Visa resultat

LP1 H12 TIF030 Modern imaging, spectroscopy and diffraction techniques

Your own effort

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

29 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		11		37%
Around 20 hours/week»		13		44%
Around 25 hours/week»		4		13%
Around 30 hours/week»		1		3%
At least 35 hours/week»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.82

- Not evenly distributed over the course. It would have been good if the labs (especially optic and afm) could start ealier.» (Around 20 hours/week)

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

29 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		1		3%
75%»		9		31%
100%»		19		65%

Genomsnitt: 4.62

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		8		27%
The goals are difficult to understand»		1		3%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		12		41%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		8		27%

Genomsnitt: 2.68

- The goals are very vague.» (The goals are difficult to understand)

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

23 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		7		30%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		16		69%
No, the goals are set too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.69

- It doesn"t work very well to mix students with so different backgrouds in one course. » (No, the goals are set too low)
- SPM part was maybe a bit to simple.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- The course gives a very useful toolbox for the future.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- The goals are reasonable. However vague» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

No, not at all»		1		4%
To some extent»		8		33%
Yes, definitely»		14		58%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 2.62

- The examination only checks if you have attended the lectures.» (No, not at all)
- The exam was a bit too easy.» (To some extent)
- The exam was really alike the old ones. But I think a good thing would have been to have some kind of project or dugga or so, as a complement to the home works.» (To some extent)
- The exam was not very hard but you had to understand everything in the course in order to approve. Well balanced.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		1		3%
Some extent»		10		34%
Large extent»		15		51%
Great extent»		3		10%

Genomsnitt: 2.68

- Mikael Käll didn"t seem interested whatsoever regarding teaching the course. Unprepared at many times and some of the hand in "problems" felt like he wanted us to do some of his work. Especially when we were asked to write an exam question with answer... Eva at least seemed a bit interested in giving the course but was at times poorly prepared for the lectures.» (Small extent)
- The SPM part was good. The optics was okay but the slides weren"t really educational. The last part about electron microscopy was a bit confusing. The lecturer"s black board technique was really bad. It was unstructred and confusing.» (Some extent)
- The lectures with Eva was really helping, but the ones with Mikael was rather an obstacle.» (Some extent)
- The teaching in the first part of the course was somewhat unstructured and hard to follow.» (Some extent)
- The lectures gave the knowledge needed to pass the exam and the homework but that was only because the exam was written to see if you attended the lectures. I gained more knowledge from wikipedia.» (Some extent)
- The lectures that was given by Mikael was a bit to caotic. Since he jumped some slides due to inefficient use of time. Do not go through the handin during the lecture! He has a good lecture technique, but it was almost impossible to rember what was important due to the jumps. Ewa needs to talk a bit higher.» (Some extent)
- The electron microscopy part and the SPM part were fine, but the lectures on optical microscop did not give anything if attended.» (Some extent)
- I think that both lecturers focused on the wrong things. Maybe because they didn"t know which prequisities we had. But sometimes they spent a lot of time explaining things I already knew, just to skip the hard stuff really quickly.» (Some extent)
- The laborations were grate, but the lectures could have been more well prepared and more advanced. » (Large extent)
- Mikael: Your lectures need to much better prepared. Plan how you dispose of the time, talking half the lecture about Nobel laureates doesn"t really help us in understanding optical microscopy.» (Large extent)
- SEM/TEM lectures were good. Optical lectures had good slides, but lectures were a bit disorganized and spent lots of time on the sometimes silly hand ins.» (Great extent)

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

Small extent»		10		34%
Some extent»		14		48%
Large extent»		4		13%
Great extent»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 1.86

- I would have perfered to have a booklet containing the relevant parts of the course. As it was, course literature was restricted to powerpoint slides only.» (Small extent)
- There was not really any good literature. » (Small extent)
- A course book is needed so we can have reference material.» (Small extent)
- The review articles for the optical microscopy part was really bad, there should be some other kind of material if the lectures are gonna be performed in that way.» (Small extent)
- Didn"t have the books.» (Small extent)
- Wikipedia is the shit!» (Some extent)
- The SPM part was good and the optics was decent. There was no way I were going to buy the books on SEM and TEM just for 2 weeks in one course. Seeing as these methods appear in multiple courses I would recommend you to write a booklet on these techniques with the necessary aspects covered. This booklet could then be used in all of these courses.» (Some extent)
- In the electron microscopy part I have no complaints. The optical microscopy part could be clearer and more well defined when it comes to background material.» (Some extent)
- The lab PM and the lecture notes of Eva was very helpful.» (Some extent)
- Lab material very useful. Relevant information.» (Some extent)
- The course needs to have litterature that is affordable or available as e-books. Proper course liiterature is of great value in the learning process. » (Some extent)
- I didn"t buy any book. I didn"t need to. » (Some extent)
- Slides were good. Article on superresolution good. Lab PMs good. Optical microscopy notes good but not necessary, useful as a reference.» (Large extent)
- expecially lab PMs» (Large extent)
- Some outdated lab-pms but overall ok. Also, Eva Olsson"s lectures could be put online if you miss lectures. (For me, I had other lectures at the same time for instance).» (Large extent)

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

Very badly»		10		34%
Rather badly»		5		17%
Rather well»		12		41%
Very well»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.2

