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.

PPU110 - Product lifecycle management, autumn 2012, PPU110

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-10-25 - 2012-12-05
Antal svar: 13
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 50%
Kontaktperson: Marie Iwanow»

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»1 7%
Around 20 hours/week»3 23%
Around 25 hours/week»3 23%
Around 30 hours/week»3 23%
At least 35 hours/week»3 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.3

- A bit less in the beginning and much more at the end» (At most 15 hours/week)
- IT projects always takes a lot of time that you dont expect and this case wasnt any different» (Around 25 hours/week)

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

13 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»1 7%
75%»7 53%
100%»5 38%

Genomsnitt: 4.3

- Missed some lectures and worked "off" lab time sometimes» (50%)

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?

13 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»0 0%
The goals are difficult to understand»2 15%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»9 69%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»2 15%

Genomsnitt: 3

- The course have clear goals in the project but the lectures is much repeating the same thing over and over again» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- The goals regarding Catia where not clear which was as diffucult as smarteam» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- The lectures and project work do not completely align with the course learning outcome and goals. They could certainly benefit from more structure.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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.

13 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»10 76%
No, the goals are set too high»3 23%

Genomsnitt: 2.23

- It reasonable goals on the project, but dont understand the lecture goals» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- We havent done any Catia and of course not smarteam, then the goals regarding that they are quite high but I think that you learned a lot and what was achived at the end I think is fair with the credits» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- The requirements for a higher grade do not correspond with the number of hours to be put into the project and my backgroud. Having to learn to program to add functionality to the software in the project has taken a lot more time than one would expect. » (No, the goals are set too high)

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

13 svarande

No, not at all»1 7%
To some extent»6 46%
Yes, definitely»4 30%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»2 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.53

- I think by presenting your work is a good examination. Also the customer/supplier thing is good to get perspective.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

13 svarande

Small extent»4 30%
Some extent»5 38%
Large extent»4 30%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- to be more help the project should be strict to follow a certain way, it should be easier for the supervisors to help » (Some extent)
- The lectures has not really cooped with the project» (Some extent)
- Guidence in the implimentation of certain of Smarteam was poor. For ex. How to save the files and how to implement scripts. » (Some extent)
- Although, it didn"t help at all in the project (it felt like the project and the lectures were totally separated)» (Some extent)

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

13 svarande

Small extent»6 46%
Some extent»5 38%
Large extent»2 15%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.69

- none if possible» (Small extent)
- Concerning the project, neither the literature (in-existent) nor the tutors actually knew how to solve the problems.» (Small extent)
- The Smarteam guide was good» (Some extent)

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

13 svarande

Very badly»1 7%
Rather badly»4 30%
Rather well»6 46%
Very well»2 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.69

- good to be able to upload on pingpong» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

13 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»3 23%
Rather good»9 69%
Very good»1 7%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- on the supervisor time its was easy to get help» (Rather good)
- Good at labs. Also very good work from the assistants giving help outside of lecture time» (Rather good)
- But the help usually wasn"t so helpfull» (Rather good)

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

12 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»3 25%
Rather well»2 16%
Very well»6 50%
I did not seek cooperation»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.41

- easy to ask for help» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

13 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»3 23%
High»6 46%
Too high»4 30%

Genomsnitt: 4.07

- To low in beginning and a bit high at end. Like always» (Adequate)
- its difficult to pass a task you never done before in a program you never worked before. This gives large time difference from week to week» (High)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

13 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»6 46%
High»3 23%
Too high»4 30%

Genomsnitt: 3.84

- my other course was to easy» (Adequate)
- As above» (Adequate)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

13 svarande

Poor»3 23%
Fair»2 15%
Adequate»5 38%
Good»3 23%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.61 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- There was very little communication between the phd supervisors, course director and students. There was no consistency with the lectures and their content didn"t seem particularly relevant. Examples given in lectures were simply brushed over rather tha n ensuring all students understood. Wikipedia was often used as a learning aid which I personally don"t believe is satisfactory.» (Poor)
- I lost all my respect for this university course, on an advanced level no less, when the teacher referenced us to Wikipedia for further information.» (Poor)
- I thought it should be really good, therefor my expectations where probably to high. » (Fair)
- It has a lot of potential, but the project really dragged the course down. Too much time was spent on just trying to understand the program and too little on the actual core of the course: solving and creating solutions for PLM problems.» (Fair)
- I think its a good course with important content because it links student to a more reality scenario. The project was a bit unclear and you never really knew if what you were doing was right» (Adequate)
- Better guidance would have led to that a deeper understanding of smart team would have been possible. Instead much time was spent trying to fix Rather unimportant things. » (Adequate)
- The course and learning outcomes were good. The time frame for these outcomes were rather unreasonable. The focus had been entirely on this course and project resulting in neglecting the other course this period. » (Good)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Really good supervisors for the project.»
- The content of smarteam. A project, guest lectures. the small exams. Could be some more than two with more clear subjects.»
- The main structure of project and short exam. Learning outcomes. »
- Project»
- The project is good, but a more general disucussion how smartteams works would have been nice..»
- The guest lectures. Especially the last guy from Volvo who spoke about their PDM work. He was very good!»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The Tutorial for the project should be improved. A lot of things needed for the project set-up were missing in the compendium. In addition of that, the system of having a image file for the virtual machine should be changed. The slowness of the virtual machine made me lost a huge time. »
- the project needs to be updated, I know small steps each year is possible and next year it should be good with a more learning every weak like small tutorials/lab to perform that could do similar task that could be implemented to your own project. Less lectures on "Hi we use PLM" and more lectures on how to develop and implement PLM in an existing company»
- Improved communication between everyone More consistent relevant lecture material More advice available on how to achieve higher grades in the project and more help in terms of scripting as we don"t come from a software background. »
- The catia work combined with smarteam. It was hard to both understand what to do in catia and also it was a very funky way of doing the parameterization. We first got the impression that it wasn"t that important that it was completely correct but in the examination it was very important»
- Change the project to next year. Its unecessary to spend so much time on smarteam and not get any good result out of it. One idea is to have more practical lectures in smarteam in class, to actually understand the basics in smarteam. The tutorials could be carried out in that way.»
- Do not under any circumstance keep the Virtual Machine package, it is extremely buggy and creates a very destructive and inefficient work environment for the students. If this project is to be kept for next year it needs better IT-tools, better tutorials and provide a deeper understanding for the entire system. »
- More alignment between the learning outcomes and lectures. The exact requirements for a certain grade must be specified. The lectures must be better connected to the project and its requirements. »
- Less CAD and more lectures considering SmartTeam.»
- Better guidance in computer sessions»
- The project. I think it would be better to divide the projects into smaller steps or perhaps change the program. I"ve heard of other universities that in similar courses use Visual Basic and MySQL to build very simple PLM systems. Perhaps that would be better, focusing on the creative part and not being held back by the software.»

16. Additional comments

- As a International student I found it difficult to follow everything that was going on and feel alot was just assumed»
- Good with database knowledge!»
- This course is overloaded and take to much time. »
- Suggestions: -Perhaps spend one of the first lab sessions allowing the students to play around in a working smarteam environment where they are one of the users, getting a feel for the possibilities. -Explain the parametrization a lot more and offer better CAD-models than those provided, they were drawn by a very inexperienced person which takes up too much of the ACTUAL course purpose. -Skip the first preliminary hand-in of the report and offer individual stage-gates instead. Too much of how one should have worked instead was discovered during the final presentation, which meant that you have no time to actually learn something new and fundamentally important.»
- Intersting course! Keep up the good work»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.61

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 2.61
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.4

Kursutvärderingssystem från