Teoretisk fysiks kursutväderingar


Resultat av: Special Relativity, SI2371, fall 2016

Status: Avslutad
Publicerad under: 2017-01-13 - 2017-02-08
Antal svar: 18
Procent av kursdeltagarna som svarat: 51%
Kontaktperson: Mattias Blennow

What is your overall impression of the course?

18 svarande

Very positive10 55%
Postive8 44%
Negative0 0%
Very negative0 0%

- The material is gone through in a very thorough way, both during lectures and excersices. A lot of extra material provided, for example lecture notes. (Very positive)

How would you rate the overall difficulty of the course?

18 svarande

Very high1 5%
High16 88%
Low1 5%
Very low0 0%

- It varied a lot. Some parts were difficult, others very intuitive. (High)
- High but challenging. (High)
- Some topics are difficult, but my main concern lies with elementary stuff, such as contra- vs covariant representations which could have been clearer (or revisited later in the course, as final lecture) (High)
- I think the course is rather difficult but in a good and challenging way. (High)
- Medium to high? Not much was trivial, and the stuff that was harder was still well explained. (High)
- As a first approach to the subject, but the teacher was very capable of introducing new concepts (High)
- Not really that high, but there is no option for medium.. (High)
- Not too difficult to pass but difficult to get a high grade. (Low)

How did you find the lectures?

18 svarande

Very good9 50%
Good7 38%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%
Did not participate enough to have an opinion2 11%

- It would be great if you could slow down the pace make some comment that might be of interest. Maybe even write such things on the board (Very good)
- Everything is covered rather thoroughly. (Very good)
- Appreciated the mento questions. They are a nice "change of pace" (Good)

How did you find the exercise classes?

18 svarande

Very good13 72%
Good3 16%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%
Did not participate2 11%

- Daniel was great. (Very good)
- Calm, collected, and structured during all solutions and problems. (Very good)
- A very good, basic, excercise useful for introductions to problem concepts! (Very good)
- It was a bit of a shame that not more problems were solved. (Good)

Has there been much overlap with other courses?

18 svarande

Far too much overlap0 0%
Some overlap - mostly unnecessary1 5%
Some overlap - but useful as repetition12 66%
No overlap5 27%

- I don't necessarily know that this is true but the options are limited. (Some overlap - mostly unnecessary)
- Took the GR course at the same time. I think they worked rather well together though. (Some overlap - but useful as repetition)
- With the GR course, so some overlap is to be expected since that course has no SR prerequisites. (Some overlap - but useful as repetition)
- Some overlap with General Relativity. (Some overlap - but useful as repetition)

How did you find the test exam?

18 svarande

Very difficult1 5%
Difficult15 83%
Easy2 11%
Very easy0 0%
Did not try to solve it0 0%

- Some parts were difficult, others not so much. (Difficult)
- Most problems were rather straight forward. I think the rocket and energy-stress tensor problems were a lot more difficult though. (Difficult)
- Difficult enough to have some lower grades. Some of them (in particular problem 6) felt like it treated something not rigorously discussed in excercises and made for a difficult problem on the concept. (Difficult)

What is your opinion about the course homepage and the general administration of the course?

18 svarande

Very good15 83%
Good3 16%
Poor0 0%
Very poor0 0%

- By far the best administration of all the courses in the master's program so far. (Very good)
- Lots of information and extra material provided. (Very good)
- I am neutral but there is no option for that. (Good)

How did you find the course literature?

18 svarande

Very good0 0%
Good14 77%
Bad4 22%
Very bad0 0%

- Använde mig mest av ditt häfte och inte av boken så vet inte riktigt (Good)
- The lecture notes were good. I did not like Rindler, and therefore didn't use it much. (Good)
- I am neutral but there is no option for that. (Good)
- I found Mattias notes deeper and far reaching than Rindler's book, and somehow it was still esier to understand Mattias. Rindler's book was good but the notes were even better. (Good)
- I read some in Rindler but mainly followed the computer written lecture notes (and visited Rindler if I didn't understand properly) (Good)
- The lecture notes by Mattias were extremely good, the actual book is rather tedious at times, and goes into unnecessary detail sometimes. It does however explain things well. (Good)
- Good but sometimes gives irrelevant information (as far as the course is concerned) (Good)
- Did not read the book, only some of the lecture notes. (Good)
- I found the book rather difficult to read. I prefered my lecture notes. (Bad)
- Did not read in Rindler that much and when I did I think it felt a bit aged. I mostly used my own notes and the provided lecture notes. (Bad)

What activities did you find most useful for learning the course material? (Check all you consider relevant)

18 svarande

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

Attending lectures14 77%
Attending exercise classes14 77%
Solving the test exam17 94%
Solving problems in the course litterature4 22%
Self-study using the course litterature8 44%
Self-study using other resources (please comment)6 33%
Other (please comment)1 5%

- Self-study in old exams.
- lecuture notes for self-study.
- self-study using the lecture notes that our teacher created
- Self studying using the lecture notes
- The lecture notes were very useful.
- Lecture notes.