- There were no homepage at start of the course. And the lab submit were done on a pice of paper verry badly administrated. » (Very badly)
- When the homepage EVENTUALLY was running, it was a little bit unclear how the registration of the labs was about to be carried out. The handouts worked well.» (Very badly)
- The administrations of the web page was really bad, and the administration about the lab times should have been handled much better. » (Very badly)
- The course web site has to be up and running prior to the course start. Signing up for the AFM and optical microscopy labs was a messy business that could have been avoided with a working web site. Also, there is no reason to have the course material protected behind a login. The course material should be made available prior to the course start. This would make it easier to asses the course prior to selecting it at the beginning of term.» (Very badly)
- The webpage toke forever before it was up. I found no where on the webpage or in the course-pm what the names of the teachers were or how to contact them however two of the laboratory assistants had ther names listed. The handouts were not structured. Meaning the some papers you got twice and many of the papers were not on the webpage. The women teacher asked how many were phd students and said that she would make sure they had a seat at the exam, this was of course not the case. Information in general was poor.» (Very badly)
- We couldn"t access the course page until week 2! Some of our handins didn"t seam to have a connection to the course. We need to be able to sign up to the labs without running, as the first day. Make the course page work during the hole course!» (Very badly)
- There were no course PM the first week, the lab-pms were handed out way to late and the "sign-up" sheets for the lab sessions were poorly executed.» (Very badly)
- How come it took nearly two weeks before we even had a course page in the student"s portal? We missed the first lab sessions since there was no course page so the students could not register for the sessions. Then when they (Eva and Mikael) attended the lectures they asked us to sign up on papers, which increased the entropy significantly so to speak.» (Very badly)
- The course homepage should exist when the course starts, no matter if the examinators are on conference or not! The lab booking for the first two labs was a catastrophy.» (Very badly)
- The beginning of the course was a chaos that turned into something better.» (Rather badly)
- It is not acceptable that the course homepage is delayed like this! The lecturers lack respect of the time of the students. If you go to a conference you MUST prepare everything in advance!» (Rather badly)
- I vill ha slidesen i förväg så att jag kan skriva ut dem och anteckna på dem med pilar och små kommentarer. Det räcker med ett dygn i förväg.» (Rather badly)
- Problems with the web page not being available at the start of the course. This was really bad and reflects negatively on the responsible lecturers and the course as a whole. » (Rather well)
- The only thing that was bad (that comes to mind) was that the course page was not available until week 2.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		1		3%
Rather good»		10		34%
Very good»		12		41%
I did not seek help»		6		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.79

- It was very easy to find Eva before the examination, but nearly impossible to find Michael.» (Rather poor)
- Eva: Very good with scheduled time for questions!» (Rather good)
- The question time with Eva was really good. It was nice that it was so close to the exam. Do that for both teachers next year, it was a really good idea!» (Rather good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		0		0%
Rather well»		10		34%
Very well»		13		44%
I did not seek cooperation»		6		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.86

- Vi fick ju inte hjälpas åt på läxorna, det sa iaf Eva. Det tycker jag är felaktigt. Det är väl jättebra om vi lär oss av varandra. Det spelar väl ingen roll hur det går till - bara att vi lär oss sakerna.» (Rather well)

11. How was the course workload?

Too low»		4		13%
Low»		8		27%
Adequate»		16		55%
High»		1		3%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.48

- With an engineering physics background the course was merely a repetition of known material.» (Too low)
- The lecturers taught the same basics about microscopes over and over again. It seems like they haven"t spoken to each other when they planned for the course. Most of the course is already covered in the engineering physics bachelor program. Mere one or two new techniques were covered. Nice to be able to perform the lab session and not only observe PhD students perform the labs. » (Too low)
- Det kunde vara svårt att hinna göra läxorna när vi hade dem från måndag till torsdag eller torsdag till måndag. Mikael kunde ha sagt att läxorna var frivilliga. Jag trodde de var obligatoriska och var t.ex. tvungen att göra läxa en helg när jag var bortrest.» (Adequate)
- The labs were really good. Some handins were also good connection to the course, others just took time and I didn"t understand why they were there. » (Adequate)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		1		3%
Low»		5		17%
Adequate»		20		68%
High»		2		6%
Too high»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.89

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		5		17%
Fair»		4		13%
Adequate»		7		24%
Good»		11		37%
Excellent»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.03 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The connection and correlation between the two different parts of the course was weak at best. Mikael Käll has to organise himself and start preparing his lectures. He also needs to decide what to teach and not only advertise himself.» (Poor)
- To many problems in the begining. Not understanding what was important during Mikaels lectures. Not hearing Eva, during here lectures (here i could however read my notes afterwards)» (Poor)
- Poor administration, bad lectures, uninteresting homeworks» (Poor)
- I did get the feeling that none of the examinators really liked having the course.» (Poor)
- So, it was a course that gave a good overview of the subject, but it didn"t quite feel like master"s level...» (Adequate)
- The course is wonderful every experimental physicist should read it. The labs are awesome. The optical microscopy teacher was a very good lecturer. The guy presenting STEM was also good however he seams a lite nervous it will probably pass. The female teacher was knowing but could not give lectures. The only thing she ever did was to slowly rewright her notes on the black board. If she had presented her notes on the web no one would attend the lectures.» (Adequate)
- Roligt med labbarna» (Adequate)
- A bit too simplistic at times. » (Good)
- It is a very relevant and useful course. I have learnt a lot of useful things. But the teachers lack respect of the students, I get this feeling at least. A course homepage needs to be up well before the coiurse starts! » (Good)
- Almost excellent :)» (Good)
- Good overview of many Imaging techniques being used.» (Excellent)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

16. Additional comments