Visa resultat

Engineering of Automotive Systems 2012, TME121

1. Approximately how many hours per week did you work with the course?

33 svarande

At most 10 hours»		4		12%
About 15 hours»		10		30%
About 20 hours»		11		33%
About 25 hours»		5		15%
About 30 hours»		2		6%
At least 35 hours»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

2. How much of the teaching offered did you attend?

0%»		0		0%
25&»		0		0%
50%»		2		6%
75%»		15		45%
100%»		16		48%

Genomsnitt: 4.42

- The contents are so broad and some is deep.» (75%)
- I attend 80% » (75%)
- Probably closer to 90%» (100%)

Goals and their fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		1		3%
The goals are difficult to understand»		0		0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		15		45%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		17		51%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

- It is hard to get an idea how deep it should get.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- I think it should be more lectures dedicated to the topics which talking about the assignments, especially the power train, the safety lectures should contain more detailed information to help the student with the assignment.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

4. Are the course goals reasonable considering the number of credits?

Yes I think so»		27		84%
Hesitant»		5		15%
No»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.15

- You cant check them twice and if you are, then you can"t make the exam in two different parts.» (Hesitant)

5. Did the assignments + written exam assess whether you have reached the goals?

No, not at all»		1		3%
To some extent»		16		48%
Yes, definitely»		7		21%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		9		27%

Genomsnitt: 2.72

- The person who wrote the exam clearly had a very bad understanding of how a complete vehicle works. Many of the questions related more to different expressions used in the course rather than to knowledge of vehicles. For example, the question "Name the different suspension concepts" can have thousands of different answers, depending of the interpretion of the question. » (No, not at all)
- The exam questions where really weird. You really should take some questions that is more general, not just pick a random slide and make a question out of it. But again, you cant test the assignments twice by using a part of the exam.» (To some extent)
- It is a huge exam for only 3 credits, especially since half of the exam considers the assignments, which already are 4.5 credits. The exam should more consider the lectures and maybe have some questions regarding the assignments, but my opinion is that the assignment questions should not be half of the exam.» (To some extent)
- I think it should be something like ideal answers and explanations for the assignment, which given to the students at the end of the course to help for more understanding for the assignment.» (To some extent)

Lectures, visits, and assignments

6. What do you think of the lectures listed below?

Matrisfråga

- The steering system gets a bad becuase it was extremely simple. There was almost no depth into the actual design of each system, just some pros and cons.»
- some lecturer did not link the topic to the automotive and vehicle very well like NVH and control system.»
- I"m afraid to say, but most of the lectures were not presented well. Powerpoint can be very tempting to rush to fast through important topics without going deep enough into the subject matter. I"ve experienced this several times in this course...»

Introduction, Automotive History - Selpi and Sven Andersson
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		7		21%
Good - well needed and interesting»		11		34%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		12		37%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 4.28

Design and Project Management Process - Thomas Bergqvist
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		1		3%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		3		9%
OK - needed and well performed»		7		21%
Good - well needed and interesting»		15		46%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		5		15%
Did not attend/Do not know»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3.71

Powertrain Systems - Jan Andersson
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		4		12%
OK - needed and well performed»		6		18%
Good - well needed and interesting»		12		37%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		10		31%
Did not attend/Do not know»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.87

Report Writing fundamentals - Stina Hemdal
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		2		6%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		3		9%
OK - needed and well performed»		11		34%
Good - well needed and interesting»		5		15%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		9		28%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.68

Tyres - Andrew Dawkes
31 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		5		16%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		41%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		12		38%
Did not attend/Do not know»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 4.29

Braking Systems - Andrew Dawkes
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		6		18%
Good - well needed and interesting»		15		46%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		10		31%
Did not attend/Do not know»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 4.18

Suspensions Systems and Components - Gunnar Olsson
30 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		1		3%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		6%
OK - needed and well performed»		9		30%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		43%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		5		16%
Did not attend/Do not know»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

Vehicle Dynamics, Suspensions, and SHARK - Steve Williams
31 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		4		12%
Good - well needed and interesting»		15		48%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		12		38%
Did not attend/Do not know»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 4.25

Steering Systems - Gunnar Olsson
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		5		15%
OK - needed and well performed»		5		15%
Good - well needed and interesting»		15		46%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		7		21%
Did not attend/Do not know»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.75

