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.

BOM-Steel structures 2012, VSM191

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-11-01 - 2012-11-20
Antal svar: 35
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 51%
Kontaktperson: Björn Engström»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Väg- och vattenbyggnad 300 hp

Learning outcomes and examination

Before you answer these questions, please check in the course syllabus what is stated about learning outcomes of the course.

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

34 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»34 100%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- I don"t remember the course goals» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Goals are clear and extensive - a high demanding course, which I like - but it"s hard to have time for it all with an equally demanding course simultaneously. » (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

2. To what extent have you reached the learning outcomes?

34 svarande

0-20%»0 0%
20-40%»0 0%
40-60%»5 14%
60-80%»12 35%
80-100%»17 50%

Genomsnitt: 4.35

- I think more focus should be placed on understanding the structure as a whole - but I always think that. The problem with Structural Engineering at large, as I see it, is that we do not learn to reason comprehensively enough about structural systems. To approximate loads, to intuit consequences of different solutions. Our tasks are too often to look at an existing structure and check if it holds locally, which is naturally very important, but I think it would make us better engineers if we to a greater extent learned to predict behavior instead of just spot-checking it. As for this course, this more interesting reasoning was "well hidden": at a glance the course seemed only to be about buckling, but when further asked the teacher elaborated into extremely interesting discussions about how the whole structure would react to different loads. I would like to see more of that in the actual lectures and the design task.» (60-80%)
- I think the teaching is very good - although I think more focus should lie on the fatigue - or I feel it needs more clarification atleast. Otherwise the only thing that prevents me from reaching the full learning is time - there isn"t enough time to devout to the course (reasonable time I mean). One have to spend all free time to deal with this course and another course with equal demands - this isn"t reasonable for me atleast.» (60-80%)
- Maybe stability part.» (80-100%)
- Everything was covered very well, but if I should point out something, then LT-buckling perhaps could be given some more attention in the teaching if possible,since the book does not cover it.» (80-100%)

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

Please consider all kinds of examiantions during the course: assignments, projects, seminars, final written exam, etc.

34 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»8 23%
Yes, definitely»23 67%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»3 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.85

- Stability part again.» (Yes, definitely)
- I don"t remember the course goals, but the subjects brought up during lectures were tested in the examination (FEM, design task and written exam).» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)
- I liked the fact that the lab was about a real problem in relation to a Master"s thesis - I think this should be done much more often! The design task needs to be more clear and organised, in my opinion.» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)

Teaching and learning

4. To what extent has the organised teaching activities been of help for your learning?

34 svarande

Small extent»1 2%
Some extent»4 11%
Large extent»21 61%
Great extent»8 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- I preferred reading the compendium instead of attending the lectures, but that is an individual preference. I learn more from reading the text than listening to the lecturer, although I am aware of that I risk missing out on other info given during lectures.» (Some extent)
- The lectures have been rather good for learning. Most learning though was from discussion with teachers and working with the design task.» (Some extent)
- Sometimes they have been very busy and hard to get help. We were recommended to ask questions on the Pingpong but it mostly took very long time to get an answer. » (Some extent)
- I noticed that the lecture notes were obligatory for the exam, which was strange and not so sympathetic.» (Large extent)
- Very good! » (Great extent)
- Mohammed is very good at teaching and discussing.» (Great extent)
- Very good lectures!» (Great extent)
- Great lecturers, both Mohammad and Reza and also quite good FEM-exercises. But, to go through the FEM-exercise step by step in class doesn"t work very well. If you get lost you canät follow the rest of the instructions. Better to have a leaflet with instructions!» (Great extent)
- The design task covered almost all subjects, and the fem-task covered LT-buckling also.» (Great extent)

5. To what extent has the teaching material and the course home page been of help for your learning?

35 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»7 20%
Large extent»20 57%
Great extent»8 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.02

