|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENKÄTER | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visa resultatHär 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.
Computational Fluid Dynamics, MTF072Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2013-01-18 - 2013-02-18 Antal svar: 52 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 57% Kontaktperson: Sinisa Krajnovic» Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers: masterskurs
1. How have you prioritised the course relative to the other courses this period.*52 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.32 2. What do you think about the lectures?*52 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.42 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex) - No structure. Take it slower» (Very poor) 3. How would you grade the general quality of the lecture notes?*52 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.71 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex) - The lecture notes contain a lot of spelling mistakes. In addition, it is hard to get a good overview since there is no table of content but we just have a couple of sections which are connected in some way.
Explanations given in the lecture notes are often hard to follow without the text book and examples are often not too good.
Better lecture notes would be very good for following courses.» (Very poor) 4. Did you get enough help with computer exercises from the exercise teachers?- Yes in the end. But we did get some wrong suggestions one time. (Did only look for help 2 or 3 times.)»- Yes, but sometime it took too long time before getting help.» - No, K3 is still not finished even though we"ve consulted the teachers many times.» - The PhD students are competent but usually there was a huge queue list during the computer exercises and it took quite long. Regarding the assignments, it would be helpful if they could mention the key problems and obstacles right in the beginning and not once after a while. Especially part 2 task 3 meant big problems to most of us and it would be helpful to have a "cookbook" that explains what one can do when there is no convergence (finer mesh, adjust initial guess, ...).» - Yes, the assistance was very good!» - No, there was often an hours waiting before getting help on the scheduled times. The teachers often didn"t seem to really care, they made a couple of guesses as to what could help with the problem and then just wanted us to leave. I guess they had way to many students to take care of to be able to really get into it. » - Yes» - Yes» - + All the time I needed, I got help - but not always helpful» - No, there were too few assistants.» - yes» - yes» - Yes, it was no promblem to visit Haukur even after the schedual times. Give him credit for that!» - Yes, we got the help that we needed. But the presentations however was a joke. The exercise teacher showed up 5-10 minutes late and then (she) started to connect the projector and stuff. The motivation for these presentations was at the end of the course as small as the Kolmogorov scales... » - No. Absolutely not. The exercise teachers needs to be much more available. » - yes» - i didn"t get any help from the exercise teacher» - yes» - Yes» - yes the teachers were really useful» - No. They were always busy. What they said, was distracting. » - Availability could have been better, office hours were limited.» - Yes but they did not always give the same information and did sometimes contradict eachother. Also I used to sit in the linux computer room since Chalmers has separate file systems between windows and linux and can"t access my files on windows computers and I would therefore miss the walkthroughs on the whiteboard.» - Yes, they did an excellent job and where very friendly and willing to help. » - Not really.» - YES» - Yes» - No» - in some extant» - Yes, they were very helpful when needed.» - Yes, though didn"t attend many. Most were helpful even at times not prescribed for asking. Especially Haukur.» - less than needed help for the last exercise» - Most of the exercises we did on our own and help (through discussions) from other students.» - Yes.» - Hard to get computers when exercises, not enough booked computers.» - The open-office hours crashed with lectures in another course. It felt like we disturbed the teachers when we went to see them. During the exercises you sometimes had to wait for 30min+ to get help. You had to be quick when leaving the lectures and hurry to get access to a computer. » - Yes, they where very helpful even at times not reserved for questions.» - No, not at all. They need to be much more available. It was very hard to get help. » - Yes, they where very helpful» - not always» - Yes» 5. How would you grade the tasks with respect to your learning progress, creating interest and general quality?*52 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.69 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex) - The heat equation is not very sexy anymore. It has been solved in different ways in 3 or 4 courses I have taken.
