|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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.
Quality Management - Spring 2013, IEK312Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2013-03-07 - 2013-03-20 Antal svar: 25 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 35% Kontaktperson: Marco Santos»
Teaching and course administration1. How did you get to know about this course and what made you apply for it?- It is one of the semi-mandatory courses in my master program.»- To match Quality control course in my home university» - Recomended for production engineering - management» - The topic seemed a good course. Students in my master found it.» - The interest in the subject» - Read the available courses and chose the one that fitted the "management" line» - Studentportal website» - Course PM topics are inevitable parts of Product Development» - Was presented in the beginning of my master program.» - Semi cumpolsary» - It was the course with least bad reputation available for MPPEN this study period» - From the production management master program. It sounded as an intresting course» - It was a suggested course for our programme. » - ERASMUS program and specialization at home» - By asking around at Chalmers when looking for a good QM course for the new Masterprogram MPMAR i have developed» - I need such a course for my master programm in Germany. So I searched for it and found this course.» - Suggested by the Product Development department» - Other students» - Heard it through the master programme Production Engineering. Quality Management seems to be very relevant and applicable for a production engineer» - My friend recommended it to me» - Semimandatory course in product devlopment programme. » - THROUGH THE COURSES PRESENTATIONS » 2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend ?25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.68 - I expected more time on systems like lean and six sigma» (50-75 %) 3. What is your general impression of the course?25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.04 - The Labs where good but the lessons where not. Just the lessons on SPC where okay» (Negative) 4. How was the structure of the course?A good structure means that the time spent on each subject is adequate and that the sequence of the subjects is clear and logical.25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.96 - SPC was difficult to follow as very unstructured» (Good) 5. Concerning the proportion of theory and practice:By theory it is meant mainly lectures whereas practice means mainly exercises.25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.96 - I liked the exercises!» (The course had a good balance between theory and practice) 6. To what extent has the course literature and other course material been of help for your learning?25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.72 - The course book is not worth the money.» (Small extent) 7. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.84 8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc. work?25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.64 - Could have been very well if the material on DoE had come earlier so it could have been studied before the exam week.» (Well) Feedback to teachersIf you attended at least one lecture of the teachers below, please provide some strengths and opportunities of improvement for each teacher. If you have trouble recalling the names, you can check the photos available on the backside of the excel schedule.9. Hendry Raharjo - strengthsHendry Raharjo participated in the course in several occasions, such as quality in product development and SPC.- Great lecturer, very good at explaining different concepts and also making sure we understood. If we didn"t he explained further.
Also his repetitions and "test your knowledge" questions in lectures were very effective and made one have to try to grasp the concept, not wait until later when reviewing the course literature.
Also, interacting with the slides, that is writing on the screen was very helpful.» 10. Hendry Raharjo - opportunities of improvement- I found some of the information on the slides missing from what was shown in the lecture. I know this might be because you shouldn"t get all the notes if you didn"t attend, but some of it I didn"t write down or remember. Also it could have been good to have the "test your knowledge" questions in the slides, for reviewing them later.»- Maybe too slow sometimes... » - The slides are hard to use for studiyng to exam. » - It"s a huge amount of information to learn in the SPC and QFD area, and it"s hard to learn that much in such a short time.» - During the lectures, lot of comments and answers to questions were added on the slides. It would have be nice if it was also on PingPOng» - Would have liked to have him throughout the course » - English» - Could be repetitive sometimes during his presentations.» - Keep up the good work!» - Nice to lissen to. spends too much time on explaining simple examples.» - Sometimes the central theme was missing. Sometimes I got lost why you explained this or that now.» - Could make better slides so you can follow them when doing the problem solving for the exam » - Additional slides adapted for self studies could be complemented to the slides used at lecture » - should be more detail, very fast in the lecture, we can not even follow» 11. Kristian Siverbo - strengthsKristian Siverbo gave an introduction to quality management in the first course week and lectured on business process management in course week 5.- Good lecturer, and a nice conversational style of tetching.» 12. Kristian Siverbo - opportunities of improvement- Talked a lot without get the real message out...»- Sometimes it becomes a bit to cosy in the classroom. Not giving energy on a 4h afternoon lecture. » - A bit to "mellow" in his teaching approach, needs to be more clear and precise with "hard facts".» - Quite long courses» - Could have made the lectures more interesting » - He has vast experience as a consultant, so it will be nice to get in depth knowledge of what improvements were done.» - Relate the theory better with varios examples» - He should read less from the slides, it makes an impression of not being prepared. » - Slow during the lectures, did not have many answers to questions during lectures.. To many slides during the lecture, do not think the dicussions during lectures gave something for learning!» - Sometimes the slides were to full. Sometimes I was distracted from the full slides.» - Lectures didn"t seem very interesting.» - Could make better slides so you can follow them when preparing for the exam » 13. Marco Santos - strengthsMarco Santos lectured on design of experiments and assisted in several group exercises.