- I must complain on the eurocode organisation - it"s not very pleasant to print a lot of pages to later find that many pages are missing, and have to print again and so forth - I think it"s about 6 or 7 different eurocode files on the pingpong and I think most students would have liked some more structure in the handouts.» (Some extent)
- It has been a bit confusing when the extract from eurocode has not been completed. New material have been added during the whole course because of miscommunication between the teachers.» (Large extent)
- The pingpong discussions were a good initiative. The design task was disorganised, it took a lot of time and lectures to understand what was supposed to be done. This time could have been better spent reasoning about the structure.» (Large extent)
- pingpong is good, and the active forum was very effective.» (Great extent)
- All material on pingpong and quick updates. Also, the discussion work very well and all teachers have anwered questions quickly. That is very helpful and this is one of few courses that uses pingpong in such a good way.» (Great extent)
- I like when the lectures are handed out in before to more easily follow the lecture. But why hand out them sometimes 5 min before the lecture starts? At latest the afternoon before would be good. » (Great extent)

6. How were the opportunities to get feedback and for asking questions and getting help from teachers and supervisors?

35 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»2 5%
Rather good»16 45%
Very good»17 48%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- The questions on ping-pong weren´,t answered!! That"s really bad when the teacher is advocates questions on the site.» (Rather poor)
- See my previous answer. » (Rather good)
- It was easy to reach the teachers personally, and the disussion in pingpong were good!» (Very good)
- All in the teaching stuff were almost everyday available for questions. Great help! » (Very good)

Course organisation

7. How well did the course organisation, course information, course home page, handouts etc work?

35 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»2 5%
Rather well»12 34%
Very well»21 60%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

- The teacher team was quite un-synced about the design task (deadlines, ways to hand in, how to do the final presentation).» (Rather well)
- I really miss calculations example for us to study! And be more clear about the ECs. Which should we use, and dont hand out a big one and write a message like that. » (Rather well)
- Well organized.» (Very well)
- The course seemed very well structured.» (Very well)

Study climate

8. To what extent have the facilties at Chalmers been appropriate to support your studies in this course, e.g. lecture halls, study rooms, equipment, computer labs etc.

35 svarande

Small extent»7 20%
Some extent»10 28%
Large extent»13 37%
Great extent»5 14%

Genomsnitt: 2.45

- The lecture halls were too crowded on several occasions.» (Small extent)
- The lecture halls were way to crowded.» (Small extent)
- Too many students in the computer room, it would be better to be in two different rooms lecture halls often too small, sometimes we had to grab chairs from other rooms or stand during class» (Small extent)
- Throughout the course there has been a lack of space, in lecture rooms, computer labs etc. There have not been chairs for everyone and people have been sitting on the floor. » (Small extent)
- Really bad in this course! In the beginning we were the whole class in one computer room, good that they changed that later on. But NEVER use VÖ13, that class room is horrible to work in! And I you cant have thoose small class-rooms for the lectures, that does not work! We were to many and sometimes is was not chairs and tables for everyone, VERY BAD to be a course from Chalmers. You really need to provied bigger rooms when we are that many, otherwise dont accept so many students. » (Small extent)
- Sometimes we had too small rooms for the lectures and computer exercises» (Some extent)
- problems at begining before all groups had acces o the carpentry» (Some extent)
- More booked computer rooms needed.» (Some extent)
- To few free computers!» (Some extent)
- The VV23 (the one with windows towards Sven Hultins gata) room do not havea sufficient amount of desks and chairs to hoste the class.» (Large extent)
- There was a problem with fitting the class into the computer rooms at first, but that was worked out.» (Large extent)
- It would be great extent if in some limited occasions there were more computer available» (Large extent)
- hard with tooo many students in a computer lab. Bad with FEM lab where 4 people sit round one computer. Two at a maximum is working. » (Large extent)
- It was good that another computer room was added to the schedule during the fem task.» (Great extent)
- Bad computer rooms in the beginning, but this issue was solved» (Great extent)
- Usually difficult to find available computers if you arrive after 10am. The days we had lectures until noon, my project group often decided to sit separately at home instead of trying to find computers.» (Great extent)

9. How much of your available time for studies in this study period did you spend on this course?

It is assumed that 50% of the time in one quarter is used for a course of 7,5 credit units.

