate)
- It was always possible to ask Thomas, but it would be nice if there was one supervisor for the EMA part in the computer sessions.» (Moderate)
- if the professor (Thomas) was in his office, however more seldom than often.» (Good)

14. How do you rate the generic skills lectures (project management and reporting)?

19 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»2 10%
Good»17 89%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.89

- It was the same thing as we"ve done in other courses so there was nothing new.» (Poor)

15. How do you rate the ANSYS guest lecture?

18 svarande

Poor»2 11%
Moderate»8 44%
Good»8 44%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- did not attend» (?)
- An electronic tutorial could cover the material that was presented much better.» (Poor)
- Just watching does not give anything!» (Poor)
- I guess OK but didn"t really learn anything from it. Skip it for the next year?» (Moderate)

16. What do you think of the opportunity to give anonymous reviews of your fellow team members? Please comment.

19 svarande

Bad»3 15%
Indifferent»5 26%
Good»11 57%

Genomsnitt: 2.42

- Stupid! How am I supposed to grade team members with other specializations in how well they know their stuff?» (Bad)
- very hard to do professional grading, impossible to have knowledge of the technical skills within other specializations. if such system shall be used it should defenitly include motivations of why the grading was done as it was.» (Bad)
- Even as the team leader, it was hard for me. Since I had limited knowledge about people"s exact contribution, I just hope it did not have a big effect.» (Indifferent)
- Our team worked well and therefore there was no need for that. In general, it can be helpful for the supervisors when the team did not work together that well.» (Indifferent)
- Only way to really make a difference as it seams that you only see the group as a whole. Please make more "individual" grading.» (Good)
- A good way to tell if anyone have been less active. Maybe to many fields of judging.» (Good)
- It is very good, so that it is detected if somebody has not contributed as much as the others in a group.» (Good)

17. What do you think of the feedback session? Please comment

19 svarande

Unnecessary»0 0%
Pointless»3 15%
Valuable»16 84%
Priceless»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- The feedback on the report was in my opinion not very structured. When I left I only knew that the examiner was not as pleased as he could have been but I didn"t really know what was wrong apart from vague terms such as unstructured etc. The feedback was not very constructive but I didn"t want to start a discussion there. I got the impression that the examiner read the report rather quickly and got an impression which did not coincide with his way of writing reports. We chose the structure of the report carefully. Of course we might still have failed with writing it in a good way but I got the feeling that the examiner criticized the structure because he would not have done it like that and not because it was bad in it self. I hope you understand what I mean. It was a lot of negative and I honestly don"t know what he liked about it. It seamed like the examiner didn"t know what the course goals were either because he wanted us to do things not included there but remove things included. I guess it was up to us to decide and they are not written in stone but as it is a "course" I think that it is not wrong to follow them closely. I have more but I can"t remember it all, there were good points too, like tips with figures in presentations etc. That is what I want to know, if you are not pleased with it tell me exactly what was bad and maybe how to fix it otherwise we can"t really learn and be explicit and not vague. So in summary keep the feedback session but yeah...» (Pointless)
- An email would have saved a lot of time for both you and us.» (Pointless)
- It wod have been more valuable to have a opposition/ feedback session befor the final deadline for the report!» (Pointless)
- The review and feedback was good and specific for each specialization, but the grading was too generic. I don"t believe my grade reflected my work.» (Valuable)
- good to be able to discuss why some parts of the project was done the way it was and also get feedback from other parts.» (Valuable)
- feedback is always important.» (Valuable)
- It is good to get feedback, but much of the feedback was not constructive as it was more like this was good or this was not good. That does not tell you how you could have done things better, just what. » (Valuable)

Study climate

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

19 svarande

Poor»1 5%
Moderate»4 21%
Good»9 47%
Excellent»5 26%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.94

- For EMA it was extremely bad.» (Poor)
- Need more experienced Supervisors » (Moderate)
- Very inconsistent answers depending on who you asked. If you asked Björn you got one answer, if you asked the expert you got another answer and if you read the course pm you got a third answer. » (Moderate)
- if the professor (Thomas) was in his office, however more seldom than often. » (Good)

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

19 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Moderate»0 0%
Good»6 31%
Excellent»13 68%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.68

- The ones that didn"t really do anything in TT2, well, between them it was very poor but the ones that wanted to work, the cooperation was very good. I guess this is not really a problem usually (usually when someone is not participating he drops out altogether) but please be harder on this. I don"t know if the persons in question did learn anything, they might have learned more then me but they did not contribute anything to the final "product" (report) or to the group. As this was 50% of the grade, it is very unfair. The others that did participate had to write the report and to do all the work on the different tasks, of course both or one of these things will be affected and you should really consider this in your grading when you know it beforehand. Thats at least what I think.» (Good)
- You got more help from other students than from the "experts". » (Excellent)