It would have been nice to do something in 3D as a change.» (Not good enough) 6. How did you like the course arrangement (Lectures/Lecture notes/Computer exercise/Course homepage/Information)- It was good. The presentations though are meaningless. If there should be a presentation, do it just for one task and schedule more time for both presentation and discussion. It would have been more interesting to hear in more details how the other groups implemented their code and how they solved different upcoming problems. Not just look at nice figures and (random) numbers.»- Good» - Good» - The course arrangement was fine.» - Good for this type of content!» - Course homepage was not so good, would have been nice with a feature where you could update us on news and stuff, not only a place where you uploaded documents. » - The computer exercise are quite excellent. They make me understand how to use the taught spectrums and computing methods in practice. Lectures and lecture notes are clear and do help a lot for understanding.» - it was good...maybe some exercises (examples) together» - Good.» - Good» - it was good But too many things to do as well» - good» - good» - best» - Not enough time for computer exercises.» - Good» - Good exercises» - It was good. But the book is far to much material to be able to take it in. Therefore it would be helpful with a little bit more lecture notes. Otherwise only positive, it is good that a large part is focused on the tasks!» - Good.» - Good.» - Good» - Teacher screwed some parts in the turbulence modeling because of time limitation, though 50% of the time of this course was for computer labs. This means instead of the useless computer labs, the teacher could teach and explain and describe the most important parts instead of screwing them, like turbulence modeling.» - no idea» - Good, no changes necessary!» - I liked it. » - quiet good and clear» - lecture notes were good and the computer exercises were also good. Didn"t like the lectures much though.» - It was good.» - The arrangement was good, especially the homepage. Please, stay away from Ping-pong and the student portal as long as you can! It"s much better not having to rely on the student portal being up and running. » - Good.» - i liked it» - good, but heavy» - very good» 7. How did you like the examples of the use of CFD shown by the lecturer and the guest from industry?- Did not participate.»- Lectures - good Guest lecturer - waste of time» - did not attend» - The examples given by Sinisa (like car bodies) and the guest were really interesting and should be kept.» - Very interesting to see and hear a few practical informations.» - Good stuff!» - Important to see how CFD is used i the industry.» - very interesting, but a bit more varied would be better» - Good.» - I would prefer some more examples from industry.» - Good» - the guest was not good» - Only attended the first 45 min. Not so good.» - ok» - ok» - I liked them.» - Too poor.» - N/A» - The lecture was more interesting than I thought. A bit long perhaps with too many details but it was interesting to see the mix between CFD and optimization for example.» - It was inspiring but I would have liked to have more of it. Especially a little bit more throughout presentation from Sinisa about how the LES code works and what the results from the simulations are. Also maybe more of the theoretical parts could have also been demonstrated using simulations, so that you get a better picture of how the physics works. » - Couldn"t attend that lecture.» - Good » - Good» - If I compare them with other universities and teachers it was too poor.» - it was not enough » - Interesting.» - Afraid I missed the guest lecturer. Sinisa"s examples were good and insipring.» - poor. we need to know more how is it used in industry » - It was okay.» - Interesting and definitively something you should keep as a part of the course. » - Good.» - the guest was not that interesting unfortunately. » - found it interesting but perhaps not necessary» 8. What is your general impression of the course. Are your expectations safisfied?- It was a good course, but it should also include at least one assignment done with a commercial software. Why don"t do an assignment both in Matlab and in Ansys (for example) and compare the results. If it is as Sinisa says, that commercial softwares gives wrong results, SHOW IT!»