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.

course evalutation, MTF270

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-05-23 - 2013-01-17
Antal svar: 15
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Lars Davidson»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers: masterskurs

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.

13 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»5 38%
Around 20 hours/week»5 38%
Around 25 hours/week»2 15%
Around 30 hours/week»1 7%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.92

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

15 svarande

0%»4 26%
25%»3 20%
50%»2 13%
75%»2 13%
100%»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- Since the lecture notes were available, I saw an opportunity to study the course whenever I felt like it and still get the same material as I would have gotten at the lectures.» (0%)
- I really prefer to self study and there was no other reason beside the fact that it is hard for me to wake up at 8!» (25%)

3. How many other courses did you follow this study period?

Which other courses?

13 svarande

1 course»5 38%
2 courses»8 61%
3 courses»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.61

- Project in Applied Mechanics» (1 course)
- Project in Applied Mechanics» (1 course)
- project in applied mechanics» (1 course)
- Project in Applied Mechanics» (2 courses)
- project in applied mechanics high performance computing (at the math-dep)» (2 courses)
- Project in Applied Mechanics & Mathematical modelling in Chemical Engineering» (2 courses)
- energy related materials functional materials (Applied physics student)» (2 courses)
- Project in applied mechanics» (2 courses)
- Applied Mechanics Project, Arkitektur och stadsbyggande: En kulturhistorisk orientering» (2 courses)

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.

4. How understandable are the course goals?

15 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»3 20%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»3 20%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»9 60%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

5. Are the goals reasonable considering your background?

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

13 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 7%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»12 92%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.92

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

14 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»3 21%
Yes, definitely»4 28%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»7 50%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- Didn"t do the exam,» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)

Teaching and course administration

7. To what extent has the lectures been of help for your learning?

13 svarande

Small extent»5 38%
Some extent»4 30%
Large extent»3 23%
Great extent»1 7%

Genomsnitt: 2

- The lectures were very hard to follow.» (Small extent)

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

15 svarande

Small extent»1 6%
Some extent»2 13%
Large extent»6 40%
Great extent»6 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

- Very fragmented lecture notes. The subjects are treated too briefly and without much introduction or justification for each part. The content of some subsections seems arbitrary and the way it is presented is at times confusing. One big thing is that there is a lot of formulas that have been taken out of their context (or books), and are therefore very hard to comprehend and follow. There is very little explanation of where they come from and where to apply them.» (Small extent)
- There are way too many errors in the lecture notes.» (Some extent)
- It was the only material of which I took part of.» (Great extent)
- The lecture notes are the best I ever read. I am certain that I will continue use it in my work.» (Great extent)

9. How many lectures did you attend?

15 svarande

10%»7 46%
30%»1 6%
50%»2 13%
70%»1 6%
90%»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

- One lecture.» (10%)
- The project in applied mechanics took a lot of time unfortunatley, and then the rest of the time was focused on getting the assignments done...» (10%)

10. If you attended less than 50% of the lectures, what"s the reason?

10 svarande

poor lecturering»2 20%
lecture notes good enough»3 30%
time table conflict with other courses»2 20%
I usually don"t go to lectures»2 20%
something else (please comment)»1 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.7

- There were nothing wrong with the lecturering, but sometimes it was a little to much of just deriving equations. I really liked the way you could answer my questions, maybe you can try to get a little more of discussion about the equations in the lecture itself.» (lecture notes good enough)
- It had only todo with the fact that I took 2 other courses.» (something else (please comment))

11. To what extent has the Assignment 1 been of help for your learning?

15 svarande

little extent»1 6%
some extent»5 33%
much extent»5 33%
great extent»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- For me, it was more or less a repetition of Fluid Mechanics in Q1.» (little extent)

12. To what extent has the Assignment 2 been of help for your learning?

15 svarande

little extent»0 0%
some extent»4 26%
much extent»7 46%
great extent»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Taught me a lot about the principles of filtering.» (some extent)
- Didn"t do the second lecture.» (some extent)

13. To what extent has the Assignment 3 been of help for your learning?

12 svarande

little extent»7 58%
some extent»4 33%
much extent»1 8%
great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.5