34 svarande

less than 20%»0 0%
20-40%»3 8%
about 50%»18 52%
60-80%»11 32%
more than 80%»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- I would"ve spent more time if the other course didn"t require so much time.» (20-40%)
- Unfortunately this course was overshadowed by Structural Design, where the work load was immense at times. I think that is a shame, since this is the only pure steel-course that is included in the master programme. The structural design course had similarities with structural systems, so we were familiar with the work structure but still needed to complete the tasks, which was very time consuming.» (20-40%)
- The parallel course Structural Design took a lot of time.» (20-40%)
- I was intent on spending exactly the amount of time I should on this course (ie to not study more than fulltime). This was probably too little, actually - I would have needed more time to acheive a good result...» (about 50%)
- I would have wanted to study nore but the other course was too time demanding» (about 50%)
- tried to allow for 50% divide - but the course (as many other courses) - demands far more time than corresponds to 7,5 credits. Thus I couldn"t learn as much as I would have wanted to or needed in this course (since I prioritize free time and health).» (about 50%)
- I would say 60% steel structures and 40% structural design, as steel structures had lots of things to do and study at the same time.» (60-80%)
- To much with both a big FEM-project and a project work. We got no time to study for the exam, and the working load was very heavy. » (more than 80%)

10. How was the course workload?

35 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»15 42%
High»18 51%
Too high»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.62

- I had heard that it was a heavy work load in this course, but i think it was very reasonable.» (Adequate)
- ...but then again, Chalmers fulltime is apparently more than regular fulltime.» (Adequate)
- The FEM project was very good concerning the working load, we had just enough time to finish it during FEMworkshop, so that wa good.» (Adequate)
- Almost too high with both the large design task and also fem task upon that.» (High)
- I spent a lot of time on this course during the whole period, but it felt like I should"ve needed one extra week for preparing ahead of the exam.» (High)
- The work load was high to a bit more than high, but bearable.» (High)
- See above. Either make the project work smaller, or skip the FEM. Both in that extent are to much. » (Too high)

Summarising questions

11. What is your general impression of the course?

35 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»0 0%
Good»23 65%
Excellent»12 34%

Genomsnitt: 4.34

- Please try to correct errors in the calculation examples. It"s very frustrating and hard to understand a design method when different solutions are inconsistent. Be more clear when assumptions are/should be made. More describing references to EC.» (Good)
- Again, I think there is an opportunity here to explore different structural systems, the forces that act on them and how they can be manipulated.» (Good)
- I think that the design task and the lectures were great, the FEM task was more of a hassle than something i learned from.» (Good)
- Its fun with steel after this course!» (Excellent)
- Why is there no more coures in steel? So much fun and so much to learn, but so little time!» (Excellent)
- Excellent teaching and information which I think is essential for working in the construction industry. » (Excellent)
- Great teaching stuff, great book, many well-structured activities. Very good combination I think.» (Excellent)

12. What is the remaining value of the course in the future

35 svarande

Very small»0 0%
Rather small»0 0%
Neutral»1 2%
Rahter high»19 54%
Very high»15 42%

Genomsnitt: 4.4

- I felt I gleaned a lot of useful knowledge from the course.» (Rahter high)
- Very much. This is my future! Therefor I wish it was even better. » (Rahter high)
- I like steel!» (Very high)
- In terms of calculation, most of it can be done by just following Eurocode, but as far as designing connections and cross-sections, it gave a good framework.» (Very high)
- A course that needs to be preserved - and, of course, continually improved as everything else. » (Very high)
- The course covered fields of steel structures that every civil engineer should more or less possess.» (Very high)

13. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The design task and the teachers.»
- the design task was very good»
- The bridge project.»
- Design task, FEM-lab.»
- Design task, FEM task.»
- The design task. But it would be very useful if all the comments, assumptions and notes that where presented at lectures about the task were appended to the project description. If you missed one session, it was very hard to understand what to do only on the basis of the project description.»
- The magnitude of the FEM-project»
- I think the organization in general is fine and the main structure of the course is good.»
- Everything»
- Project work»
- The design task»
- The design task.»
- The fact that the computer lab was connected to and explored a problem/subject which is related to the industry and a Master"s thesis. The design task must be preserved as well - although the misinformation and lack of instructions and order in the design task, I think, must be attended to - otherwise the design task takes much more time than the 20% it"s supposed to take. »
- Two computer rooms (it was very crowdy during the first sessions with only one computer room). The assignment was good.»
- Project work»
- Design task »
- All teachers, Mohammad, Valbona and Reza have done a great job. The design task is really good and helps learning a lot.»
- The railway bridge task was very good and took on every aspect of the course.»
- Mohamed, Reza, Valbona, book, design task and fem-lab.»
- That calculation project work. The lectures, they were really good. The book as well.»
- the project work»

14. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The workload could maybee be a bit lower, it was hard to combine this course with structural design who also has very high workload.»
- I think that it was rather hard to understand what to do in the FEM-task (to understand what happened)»
- The presentation of the FEM-lab. It"s too repetitive and could possibly be changed to the better.»
- try to keep lecture times, it is not ok to take 20-25 min extra from the lunch every time»
- More holistic approach to structural behaviour. Better design task description.»
- Why do we keep modelling in Abaqus in all the courses? No on understands the interface good enough to be able to concentrate on the actual FEM problem, instead all of us struggles with undertstanding the concepts of the Abaqus interface and eliminating all sorts of problems appearing related to the softwear.»
- More examples to calculate to prepare for the exam»
- Some addotional information about FEM task should be given, it"s rather confusing at the beginning.»
- Nothing»
- Maybe less focus on calculating reactions and more on steel capacity in project work. »
- It"s an expensive book with loads of errors. Correct the errors in the examples.»
- Maybe the design task and the FEM project could be pass/fail rather than U/3/4/5, since I don"t see how there could be enough to distinguish the quality of the project for those grades when the work has been carried out according to rather strict instructions. It seems that more of the grade is based on presentation, which I don"t think is the most relevant thing in this course. Also, it would be good to have a better structure of the coursebook, preferably with and index at the end. »
- Rather than just giving questions that should be answered - i.e. the theory questions - some answers I think should be given - or atleast where to find the answers. I understand why it"s better to find out for ourselves - but the time issue comes back again - time isn"t considered in this course - but to be fair many courses don"t think of the students in this way - they rather think that students should invest all of their free time to read and learn in the right way - which of course would be great - but isn"t reasonable. Teachers can"t expect student to find all answers themselves as well as having tasks and additional work that already satisfies or sometimes exceeds total time. »
- It was very good that the text in the book differed some from the lecture. That way, you got two explanations to some chapters and you could read if you had missed one lecture. But some chapters in the book lacked text and referred only to the lectures.»
- Nothing special»
- Clearer fem task»
- The FEM-task could be improved.»
- The FEM task was not as good as it could be. The groups were to large and the work was mostly repetition. »
- All the important parts of the course went really well, so I cannot point out something significant to change, apart from some more computers during the fem-lab.»
- one eurocode istead of 5. or a summery could work to. more calculation questions through out the course. »
- The lecture halls! Use bigger. More calculation examples. Reduce the working load in general. »
- The seminare of the computer-lab. It is"nt intressting to listen to 10 groups presenting the "same topic".»
- work with FEM assigment in smaller groups and have more time to work with that»
- the workingload on the project work...it was too much.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från