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.

Combustion Engineering 2014, MEN031

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2014-06-05 - 2014-06-23
Antal svar: 16
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 53%
Kontaktperson: David Pallarès»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Maskinteknik 300 hp
Klass: Övriga

Please, provide some comments besides your rating. This helps much in improving both the sessions and ourselves as lecturers.

1. Rate the initial lab demo by Fredrik Lind

15 svarande

Very good»8 53%
Good»5 33%
Fair»2 13%
Poor»0 0%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.6

- Cool to see all the different types of flames. I think we had understod more if this demo was later in the course» (Very good)
- very motivating and interesting could probably be more informative if students got a hand-out with naming the different tests - makes it easier to remember later » (Very good)
- It is something that needs to be kept for the next upcoming years. It gives me fast understand the whole course.» (Very good)
- Introduced a good understanding of concepts such that one had something physical to relate the theory to.» (Very good)
- Really interesting and exciting!» (Very good)
- Could have explained a bit more theory behind the experiment.» (Good)
- Interesting to see different flames but hard to learn anything from it before you have any idea of what a diffusion flame is or why air-to-fuel ratio is important. Maybe consider having it later in the course. » (Good)

2. Rate Assignment 1 (heat balance)

16 svarande

Very good»2 12%
Good»11 68%
Fair»3 18%
Poor»0 0%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

- The assignment was good in itself and rather difficult despite the concept of it being quite simple. A good start to set the standard. The supervision wasn"t the best, unfortunately.» (Good)
- Difficult... » (Fair)
- A bit hard to understand what the supervisor said and meant. Also quite difficult to arrange to get help. » (Fair)

3. Rate Assignment 2 (chemical equilibrium)

16 svarande

Very good»2 12%
Good»10 62%
Fair»4 25%
Poor»0 0%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.12

- Difficult » (Fair)

4. Rate Assignment 3 (CSTR&PFR)

16 svarande

Very good»3 18%
Good»8 50%
Fair»5 31%
Poor»0 0%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.12

5. Rate Assignment 4 (fuel conversion time)

16 svarande

Very good»2 12%
Good»11 68%
Fair»3 18%
Poor»0 0%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

- Jelena is very nice » (Good)
- This one was rather simple. A welcome change of pace.» (Good)
- Quite annoying to have an assignment during the easter break as there were reexams during this time. The assignment was not prioritized until after the exams were done. » (Fair)

6. Rate Assignment 5 (liquid fuel burners)

16 svarande

Very good»2 12%
Good»11 68%
Fair»3 18%
Poor»0 0%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

- A good assignment. The amount of biomass and fuel input was kind of vague which led to errors in the report.» (Good)

7. Rate Assignment 6 (own task)

16 svarande

Very good»8 50%
Good»4 25%
Fair»2 12%
Poor»2 12%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.87

- Fun to solve a problem all by out selves » (Very good)
- It was great to be able to present something and then recieve feedback on your presentation» (Very good)
- The presentation session was good, the guest supervisor was good! » (Good)
- There isn"t the possibility to prepare a very good own task since the course doesn"t give the theoretical feedback sufficient » (Poor)


8. Rate the lectures by Huong Nguyen

16 svarande

Very good»3 18%
Good»5 31%
Fair»5 31%
Poor»3 18%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- Very helpful and exerts herself a lot to answer our questions » (Good)
- Hard to understand most of the time. Not very organized. » (Fair)
- It was hard to get help, and it felt like this had to do with difficulties to understand each other. » (Poor)
- At one or two times she felt derogatory towards the whole class. Unfortunate, since I do not believe it was intended, but unacceptable.» (Poor)


9. Rate the lectures by Alberto Alamia

16 svarande

Very good»0 0%
Good»5 31%
Fair»9 56%
Poor»2 12%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

- Motivated but a little bit unstructured sometimes» (Good)
- A little more preparation would be appreciated. Otherwise a solid teacher.» (Fair)
- Confused... » (Poor)


10. Rate the lectures by Mikael Israelsson

16 svarande

Very good»6 37%
Good»9 56%
Fair»1 6%
Poor»0 0%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.68

- The demo calculation sessions was very good! » (Very good)
- Fun guy. Good at explaining and answering questions. » (Very good)
- Very nice. He really want everyone to understand» (Good)
- Helpful and straigth forward A little bit lazy » (Good)


11. Rate the lectures by Jelena Marinkovic

16 svarande

Very good»6 37%
Good»9 56%
Fair»1 6%
Poor»0 0%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.68


12. Rate the lectures by Henrik Thunman

16 svarande

Very good»1 6%
Good»10 62%
Fair»5 31%
Poor»0 0%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- Not very intresting to lissen to... » (Fair)
- Often much too slow.» (Fair)


13. Rate the lectures by Martin Seemann

16 svarande

Very good»4 25%
Good»11 68%
Fair»1 6%
Poor»0 0%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.81

- Motivated lecture and very good explainations Please don"t forget us ,) » (Very good)
- Excellent lectures with focus on understanding rather than going through the material. Nice to discuss questions with.» (Very good)


14. Rate the lectures by David Pallarès

16 svarande

Very good»11 68%
Good»5 31%
Fair»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Very poor»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.31

- Good explainations, which stick easy in the memory Very good support in the assignment, it was fun to discuss and develop ideas » (Very good)
- Davids lectures are among the best I have ever had during my years on Chalmers.» (Very good)
- Solid teaching with a bit of humour. Even made the liquid fuel lecture manageable.» (Very good)

15. Please provide feedback on the guest lectures you like (gas turbines, internal combustion engines, boilers and furnaces, environmental issues)

- They are a bit boring. One who takes this course might already passed some prerequisite courses related to these topics. Hence, it would be better for these lectures to go even deeper into the detail which would definitely be more helpful when students need to deal with such a difficult and unpredictable examination.»
- They were all good. »
- I found it a bit annoying that the guest lectures don"t know what we have learned before or at what level the course is. These lectures would be a lot more fun and interesting both for the students and the teachers if they know that we have knowledge about what a fluidized bed is. »
- GT: Skip the ASC and the overall introduction. We"ve heard about gas turbines before. ICE: Missed. Boilers: Good lecture overall but heard most in previous courses. Advance the focus a good bit and it would be a great lecture. Env.: Nothing to comment. The first half was mostly repetition but appreciated. Did not attend second half.»
- I feel that all the guest lectures were relatively unnecessary, it"s not fair to just have a guest lectures on these parts and then include them on the exam. »
- I enjoyed a lot the guest from Vattenfall: very prepared and interesting. »

Kursutvärderingssystem från