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.

TIF265 Nuclear materials

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2013-03-18 - 2013-04-14
Antal svar: 12
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 60%
Kontaktperson: Erika Thorsell»

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.

12 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»5 41%
Around 20 hours/week»4 33%
Around 25 hours/week»2 16%
Around 30 hours/week»1 8%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.91

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

12 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»2 16%
75%»3 25%
100%»7 58%

Genomsnitt: 4.41

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?

12 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»1 8%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»2 16%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»9 75%

Genomsnitt: 3.58

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.

12 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 8%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»11 91%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.91

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

12 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»3 25%
Yes, definitely»9 75%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

- Very nice exam. It covered almost everything brought up on the lectures,» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

12 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»3 25%
Large extent»5 41%
Great extent»4 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.08

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

12 svarande

Small extent»5 41%
Some extent»4 33%
Large extent»1 8%
Great extent»2 16%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Hardly read the books.» (Small extent)
- I bought the course book which were supped to be used in the course. The book along with the lecture notes was the unly material which I used. The book was a good complement to the lecture notes, but id did not cover everything. Especially SCC had much better explanation in the lectures.» (Great extent)

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

12 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»7 58%
Very well»5 41%

Genomsnitt: 3.41

- Handouts during the lectures were very helpful.» (Very well)

Study climate

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

12 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»4 33%
Very good»7 58%
I did not seek help»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.75

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

12 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»5 41%
Very well»6 50%
I did not seek cooperation»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

11. How was the course workload?

12 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»3 25%
Adequate»9 75%
High»0 0%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

12. How was the total workload this study period?

12 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»6 50%
High»5 41%
Too high»1 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.58

- The applied nuclear engineering took much effort.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

12 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»4 33%
Good»4 33%
Excellent»4 33%

Genomsnitt: 4 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Very nice course. Liked that the emphasis was on consepts, not on mathematical models.» (Excellent)
- A very good and very interesting course! The lecturer was knowing, pedagogical and helpful. » (Excellent)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The laboratory exercise»
- SCC,IASCC,MICROSTRUCTURES AND OTHER ELEMENT RELAVENT TO THE MATERIAL STRUCTURE.DEFECTS,DISLOCATIONS,VACANCIES.»
- The guest lectures and the lab/demo.»
- Mattias was a good lecturer, seemed somewhat unprepared for some lectures, but not a big problem. The lab visit and the guest lecures were also nice.»
- The guest lecturers are very consistent with the course program, I really appreciated to compare theory with their experiences on the field. »
- Everything except the course litterature. Having e-books as course litterature is almost the same as not having any. And there is one thing that is worse than having a e-book as course litterature, and that is to have several. All books are written in different ways and it takes time to learn to use them. The Tipping and Campbell books were fairly good, as was the Lippold book. Was try to explain the world by equations and fails quite severly. The external lecturers from the industry were very good.»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- A "real" course book, instead of e-books.»
- DIFFERENT WELDING MECHANISM AND MICROSCOPY METHODS SHOULD BE SHORTENED A BIT.»
- Use the (now released) course literature about Nuclear materials instead of the E-books.»
- Except for course litterature, nothing.»

16. Additional comments

- Very interesting course!»
- Overall a nice course. Very interesting.»
- Thanks for a great and really interesting course!»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 4
Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 4
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.75

Kursutvärderingssystem från