ENKÄTER

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

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.

Gas Turbine Technology, MTF171

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2013-02-20 - 2013-03-01
Antal svar: 8
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 40%
Kontaktperson: Tomas Grönstedt»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Maskinteknik 300 hp

Your own effort

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

8 svarande

At most 15 hours per week» 0 0%

Around 20 hours per week» 4 50%

Around 25 hours per week» 3 37%

Around 30 hours per week» 1 12%

Genomsnitt: 2.62

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

8 svarande

0-25%» 0 0%

25-50%» 0 0%

50-75%» 1 12%

75-100%» 7 87%

Genomsnitt: 3.87

3. Which master program do you follow?

8 svarande

Applied Mechanics» 2 25%

Sustainable Energy Systems» 1 12%

Automotive Engineering» 0 0%

Nuclear Engineering» 0 0%

Erasmus» 2 25%

Other» 3 37%

Genomsnitt: 4

- Innovative and sustainable chemical engineering.» (Other)
- Product Development» (Other)

Goals and fulfilment

4. How understandable are the course goals?

The main goals for the course is that the student should be able to carry out preliminary design and analysis of several different gas turbine cycles (various stationary and aircraft engine cycles) as well as to apply turbomachinery design principles to the gas turbine engine.

8 svarande

The goals are not clear» 0 0%

The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer» 1 12%

The goals are clear to me» 7 87%

Genomsnitt: 2.87

- can"t be better» (The goals are clear to me)

5. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits for this course?

8 svarande

No, the goals are set too low» 1 12%

Yes, the goals seem reasonable» 7 87%

No, the goals are set too high» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.87

- A lot more work than most other courses. Maybe they are too esey :)» (No, the goals are set too low)
- maybe we could do more concerning the combustion and CFD designs» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

8 svarande

No, not at all» 0 0%

To some extent» 3 37%

Yes, definitely» 5 62%

I dont know, I have not been examined yet» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.62

- It mostly check if you calculated a lot of old exams. Too littel time to answer all questions at the exam. As usual I spent time reading the book, total waste of time (for passing the exam).» (To some extent)

Teaching

7. How do you rate the efforts of the lecturer?

8 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Adequate» 1 12%

Good» 3 37%

Excellent» 4 50%

Genomsnitt: 4.37

- Tomas thank you for everything keep the good work.» (Excellent)

8. How do you rate the efforts of the course assistant?

7 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Adequate» 0 0%

Good» 5 71%

Excellent» 2 28%

Genomsnitt: 4.28

- Do not remember.» (?)
- helpful but not always available » (Good)

9. How do you rate the course material?

Course book, handouts, etc.

8 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Adequate» 2 25%

Good» 4 50%

Excellent» 2 25%

Genomsnitt: 4

- I mostly used the handouts and lecture notes. The book was more than adequate, but the content found on the course webpage was easier to use and more to the point. » (Good)
- the book could maybe skipped but the course material was quit clear» (Excellent)

10. How do you rate the design tasks?

You can put special comments for the three separate tasks: 1) Engine design point calculations 2) Conceptual design of engine components 3) Aerodynamic design of the compressor first stage

8 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Adequate» 1 12%

Good» 3 37%

Excellent» 4 50%

Genomsnitt: 4.37

- 1 was easy and 2 and 3 were a lot of work. » (Adequate)
- This part (all tasks) of the course was very helpful for learning.» (Excellent)
- for the first two projects things were good and clear but the third one was not really obvious to think that we had simply to change data in the matrix of the geometry. » (Excellent)

11. How do you rate the written exam?

8 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 1 12%

Adequate» 1 12%

Good» 5 62%

Excellent» 1 12%

Genomsnitt: 3.75

- The tasks were alright in difficulty but they were not planned in accordance to the time frame. Especially one of the tasks was too extensive.» (Adequate)
- maybe too long » (Good)

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

7 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Adequate» 2 28%

Good» 2 28%

Excellent» 3 42%

Genomsnitt: 4.14

- Do not remember» (?)
- It should have beenstated earlier that one did not have to buy the book, that one could borrow a copy.» (Adequate)
- Thomas and the course assistants are good at keeping us updated. » (Good)
- no comment. good administration» (Excellent)

Special events

13. How do you rate the efforts of industrial lecturer 1 - Bernard Gustafsson (GKN)?

The lecture with a lot on CFD, simulation and design...

