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.

Course evaluation NC-CAM, MPR152

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2008-03-13 - 2008-04-04
Antal svar: 11
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 64%
Kontaktperson: Peter Almström»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers
Klass: Övriga

Your own effort

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

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

11 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»3 27%
Around 20 hours/week»5 45%
Around 25 hours/week»1 9%
Around 30 hours/week»1 9%
At least 35 hours/week»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.27

- The first weeks were pretty calm, but later the CAM-tasks required a lot of time.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- The exercises required lots of time. Due to the lack of general information about coherences and the problem that it took very long to solve a little problem, it was very time consuming.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- more of the effort was equired for Pro E exercise.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

11 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»1 9%
75%»7 63%
100%»3 27%

Genomsnitt: 4.18

- Had been more if the lectures held better quality, and it felt important to be there. I know, it is up to each individual to go to classes, but when it feels like 2 hours with the book gives more then two hours on a lecture, why go there? » (50%)
- I missed 1 class» (100%)
- over 90%.» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

11 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»1 9%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»5 45%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»5 45%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

- It wasn"t really clear how to learn for the exam. » (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

9 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 11%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»8 88%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.88

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

10 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»4 40%
Yes, definitely»5 50%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.7

Teaching and course administration

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

11 svarande

Small extent»3 27%
Some extent»1 9%
Large extent»6 54%
Great extent»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.45

- Excepet the CAM programming» (Small extent)
- in fact teaching was not helpful at all. except 2 of the guest lecturers.» (Small extent)
- The teaching were good in most cases, but there could have been more lectures.» (Large extent)
- Having experts to deliver lectures was indeed good.» (Great extent)

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

11 svarande

Small extent»1 9%
Some extent»5 45%
Large extent»4 36%
Great extent»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.45

- the book was just so expensive but was not good enough for this course. some parts were too vague.» (Small extent)
- I think most of the content in the book had a "strange" focus. There were a lot of detailed maths but the more practical issues were only briefly described.» (Some extent)
- Good, more relevant information in the book than in the lectures!» (Large extent)

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

11 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»2 18%
Rather well»5 45%
Very well»4 36%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- some slides were totally in swidish. » (Rather badly)

Study climate

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

11 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»2 18%
Rather good»5 45%
Very good»4 36%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- We only had Ulf at the exercises once a week, which is far to little when everyone needs help.» (Rather poor)
- I think Peter and Ulf tried to help us as much as possible so that was good. But the organisation of the CAM exercises could have been done in a better way. Some lectures attached to the exercises would have been good. Now we had to spend too much time waiting for Ulf. If he had given us some introduction in the beginning of every exercise many easy mistakes could have been avided.» (Rather good)

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

11 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»1 9%
Very well»10 90%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.9

11. How was the course workload?

11 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 9%
Adequate»6 54%
High»3 27%
Too high»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

- Except the CAD exercises that was good!» (Low)
- it was adequate but not evenly distributed. » (Adequate)
- Low in the beginning high in the end.» (Adequate)
- Too time consuming for the outcome.» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

11 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 9%
Adequate»4 36%
High»6 54%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

- I took the lean production course, which required a lot of time. This course were pretty good in that aspect.» (High)
- A lot contributed by Lean production.» (High)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

11 svarande

Poor»2 18%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»0 0%
Good»9 81%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

- Because lectures were cancelled, and the lectures I went on were not good, it felt like the teachers had no ambition to deliver quality lectures, for example the B G rosen lecture. Could be one of the worse lectures all time on Chalmers. If you take a random person, going to that lecture, and the same person going to for example a lecture on management section, for example the lean course or the operational strategy course. He will find a big difference in what ambition and energy the teacher and his associates has towards the students. I mean, this shuold be an advance course, and for me, the basic course feels much more advance then this, more comprehensive, more demanding and even more detalied. » (Poor)
- I think there could have been more content, some aspects were coverd in a "thin" way.» (Good)
- I would like to thank you from peter and ulf for all their help and patients. » (Good)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- ProE exercises and Industrial visits »
- Ulf was rather expert on ProE and he was a good help for answering our questions. total syllabes was good. the company visits and lectures at the companies, given by the own company engineers, were so helpful.»
- CAM exercises is good, you have to work with the problems and learn from practical experience, but the organization of the exercises can be improved. We had many company visits, planned at least :), thats very good. It is nice to get in touch with real life aplications.»
- Industrial visits, guest lectures ProE exercises »
- the company visits were interesting»
- The company visits.»
- --»
- Alos I would like to ask to extend the time to lab. work in future.»
- The company visits and guest lectures. The discussed topics has also been good.»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Skip the B G Rosen lecture, focus more on some detailed secation in the book, so we can be really good at something.»
- Peter did not have enough knowledge for managing this course. his lectures were so poor, his insufficient explenations and slides left every thing so vague for us. he did not go through anything during his lectures as it seems he did not have enough knowledge for helping us understand the content of the course. so definitely the lecturer should be changed for someone who has really worked practically in manufacturing area. »
- The way the exercises are done can be improved. »
- Ensure that all slides are in english. Pro E exercises should include drawing exercise of workpieces and fixtures as well. There should be lectures as well on ProE, before the lab.»
- Exercise: it would have been really helpful if there had been a short introduction before the exercises. Especially exercise number 4, it was rather time wasting than a successful learning process. Further information would have been reqired in order to accomplish this exercise satisfactory. »
- There is much more help needed for the exercises. And a lecture of the working procedure of building an NC-CAM program in ProE is needed. »
- --»
- I think if students learn more about Pro engineer It will help them to handle it much better both in this course and other courses.»
- The exercises should be more guided for getting faster better results. The topics should be discussed more detailed.»

16. Additional comments

- Ulf CAM exercises was the light in the dark in this course, and was the only thing that really held good standard. An advanced course, should be advanced, give the students more difficulties, and provide the students enough with support to handle it!»
- I think it was a very interesting course and I liked the company visits, especially Volvo Aero. I also liked the lectures given by Ulf, he explained in a good and straight forward way. But I think he can have some more lectures next time. It is obvious that he is good at these things and interested in this topic, I think that can be used more. :)»
- The content were more general. ProE, FMS,tooling optimization etc however were very interesting and somewhat in depth. »
- --»
- I would like to thank you from peter and ulf for all their help and patients. »

Kursutvärderingssystem från