Noise, Vibration, and Harshness - Patrik Andersson
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		4		12%
OK - needed and well performed»		5		15%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		40%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		9		28%
Did not attend/Do not know»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3.93

Road Vehicle Aerodynamics - Lennart Löfdahl
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		5		15%
Good - well needed and interesting»		12		37%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		10		31%
Did not attend/Do not know»		5		15%

Genomsnitt: 4.46

Materials and Failure Analysis - Pål Schmidt
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		3		9%
OK - needed and well performed»		8		25%
Good - well needed and interesting»		14		43%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		4		12%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.87

Safety, Crashworthiness - Johan Davidsson
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		1		3%
OK - needed and well performed»		7		21%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		40%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		11		34%
Did not attend/Do not know»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 4.06

Active Safety - Johan Hulten
30 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		6%
OK - needed and well performed»		5		16%
Good - well needed and interesting»		15		50%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		8		26%
Did not attend/Do not know»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.96

Structural Design of Motor Vehicles - Peter Urban
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		5		15%
Good - well needed and interesting»		16		50%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		9		28%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 4.25

Applied Structural Design of Motor Vehicles - Peter Urban
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		1		3%
OK - needed and well performed»		5		15%
Good - well needed and interesting»		14		43%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		9		28%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3		9%

Genomsnitt: 4.25

Environment - Katarina Sundqvist and Lotta Styrenius
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		1		3%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		2		6%
OK - needed and well performed»		9		28%
Good - well needed and interesting»		12		37%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		5		15%
Did not attend/Do not know»		3		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.84

Control Systems - Bo Egardt
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		4		12%
OK - needed and well performed»		15		46%
Good - well needed and interesting»		8		25%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		3		9%
Did not attend/Do not know»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

Certification - Malin Kjellberg
32 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		3		9%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		6		18%
Good - well needed and interesting»		13		40%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		3		9%
Did not attend/Do not know»		7		21%

Genomsnitt: 4.06

Trends in Automotive Industry - Sven-Åke Berglie
31 svarande

Very bad - no relevance for the course»		0		0%
Bad - to some extent relevant for the overall topic»		0		0%
OK - needed and well performed»		5		16%
Good - well needed and interesting»		9		29%
Very good - interesting and rewarding»		9		29%
Did not attend/Do not know»		8		25%

Genomsnitt: 4.64

7. What do you think of the assignments?

Matrisfråga

- Assignment 2 where more about to do a checklist. And write a full technical report on that one is really odd.»
- The safety assignment was simplified so much that I"m sure it is extremely far from actually calculating crash forces. I something more than essentially a momentum and energy calculation would have been more realistic.»
- Ass 2 would be even better if more understanding was involved. Little more discussion before the assignment about how one should think.»
- The assignments forced me to deal with these topics in more detail. This helped me understanding the topic much more.»
- The suspension assignment was to much fokus on the program that we never had used before. It felt like we only followed the written text without any understanding for what we were doing. Also bad to put the full report here because of the use of the new program that took too long time. Also the placing or maybe number of assignments are questionable. I don"t understand how you can have an assignment that we don"t get back until after the exam, how should we know if what we learn or wrote was right when we don"t get any feedback? »
- Some first year physics calculations in assignment 1 and 3 did not really help to reach the learning-goals of the course.»
- Very challenging and interesting in general»

Assignment 1 - Powertrain
33 svarande

Really bad, no relevance»		0		0%
To some extent relevant»		1		3%
OK»		1		3%
Relevant and good experience»		6		18%
Very good exercise for my learning»		25		75%
No opinion»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 4.66

Assignment 2 - Suspension
33 svarande

Really bad, no relevance»		1		3%
To some extent relevant»		6		18%
OK»		7		21%
Relevant and good experience»		10		30%
Very good exercise for my learning»		9		27%
No opinion»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

Assignment 3 - Safety
33 svarande

Really bad, no relevance»		0		0%
To some extent relevant»		2		6%
OK»		7		21%
Relevant and good experience»		9		27%
Very good exercise for my learning»		15		45%
No opinion»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 4.12

8. What do you think of the discussion session on assignments?

Useless»		1		3%
Rather useless»		9		27%
OK»		6		18%
Rather useful»		11		33%
Very useful»		2		6%
Did not attend/Do not know»		4		12%