- Very enthusiastic and helpful. In general good, and the experiment was very » 14. Marco Santos - opportunities of improvement- Wrote a bit too small and unclear on the board, when doing examples, and sometimes over complicated explanations to concepts that could have been explained in a simpler way, for example the way something is calculated when having different repetitions for different runs (felt a bit to complicated also for the course - to much detail), rather than explaining first how it would be done the simpler way, when the same amount of repetitions were done (Maybe he misunderstood a question from a student that was just asking about the simpler calculation method).»- Sometimes there were communication problems where he had problems getting at the the core.» - Sometimes makes explanations and examples too complicated, even for himself. Try to explain things in the easiest way possible!» - since the course literature is not useful at all when preparing for lectures or the exam he could have gone through more examples and had a calculation lecture. Sometimes he over complicates things by going trough the formulas without rely explaining it - feels like your back in Calculus 1» - Make the lectures clearer and better structured. Keep the timeplan. » - Could have prepared for the lectures better, and not trust himself to come up with examples during the class. Gave a quite messy impression.» - Bad in holding time, and to many slides. Bad to have slides that you do not use during lectures. good at explaining questions» - Try to make sure to stick to the slides and the content there. Maybe answer questions after class otherwise? » - The explanations for fractional factorial design were to short. It was really difficult for me to understand this.» - Should work on communication of ideas in words.» - Could make better slides so you can follow them when preparing for the exam » - The DoE lecture could have been a bit more structured» Feedback on assignmentsIf you performed the assignments below, please give your opinion about each assignment"s relevance for your learning, way it was conducted, etc.15. What is your general impression of the assignments included in the course?Please use the comment field below to explain whether some assignments were perceived as useless or poorly conducted.Matrisfråga - Ok» ."Affinity and Interrelationship Method (AIM)" ........................................ (course week 1, under the guidance of Sverker and Marco)
Genomsnitt: 3.29 ."Design of Experiments - Helicopter Lab" .......................................... (course week 2, under the guidance of Marco)
Genomsnitt: 3.54 ."Lean production - Airplane exercise" .................................................. (course week 3, under the guidance of Alexander and Marco)
Genomsnitt: 3.43 ."Interactive assessment" ....................................................................... (course week 4, under the guidance of Kristian and Marco)
Genomsnitt: 3.16 ."Business process management" ....................................................... (course week 5, under the guidance of Kristian)
Genomsnitt: 3.12 Study climate16. How was the course workload?25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.12 17. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students work?24 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.5 18. How well has cooperation between you and the people involved in the course worked?25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.44 Examination and grading19. Did the exam reflect the course in a fair way?24 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.04 - Have not sat the exam yet.» (?) 20. Would you change the examination process and grading system for this course?For this course there were four compulsory tasks of five that you had to pass to be allowed to take the final exam. The compulsory tasks were graded as "pass", "non-pass".25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.16 - Some bonus points could be added to those who performed all assignements» (I suggest my system below in the comment field) Summarizing questions21. Would you recommend this course to other students?25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.96 - I"m a little in between here - the subject is very interesting but the structure of the course and the course literature should be improved» (Yes) 22. What should definitely be preserved to next time?- Workshops.»- Exercises!» - Spc and doe.» - Assignments » - Everything» - Assignments and relations to the cornerstone model.» - The exersices!» - Doe and Spc was well performed» - The labs! Super fun and we learned a lot. » - More and better structured examples and slides for the SPC» - The group work for DOE. This helped me very well to understand DOE.» - The exercises. » - The Labs» - the assignments» 23. What should definitely be changed to next time?- I think the lecture on sustainable development should be earlier in the course, as it was so close to exam time (as the exam is on monday - little time to read up) that there weren"t that many people that attended the class. I thought it was interesting and awakening. Only comment was that the first half of the lecture was a summary of what we have already learned, and she seamed not to know. IT then connected to the latter half, but maybe next year the introduction could be briefer and the sustainable part be more in depth.»- Less "just talking about something" without pointing out something specific» - Dont know. » - More time to learn SPC and DoE, they need a lot of practise to grasp.» - Have the exersises as a part of the final grade. » - all the other parts than Doe and Spc. the course feel to easy and to general» - Examples for the SPC» - Grading system and less time on theory lectures.» - The lecture notes! And give out a list of which models/tools that are important so you know how wide the coarse are, what you need to know and how much you need to know about the different models/tools. » - SPC should be introduced earlier and also have a exercise time slot to go through the calculations. DoE material could have been a bit better.» 24. Additional comments- Nope»- Fanns ingen röd tråd alls. Helt ointressanta föreläsningar förutom lean gästföreläsaren. Kursen svarade inte alls mot mina förväntningar. Halva kursen handlade om vem kunden var men inga riktiga frågor om detta på tentan förutom då quality huset.. lärde mig inte mycket som jag känner att jag har användning för » - I had great expectations of this coarse but i don"t feel like the coarse reached up to them, i guess I"m not really into management that much after all. » 25. Comments on this surveyHow much time did it take for you to complete this survey? Was it too long? Were some questions unclear?- Adequate»
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0%