Visa resultat

Dynamical systems, TIF155

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

14 svarande

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

Genomsnitt: 3.71

- Hand-ins always takes a lot of time, they may be fast to complete but takes a long time to make perfect.» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

14 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		1		7%
50%»		2		14%
75%»		5		35%
100%»		6		42%

Genomsnitt: 4.14

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		7		53%
The goals are difficult to understand»		1		7%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		5		38%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.84

- The goals was vague» (?)
- I don"t think any goals have been presented besides "This course provides and introduction to the subject of chaos in dynamical systems"» (I have not seen/read the goals)
- It should be made more clear how this is useful for people who are not employed by the physics department.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

8 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		3		37%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		2		25%
No, the goals are set too high»		3		37%

Genomsnitt: 2

- The first half of the course contains stuff that I already knew from comp bio 1.» (?)
- I have not seen the course goals. How can I grade what I have not seen?» (No, the goals are set too low)
- Much of the material has been covered in Computational Biology 1» (No, the goals are set too low)
- A large part of this course is just a repetition of computatuional biology 1. My opinion is that computational biology 1 should be mandatory in order to take this course and one could then start out where computational biology ends. A larger connection between these courses is needed!» (No, the goals are set too low)

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

No, not at all»		3		27%
To some extent»		6		54%
Yes, definitely»		1		9%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		1		9%

Genomsnitt: 2

- The first 3 hand-ins were repetition from previous courses, the last 2 seemed unrelated to the lectures.» (No, not at all)
- I have not seen any goals for this course » (No, not at all)
- When doing the last home problems (4 and 5) I found myself wondering what I was really doing. Doing it was no problems but I didn"t really understand what it was good for.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		7		50%
Some extent»		3		21%
Large extent»		3		21%
Great extent»		1		7%

Genomsnitt: 1.85

- Hard to follow.» (Small extent)
- It got worse as the course progressed, explanations were hard to follow and most importantly, I could not find any explanation for why the concepts introduced were helpful for solving problems. Analysing a circular map is neat, but how can I use that for learning things about an actual system that I might be considering? Especially in the face of the small disturbances that will always be present in a physical system, why would I even bother finding p-cycles of some length, when they are all unstable and therefore (seemingly) irrelevant for the actual dynamics? These and many other questions remain unclear to me.» (Small extent)
- I think that there is some work to be done on the pedagogics. To me, the teacher was just mentioning a lot of things without really explaining them in detail. Also I think that you should mention some implementations or motivations to why we are interested in studying the material. For example I found myself wondering how fractals, mappings and attractors are useful. » (Some extent)
- The final two examples sheets were not lectured well.» (Some extent)
- Great lectures.» (Large extent)
- Some crucial information was only handed out on lectures. » (Large extent)

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

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		4		28%
Large extent»		5		35%
Great extent»		5		35%

Genomsnitt: 3.07

- Strogatz book is good, I think chaos book is not needed.» (Some extent)
- The textbook is very good, but from chapter 9 and forward it is not as detailed as one would like. Also, the material covered should according to my opinion not be in the course since it was already covered in computational biology 1 (chapters 1-8).» (Large extent)
- in Strogatz book part was fantastic, but after that, it was disaster» (Large extent)
- I really liked the book, written in a straight forward maner and easily understood.» (Great extent)
- The course book was very good » (Great extent)
- The book explained the subject a lot better than the teacher. Unfortunately good references was not found for everything and in those cases a lot of time was just spent understanding questions.» (Great extent)
- The textbook is a very good choice as a basis for the course.» (Great extent)

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

Very badly»		3		21%
Rather badly»		5		35%
Rather well»		6		42%
Very well»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.21

- The course website must be self-explanatory. It must contain everything about course and on time. But it was one of the poorest and weakest course websites i have ever seen.» (Very badly)
- No information about how the grading would be done was given.» (Very badly)
- the webpage was updated just for two times, handouts was difficult to read. just the last session slide was helpful still incomplete» (Very badly)
- Unnecessary long return time for problem sets. Some information regarding the home problems were given only to those who asked. Can you not post information on the course webpage instead? If it comes to your attention that several students have the same issues it is really not fair to do anything else. » (Rather badly)
- Example sheets should be handed back earlier» (Rather well)
- The home page worked fine, but it is not good that this course does not follow the rules of chalmers regarding putting up the goals and grade requirements at the start of the course.» (Rather well)
- The fourth examples sheet was written very badly.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		1		7%
Rather poor»		2		14%
Rather good»		5		35%
Very good»		3		21%
I did not seek help»		3		21%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- actually finding somebody to talk about course materiel was like a Everest conquer. Thanks Marina at least for email answering. » (Very poor)
- Example classes were not in tune with the schedule of example sheets and some were not in tune with what the example sheet was about.» (Rather poor)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		0		0%
Rather well»		3		21%
Very well»		10		71%
I did not seek cooperation»		1		7%

Genomsnitt: 3.85

11. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		6		42%
High»		6		42%
Too high»		2		14%

Genomsnitt: 3.71

- Some example sheets were too big, and on some sufficient time was not given considering the difficulty of the question(s).» (High)
- it was not high , it was irrelevant. If somebody learn you algebra and ask about literature,result is too high workload but if you be learned algebra and asked algebra in return, there would be no concern about workload» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		7%
Adequate»		4		30%
High»		7		53%
Too high»		1		7%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		5		35%
Fair»		1		7%
Adequate»		5		35%
Good»		3		21%
Excellent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.42 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I don"t see how the material is relevant for real problems, and it is only mildly interesting theoretically. The first parts about phase diagrams, stability, etc. are very useful, but CAS students learned that stuff in Computational Biology 1. The course should start from there, instead of explaining these things again, and the teacher must do a much better job at explaining how the tools can be used for solving real problems. Saying that concepts were developed long ago with the hope of gaining some understanding, but that as far as he knows they did not prove useful, makes me wonder why I should bother learning them.» (Poor)
- It was difficult to see how it all worked together since part of the course was very book based and the other part not. The last couple of example sheets were very difficult as we had very few, if any reference points on how to best solve the problems.» (Poor)
- there is no start and end point for this course until examiner deviate from strogatz book. after that I feel I was lost between many unknown subjects. » (Poor)
- The topic is interesting, however the content covered by the first 3 example sheet was already known from previous courses, and thus a waste of time. Example sheet four did not correspond good at all to course literature. » (Fair)
- For me this was not a optional course... » (Adequate)
- See comments above.» (Adequate)
- I didn"t feel that there was a lot of coherence between the first three examples sheets and the last two. I feel a better way to structure the course would be to have a number of questions from the book with one larger simulation question each week.» (Adequate)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

16. Additional comments