Genomsnitt: 3.48

- I think the discussion should held for each assignment separately and after the assignment is finished , because at the discussion is difficult to recall what you did before 2 months unless you revised it before that which clearly most of the people did not do.» (Rather useless)
- I don"t know what it was for. When this took place we haven"t even got the ass. 3 back.» (Rather useless)
- OK, but some info woould have been nice to have before the assignment.» (OK)
- Should be after the last resturn, so we can discuss more opnely.» (Rather useful)
- I don"t recall any.» (Did not attend/Do not know)

9. What do you think of the visits?

- During the production tour, the guiding person has yet to make sure that his voice gets to everyone in the group. consider using a speaker like in the blue train.»
- But not serving Lunch at Volvo Cars where a huge mistake, a Kanelbulle - that"s definitely not a lunch which resulted in a really tuff lecture afterwards where it were hard to staying awake.»
- The production tour at JC was extremely boring, especially since you could look around for about 2mins and know what process is done where. »
- Johnson Controls: More than three hours in a small room without a break is not reasonable, during the lecture about development.»
- volvo tour generally should be given more time in the both events,»
- Very good experience that allowed to have a clearer vision of car manufacturers and suppliers challenges.»

Johnson Controls - Development process
33 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		2		6%
OK»		4		12%
Rather good»		4		12%
Very good»		14		42%
Did not attend/Do not know»		9		27%

Genomsnitt: 4.72

Johnson Controls - Production tour
33 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		2		6%
OK»		3		9%
Rather good»		6		18%
Very good»		13		39%
Did not attend/Do not know»		9		27%

Genomsnitt: 4.72

Volvo Cars - Blue train tour
33 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		0		0%
OK»		2		6%
Rather good»		8		24%
Very good»		14		42%
Did not attend/Do not know»		9		27%

Genomsnitt: 4.9

Volvo Cars - Brand Experience Centre (environment and safety)
33 svarande

Very poor»		1		3%
Rather poor»		0		0%
OK»		3		9%
Rather good»		8		24%
Very good»		12		36%
Did not attend/Do not know»		9		27%

Genomsnitt: 4.72

Teaching and course administration

10. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning? 10 svarande

Small extent»		1		3%
Some extent»		9		27%
Large extent»		20		60%
Great extent»		3		9%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

- I already knew the vast majority of information presented.» (Small extent)
- in some topics the lecturer explain it like I all ready have information about it, which is not for the whole students.» (Large extent)

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

Small extent»		8		24%
Some extent»		15		45%
Large extent»		6		18%
Great extent»		4		12%

Genomsnitt: 2.18

- I already knew the vast majority of information presented.» (Small extent)
- The book were not useful at all.» (Some extent)
- The book isn"t really necessary.» (Some extent)

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

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Acceptable»		10		30%
Good»		13		39%
Excellent»		10		30%

Genomsnitt: 4

Study climate

13. How was the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

Poor»		1		3%
Fair»		1		3%
Adequate»		5		15%
Good»		20		60%
Excellent»		6		18%

Genomsnitt: 3.87

14. How has the cooperation been, between you and the other students?

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		0		0%
Rather good»		9		27%
Very good»		24		72%
I have not tried to cooperate»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- Your argument for making the assignment groups was that you would try to mix international and national students, as well as mixing master programm and erasmus students. That did not happen...» (Rather good)

15. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		22		66%
High»		11		33%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

16. How was the total workload during the entire study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		5		15%
High»		26		78%
Too high»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.9

- CFS..............................» (Too high)

Summarising questions

17. What is your general impression of the course?

Worst course ever»		0		0%
Fair»		7		21%
Good»		19		57%
Excellent»		7		21%
Best course ever»		0		0%
No answer»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Might be due to the syllabus, but some sharpening of the learning outcome and the topics might have been helpful.» (Fair)
- An written exam on this course seems like a really bad soloution. I think it is better to make some more (smaller) assignments.» (Fair)
- I learned almost nothing.» (Fair)
- Since the course was very basic, many of the lectures didn"t realy contain anything useful.» (Fair)
- Good introduction» (Good)
- I learned a lot about automotive engineering isssues» (Excellent)

18. What should definitely be preserved for next year?

19. What should definitely be changed for next year?

20. Additional comments