- Good. Yes» - good» - I appreciated that we had to write our own codes to solve CFD problems. This gave a very good impression what CFD is about, how tricky it is and that industry software should be dealt with wisely. Furthermore, teh course is a good introduction to further fluid courses like turbulence modelling etc. Unfortunately, I was a bit disappointed by the quality of the lecture notes which made studying not very easy and often required to re-read in the text book again which sometimes was structured differently, however. » - In the whole i am satisfied with the course.» - When you hear cfd this is not what comes to mind, this was just linear interpolation shemes» - A LOT of work for very little results. Especially since it was tough getting help. Felt like everyone involved in teaching didn"t really like to have to do it. » - It was difficult and tough. But after finishing all the assignments and the exam, it can be found that it"s awesome. I did learn a lot and be impressive.» - expectations safisfied» - The course was good, and I did learn much more than I thought I would. » - Excellent» - yes, it is satisfied» - Very good, one of the better courses at Chalmers.» - very good» - course was nice» - The computer lab was harder than expected. Apart from that, satisfied.» - No clear curriculum and learning outcomes where defined. Did not match course description at student portal. THIS NEEDS TO BE CORRECT!!!» - I am satisfied and I hope that I am interesting to CFD companies. This remains to be seen but Sinisa seems to have a close connection with the industry and knows what they want.» - I have a good impression of the course. However I expected a little bit larger part about how to actually solve N-S with the simplex and how to actually implement Rhie-Chow or Staggered grids. Maybe leave the tubulence part for the dedicated course in quarter four, Turbulence modelling? » - Yes.» - yes.» - Yes» - Very bad organisation. No course pm, no deadlines for assignments, no learning outcomes. What are we supposed to learn?? Presentations were a joke. Five gruops are suppossed to present 5 minutes each in 30 minutes. The teachers come late and the presentations allways started 10-15 minutes too late. (EVERY TIME). Teachers started to discuss with one gruop for 15 min. i.e. they had no time perception.» - No, I am not. Because I think I got screwed by bad teaching.» - in some extant » - Yes I am satisfied!» - Yes. Gave a good overview and a chance to implement it in matlab.» - actually it was so good. quiet satisfied» - Most of the learning was by reading the compendium. I wish the lectures gave more insight.» - No.. I still don"t know how CFD-software that i would use in industry works. Maybe a task with commercial software next year?» - Very good course, demanding, but rewarding. My expectations are satisfied, if it had not been my last term (doing my thesis now) I would also take the turbulence modelling course. » - Good, yes.» - pretty much yes» - a lot of times it felt like a course in debugging. The tasks took too long to finish so that the effort you put into them greatly exceed what you actually learn from them.» 9. What is your general grade on the course?*52 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.61 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex) - Got a 4, but I think I could have done much better in the exam.» (Ok) 10. Did the exam reflect the course in a fair way?- Yes.»- yes» - Yes, the exam was really fair.» - Yes, but the goals of the course was very unclear» - Yes. » - Yes» - Yes, it helped to review all the content taught from the course pretty well.» - + exam was demanding but fair - would be an improvement, if the exercises are counted in for a few percent» - Yes it was a good and fair exam.» - Yes, but there was way too much writing. I was writing at full speed for 4 hours, and I hadn"t got time to solve all problems properly.» - Yes» - I didnt take the exam» - yes it did!» - Yes. However The two last tasks were not the best. Deriving transport equations was not reflected in the course. And for the last tasks: knowing the log law shouldn"t be a necessity, knowing what it means and having a hint of what it looks like should be enough. A better question would be: Explain how you would derive boundary conditions for k & epsilon in the log region (wall function). And then the student is supposed to explain assumptions etc.» - yes» - Yes, for the most part.» - No» - I suppose so, I could certainly recognize the questions from earlier exams.» - Yes. But the questions regarding the tasks was a little bit unfair since some students maybe did not solve the task in a certain way, and then had no idea of the question at the exam. That is, the task-questions should be more general I think.» - Yes.» - yes» - To an large extend.» - Yes» - Not good enough» - no idea» - Yes it was a fair exam!» - Yes.» - Yes» - actually i think not so fair since so many things about the particular cases in the projects were asked» - Yes it did.» - Yes, in my opinion, it had a very broad scope and covered the essentials of the course. No "crazy" questions that had barely been covered during the course. » - Yes» - to some extent yes but since the course was about the 3 computer exercises the exam seemed kind of unnecessary. perhaps make 4 computer exercises and no exam instead. » - yes» - yes» 11. How has the cooperation between you and students in your class been?52 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.57 - I did everything, my college did nothing.I dont really mind but people definately can pass at least the assignments without doing anything.» (Very bad) Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.65 * obligatoriska frågor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9%