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.
Turbomachinery, TME210
Status: Avslutad Öppen för svar: 2013-10-25 - 2013-11-15 Antal svar: 11 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 44% Kontaktperson: Tomas Grönstedt» Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Maskinteknik 300 hp
Work load1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?11 svarande
At most 15 hours per week» | | 3 | | 27% |
Around 20 hours per week» | | 4 | | 36% |
Around 25 hours per week» | | 4 | | 36% |
Around 30 hours per week or more» | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.09 - Have 3 other courses so not so much work on this one....» (At most 15 hours per week)
2. To which extent did you take part in the teaching offered?11 svarande
0-20%» | | 0 | | 0% |
20-40%» | | 1 | | 9% |
40-60%» | | 0 | | 0% |
60-80%» | | 1 | | 9% |
80-100%» | | 9 | | 81% |
Genomsnitt: 4.63 - was attended for most of the lectures » (80-100%)
3. Balance during study quarter?During the study quarter how does the time spent on this course relate to the other courses?11 svarande
I spent a lot more time on other courses» | | 1 | | 9% |
I spent somewhat more time on other courses» | | 0 | | 0% |
I spent roughly equal time on this course» | | 1 | | 9% |
I spent somehwat more time on this coiurse» | | 3 | | 27% |
I spent a lot more time on this course» | | 6 | | 54% |
Genomsnitt: 4.18 - Fun course!» (I spent somehwat more time on this coiurse)
Goals and fulfilment4. Are the course goals clear?The course PM states that after completion of the course you should be able to:
* Explain how turbomachinery is applied in various fields of power generation such as nuclear and combined cycle power plants, wind and hydropower engineering and process industry
* Formulate turbomachinery design criteria for a range of applications
* Carry out preliminary design of a range of turbomachines
* Be able to apply commercial tools to outline more detailed turbomachinery analysis
11 svarande
No idea what they mean» | | 0 | | 0% |
A bit fuzzy» | | 0 | | 0% |
Understandable» | | 7 | | 63% |
Clear» | | 4 | | 36% |
Genomsnitt: 3.36 5. To which extent did you establish the abilities that the goals state?11 svarande
Not at all» | | 0 | | 0% |
To some extent» | | 5 | | 45% |
To a high degree» | | 6 | | 54% |
Genomsnitt: 2.54 6. How well did the exam assess the course goals?11 svarande
Not at all» | | 0 | | 0% |
To some extent» | | 5 | | 45% |
To a high degree» | | 6 | | 54% |
Genomsnitt: 2.54
Teaching and course administration7. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts work?11 svarande
Poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
Fair» | | 0 | | 0% |
Acceptable» | | 1 | | 9% |
Good» | | 1 | | 9% |
Excellent» | | 9 | | 81% |
Genomsnitt: 4.72 - The handouts should have been worth some marks, it was very difficult to be motivated to do them let alone do them properly when they were worth nothing» (Acceptable)
8. How do you rate the learning impact of the computer lab (turbine CFD)?11 svarande
Poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
Fair» | | 1 | | 9% |
Acceptable» | | 2 | | 18% |
Good» | | 7 | | 63% |
Excellent» | | 1 | | 9% |
Genomsnitt: 3.72 - Again same issue as with the handouts, i would have been much more willing to engage properly and learn from the lab properly if i was to see some benefit from it, it wasn"t even assessed in the exam. I just felt that while doing it i had no reason too and that i would much rather be working on other courses or other tasks outside of uni» (Fair)
- Somewhat unclear what learning outcome was intended for the CFD lab. Also seems like understanding the results and drawing conclusions depend very much on the students previous knowledge in CFD.» (Acceptable)
- I spent really a lot of time running the simulation since it required numbers of iterations...» (Good)
9. How do you rate the learning impact of the water turbine lab?11 svarande
Poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
Fair» | | 1 | | 9% |
Acceptable» | | 0 | | 0% |
Good» | | 8 | | 72% |
Excellent» | | 2 | | 18% |
Genomsnitt: 4 - Same as above» (Fair)
10. How do you rate the industrial lecture on pumps?Amir Baniameri from Sulzer Pumps11 svarande
Poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
Fair» | | 0 | | 0% |
Acceptable» | | 4 | | 36% |
Good» | | 5 | | 45% |
Excellent» | | 2 | | 18% |
Genomsnitt: 3.81 11. How do you rate the industrial lecture on steam turbines?Xu Lei, Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery11 svarande
Poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
Fair» | | 0 | | 0% |
Acceptable» | | 4 | | 36% |
Good» | | 5 | | 45% |
Excellent» | | 2 | | 18% |
Genomsnitt: 3.81 12. How do you rate the study visit to the Olidan/Höjom water turbine power plant?11 svarande
Poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
Fair» | | 0 | | 0% |
Acceptable» | | 0 | | 0% |
Good» | | 0 | | 0% |
Excellent» | | 11 | | 100% |
Genomsnitt: 5 13. How do you rate the lectures/lecture material?11 svarande
Poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
Fair» | | 0 | | 0% |
Acceptable» | | 1 | | 9% |
Good» | | 4 | | 36% |
Excellent» | | 6 | | 54% |
Genomsnitt: 4.45 - It was sometimes poorly demonstrated what new term or symbols meant in new equation(in lecture material this is)» (Good)
14. How do you rate the exercises with respect to quality/content etc?11 svarande
Poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
Fair» | | 0 | | 0% |
Acceptable» | | 1 | | 9% |
Good» | | 3 | | 27% |
Excellent» | | 7 | | 63% |
Genomsnitt: 4.54 - Egill really made everything very clear» (Excellent)
15. How do you rate the course book?11 svarande
Poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
Fair» | | 0 | | 0% |
Acceptable» | | 5 | | 45% |
Good» | | 5 | | 45% |
Excellent» | | 1 | | 9% |
Genomsnitt: 3.63 - Good explanations, but a very large number of small misprints. Nice to have an errata list though.» (Good)
16. How do you rate the wind turbine special lecture?Lecture that was given by Hamid Abedi.11 svarande
Poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
Fair» | | 2 | | 18% |
Acceptable» | | 4 | | 36% |
Good» | | 0 | | 0% |
Excellent» | | 5 | | 45% |
Genomsnitt: 3.72 - Interesting, but questionable to allocate time for something not really included in the course at the very end.» (Fair)
General questions17. What should be preserved for next year?- The overall structure of the course, with a lot of calculation exercises, and of course the study visit.»
- CFD, study visit, »
- Study visit»
- Industrial lectures
CFD Lab
Study visit
Francis Lab»
- I think everything should be preserved however some things should be adjusted. (as will be pointed out in the next question)»
- CFD computer lab is really interesting. Study visit is very nice.»
18. What should be changed for next year?- Hopefully, there will be a new version of the book :-)»
- More board work in lectures»
- The CFD lab could be changed or replaced, did not really give that much understanding for the rest of the course.»
- Make the handouts and labs worth something, even 1 or 2% each, gives motivation to do them properly and thus learn properly from them, it also will take the load off the final exam. Having a 100% final exam i found was extremely stressful!»
- for the exam: hopefully more information can be offered from the exam paper so students can manage to know all information without the book. »
19. What is your overall rating of the course?11 svarande
Poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
Fair» | | 0 | | 0% |
Acceptable» | | 1 | | 9% |
Good» | | 4 | | 36% |
Excellent» | | 6 | | 54% |
Genomsnitt: 4.45 - A great course with lots of interesting content but the use of compulsory tasks that have no weighting towards final marks is both frustrating and almost pointless as i was never pushed to do them to any degree of quality (especially if i was already busy) thus i didn"t learn from them, they only served to be a hindrance. All staff were great!» (Acceptable)
- I really liked the course (contents, professors...), and I unnfortunately failed because I spent lot of time on my other course.
» (Good)
- Very interesting and relevant course. One of the best so far!» (Excellent)
- Overall rating would be excellent. The course is really good, and very relevant for students in Sustainable Energy Systems.» (Excellent)
- Everything is fine, nothing special has to be discussed.» (Excellent)
Kursutvärderingssystem från
|