- didn"t have it» (?)
- Did not do this.» (?)
- I suppose it wasn"t all that bad.. It certainly doesn"t need a whole day though. Half a day is way more appropriate.» (little extent)
- » (some extent)

14. How many workshop classes did you attend?

15 svarande

10%»4 26%
30%»1 6%
50%»2 13%
70%»3 20%
90%»5 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

- I think they were good.» (50%)

15. If you attended less than 50% of the workshops, what"s the reason?

6 svarande

I didn"t get any help»0 0%
the written intructions (the Assignment) good enough»2 33%
time table conflict with other courses»3 50%
I usually don"t go to workshops»0 0%
something else (please comment)»1 16%

Genomsnitt: 3

- I wanted to study first before starting to work on the assignments.» (something else (please comment))

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

15 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»1 6%
Rather well»6 40%
Very well»8 53%

Genomsnitt: 3.46

Study climate

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

14 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»3 21%
Very good»9 64%
I did not seek help»2 14%

Genomsnitt: 3.92

- Always someone available to ask, although one of the tutors was hardly at his desk.» (Very good)
- It depended very much on which assistant you asked. Hamid was great, but the other two very often did not know the answers when asking them for help with the assignments. » (Very good)

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

15 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»4 26%
Very well»8 53%
I did not seek cooperation»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.93

19. How was the course workload?

15 svarande

Too low»1 6%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»8 53%
High»6 40%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

20. How was the total workload this study period?

14 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»3 21%
Adequate»3 21%
High»8 57%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

Summarizing questions

21. What is your general impression of the course?

15 svarande

Poor»2 13%
Fair»2 13%
Adequate»2 13%
Good»7 46%
Excellent»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.33 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Both the lectures and the lecture notes need major improvements and organizing. A textbook would be very helpful.» (Poor)
- I believe this course could"ve been much better with some text and explanation to the different turbulence models. Maybe a good idea would be to have a typical "american" text book for this course, since their reasoning is usually easier to follow.» (Poor)
- The course was not what I expected. I expected less derivation of equation on the lectures and more discussion.» (Fair)
- It is very theoretical and therefore hard to grasp. » (Adequate)
- If given the time propelry it would be a very good course» (Good)

22. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- the step by step assignments»
- Several tutors available during the tutorials.»
- All web material and assignment 1 and 2.»
- I think the general outlook is good. »
- Assignement 1 and 2 together with web material»
- Labs, Examination principle»

23. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- - Review the lecture notes since there are mistakes here and there. - Perhaps more full explanations about things in general. Right now, I"m thinking of the chapter of filtering in particular. - Put emphasis on having nice and clear questions in the assignments. Some questions were comprehensible while others could be quite diffuse.»
- Lectures and various derivations during the lectures should start with a simple description of what the aim is and how it fits in the big picture.»
- Two things I lacked: 1. an introduction to turbulence modelling putting different models into a context, e.g. DNS LES DES TRANS on the large scale ... but also different it would be nice to see a categorisation of different approached within each larger category LES, RANS etc. The following show an example of the categorisation on the highest level I would have liked to see: www.stanford.edu%2F~dkarthik%2FTeaching%2FCFD4%2FCFD_Notes_3.ppt&ei=pVbDT5-2KKjS4QTmzrjsCQ&usg=AFQjCNFjDlnHcoTl2itT4I9JGzu_pP4qkw&sig2=hao7GVz8v-YaOwGlNRGJzA 2. at least some short stuff (introduction or categorisation like above) on different wall function approaches.»
- Less time spent on assignment 3.»
- The course are already very elaborated but the material could be even better with 1) list of definitions (physical entitities), 2) intro where DNS, LES, RANS etc are put into a context 3) more elaboration around why certain models have been developed 3) wall functions»
- * Some sort of presentation of the assignments if you keep the way with no exam. * More discussion around how and why the models are like they are.»

24. Additional comments

- more information and detail could be added to the lecture notes»
- The course material are in general very elaborated.»
- It would be great with one exam in august. I was sick and couldn"t attend, and given the points from the assignment I should be able to get a 4 or 5... :(»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.33

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.33
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.58

Kursutvärderingssystem från