7 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 2 28%

Adequate» 3 42%

Good» 2 28%

Excellent» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Do not remember » (?)
- CFD is interesting, but this was too much theory in a short time...» (Fair)
- A bit to detailed for the course.» (Adequate)
- could be better if the CFD design steps were explained better» (Good)

14. How do you rate the efforts of industrial lecturer 2 - Anders Lundbladh (GKN)?

The lecture with a lot on gas turbine systems and engine concepts...

7 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 2 28%

Adequate» 2 28%

Good» 2 28%

Excellent» 1 14%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- Do not remember» (?)

15. How do you rate the aircraft aerodynamics lecture (Henrik Ekstrand, pilot with Novair)?

You may also put comments on the reading material he handed out.

7 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Adequate» 0 0%

Good» 3 42%

Excellent» 4 57%

Genomsnitt: 4.57

- Do not remember» (?)
- not too clear though» (Good)
- Very interresting» (Excellent)
- Very interesting to get some other aspects on aeronautics.» (Excellent)

16. How do you rate the study visit at Rya-verken power station?

8 svarande

Poor» 1 12%

Fair» 0 0%

Adequate» 1 12%

Good» 1 12%

Excellent» 2 25%

Did not attend» 3 37%

Genomsnitt: 4.5

- Always fun with study visits. But the personal were unprepered. It was impossibel to hear what they said in the plant. » (Adequate)
- The presentation did not give me that much, but it was interesting to see how the plant worked and walk around in the huge facilities. » (Good)
- due to exams» (Did not attend)

Study climate

17. How was the opportunities for asking questions?

8 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Adequate» 0 0%

Good» 0 0%

Excellent» 8 100%

Genomsnitt: 5

- Thanks to Xin, Ellbrant and Egill for having time for us during the course! » (Excellent)
- The course assistants always took time to answer questions.» (Excellent)
- i always ask question and always get answers from tomas mainly» (Excellent)

18. How well has the cooperation between you and your fellow students worked in this course?

Comments on the design tasks or any other situation...

7 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Adequate» 0 0%

Good» 4 57%

Excellent» 3 42%

Genomsnitt: 4.42

- Since we were three in our group, it may have resulted in one of us being the third wheel... I personally felt like I had a good understanding of the theory so I may have powered on too much, leaving the others behind in confusion. In my opinion, groups of three are too large for these design tasks. » (Good)
- could be better if we were only two in each group maybe» (Good)

Overall questions

19. We are evaluating possibilities to develop the course - we would like your opinion!

What would be the ideal gas turbine course with the respect to the options:

Option 1 - traditional. Remove design tasks, increase number of lectures and exercises. Make the course more traditional.

Option 2 - current style. Keep it like it is and continue to develop the current concept.

Option 3 - practical. Expand the design tasks to cover most of the course. Make an exam that includes the rest (only a few chapters), with the distribution 40 credits in total on the design tasks and 20 credits on the exam (grade limits 24, 36, 48).

8 svarande

Option 1 - traditional» 1 12%

Option 2 - current style» 1 12%

Option 3 - practical» 6 75%

Genomsnitt: 2.62

- We"re engineers not researchers (not yet at least), practical experience is greatly appreciated. It also helps with increasing understanding for the course content.» (Option 3 - practical)
- Since you gain a deeper knowledge with the projects for approximately the same time you put in to conventional studies this would be very good for learning, it also makes you think one step further when learning about the different subjects in the course.» (Option 3 - practical)
- the course is a practical course so there should be a lot of practice» (Option 3 - practical)

20. What should be changed for next year?

In addition to what you stated under question 19.

- maybe a fourth design task should be added to tackle the CFD but conserving the exercices»
- The optimization of the compressor first stage was quite hard. May be weshould dedicate to the optimization more time during lectures.»

21. What should be preserved for next year?

In addition to what you stated under question 19.

- Everything»
- the exercises maybe even more examples »

22. What is your general impression of the course?

8 svarande

Poor» 0 0%

Fair» 0 0%

Adequate» 1 12%

Good» 4 50%

Excellent» 3 37%

Genomsnitt: 4.25

- More work than other courses. Hard to make a course evalutaion so long time after the course.» (Good)
- Like Erasmus student I want to thank the teacher and all the assistants for all the efforts to make the Turbomachienry course and this one a really good experience for the students.» (Good)
- good job Tomas keep your efforts. it was a pleasure to be in your two courses this year. thanks for everything.» (Excellent)

Kursutvärderingssystem från