20. How was the course workload?

19 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»2 10%
Adequate»14 73%
High»3 15%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- For the fluid specialisation, the workload was highest for TT1 and then very low for TT2. We were finished with the task for TT2 before easter and than spent the rest of the time analysing (which didn"t take much time) and writing report.» (Low)
- I wasn"t part of the FEM group, but I think they were under too much pressure because most of their workload was concentrated right before the report. Since the FEM analysis was the most important part of the project, I think something should be done about that.» (Adequate)
- This differs a lot but you can still get a good grade no mater what you do thats a little how I felt from the feedback session.» (Adequate)
- lower end of adequate almost low for ema spec. due to reasons mentioned above» (Adequate)

21. How was the total workload this study period?

19 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 5%
Adequate»15 78%
High»3 15%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

Summarizing questions

22. What is your general impression of the course?

19 svarande

Poor»4 21%
Fair»2 10%
Adequate»3 15%
Good»7 36%
Excellent»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.15

- This might be an unfair grade but there were to many problems over the period of the course to give it any other grade. I am this harsh as I liked the course and think it is very good to gain the experience from it (in this case it is very good experience of problems that can happen in groups) but I want to see a big change in the coming year. So please don"t take my criticism personal or anything it is just my feelings and thoughts about the course and hopefully it can be better the next year as the course should definitely stay. I also think that getting one person that didn"t contribute at all and two that didn"t care about anything contribute to a lot of my criticism about the course which might not be fair either as it is very group specific. I guess I have been lucky before and not had these problems and this this course gets the blame :), but this is also one of the first times we leave tasks to other members and trust them. We were lucky at least that the ones of us that cared did so greatly otherwise we might not have had any report at all.» (Poor)
- Great potential for being both fun and very educative, but you mess it up completely.» (Poor)
- Learning outcome was not to high in terms of technical stuff, but it was » (Good)
- A great course which will give you a introductory "feel" for challenges you might meet as a CAE engineer in the future.» (Excellent)

23. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Detailed feedback session. Grouping of the students by the course administration rather than the students themselves. It provided an opportunity for working with people you are not already friends with.»
- I dont really know. The structure, the rough structure. We should cooperate.»
- The way the work is divided between the subgroups. »
- crack modeling and implementation is a verry important FE problem and should be preserved also interesting with interaction between fluids and solids.»
- the limitations, could be clearer tough. »
- ANSYS Workbench and the tutoring style where you are not given the answer directly :)»

24. What should changed to next year/where do you see opportunity for improvement?

- More tutoring. More personalized grading, if possible! The way it was done this time, I was more or less forced to compromise my grade not to damage my friendships. I don"t think thats necessary.»
- Well basically everything I bring up above.»
- Get an EMA specialist to the computer sessions. Make sure everything we need is uploaded on the home page. Make the group member grading relevant. Be clearer with information. »
- the ema specialization have lost all of its technical learning contribution since there is a whole course to read this subject.»
- You have to check if the Erasmus students have enough knowledge to take the course! Have some mandatory courses that should have been red befor!»
- All information about TT2 could be in one place. Specifications, request from NW, loadings, normal operating conditions, size of hub etc. If it should be in role play form, than it should be fully in that form.»
- Course administrations could be improved. Sometimes, different sets of information reached different members of the team, which led to confusion.»

25. Additional comments

- Not happy with my grade!»
- I don"t think the course was badly planed but I have a felling the examiners didn"t really get the course in for some wired reason. They assumed stuff from previous years that weren"t true anymore and graded from there. It might sound like I"m unhappy with my grade, well I"m not that unhappy but I feel it is very unfair that people that didn"t contribute much in the beginning and did exactly nothing from half of the course to the end for whatever reason passed the course. It is not that I want the worst for them, I want it to be fair. Now we that did work were affected in a bad way (less time to sort things out, stress and irritation) and therefore didn"t do our best contributing to not the best final report but there were no consideration of these problems. In a way this is like cheating. I guess that is how it might be in the industry to some extent and we should be prepared for it but I hope the people willing to work are rewarded in some way and the slackers "punished". But it would not surprise me if it weren"t like that. This evaluation is not very "structured" and "overlaps" but I hope you can cope and piece it together :)»

Kursutvärderingssystem från