How much time did you spend on solving the test exam? (both parts, in total)

18 svarande

None0 0%
0-3 hours1 5%
3-6 hours2 11%
6-10 hours6 33%
10-15 hours7 38%
> 15 hours2 11%

- Including the time to typeset them in LaTex. (10-15 hours)
- Most of the time was spent on the rocket and energy-stress tensor assignment. (10-15 hours)

How did you find the technical peer grading solution? (Peergrade.io)

18 svarande

Very good4 22%
Good11 61%
Bad2 11%
Very bad1 5%
Did not participate0 0%

- It was really good to see other students solutions, even if they were wrong sometimes. (Very good)
- I liked it. You got several different views on your own work and good look at how other people had tackled the problems. (Very good)
- A bit restrictive that the only way to respond was in a text box. Would have liked the possibility to comment directly in the pdf, perhaps even write equations. (Good)
- Good but somewhat superfluous (Good)
- Don't know if I misunderstood, though having two comment fields for each question felt overkill. (Good)
- Not sure if it helped, really. (Bad)
- Not very useful, I don't think I learned anything neither by reading my own feedback nor by giving it, since a full solutions was presented at a lecture. (Bad)
- It is a technical solition for an analog problem. It could equally well have been solved by a cardboard box with the added benefit that the box does not have an awful website, the box does not require email signup and the box minds its own business. (Very bad)

How much time did you spend on creating your A4 page aid for the exam?

16 svarande

< 30 mins0 0%
30 mins - 1 hour9 56%
1-3 hours3 18%
3-10 hours3 18%
> 10 hours1 6%

- Hard to estimate as I wrote things down as I realized I wanted them on there. (30 mins - 1 hour)
- Really liked this! (30 mins - 1 hour)
- In many cases not too necessary for the exam. Could be a good excercise in and of itself. (1-3 hours)
- I did it rather slowly by adding things as I needed them while solving old exams. (> 10 hours)

How did the exam correspond to your expectations (both difficulty and content)?

17 svarande

Very well2 11%
Well13 76%
Poorly1 5%
Very poorly0 0%
I did not take the exam yet1 5%

- Corresponded well with the test exam, no big surprises. (Very well)
- Exam was difficult for me but that is because the course's level is above my level. (I am a Bachelor's student.) (Well)
- Content was rather familiar, but I think it was rather difficult. (Well)
- Which is to say, I did expect some problems to be wildly more difficult than others which could be almost trivial. (Well)
- I expected the difficulty (with problem 6 especially) but had difficulty understanding it either way. (Well)

What is your impression of the grading system?

18 svarande

Very good2 11%
Good13 72%
Bad3 16%
Very bad0 0%

- I like it. It requires you to make more of an effort learning all parts of the course, not just half of it very well. (Very good)
- Grading system is good but I think it is very hard to pass. (Good)
- It is good to pass the exam, but i think, from my experience in the text exam, that it is too easy to go from an A to a C; using numerical grades increase the sensitivity for penalizations. (Good)
- I do not care but there is no option for that. (Bad)
- It feels as though failing is very easy and getting high grades is very hard (Bad)
- I understand how good this system can be used to ensure that the student has basic knowledge in every area of the course, but it is quite frustrating to not be able to "compensate" the fail of one of the problem with another one. (Bad)

What is your opinion on the conceptual problems during the lectures? (Posed using mentimeter.com) Opinions regarding using mentimeter.com vs the use of physical clickers are particularly useful.

18 svarande

Very good8 44%
Good8 44%
Bad0 0%
Very bad1 5%
Did not participate1 5%

- I personally preferred mentimeter.com over physical clickers. (Very good)
- That method was really fun and educational for me. This was the first time I use that method during the lectures and I can easily say that it made me focus more on the lectures and have fun more. (Very good)
- Either method of delivering the problems work, however I think it makes for less physical administration with mentimeter? Unless it's also harder to set up otherwise I'd say it's better. The problems were often very enlightening. (Very good)
- But you should let us more time to vote, especially thesecond time. This is true that we already know the solution, but we must also have the time to connect to the website. Sometimes I didn't vote because it was closed before I could access the website. (Good)
- Prefer menti to physical clickers (Good)
- I think the concept is very good. Might need to take just 20-30 seconds going through why some options are wrong sometimes even if the majority answered correctly though. (Good)
- Prefer mentimeter.com over physical clickers. It is nice with questions, you get a bit of a break, but some of the questions, especially early in the course were too simple. But you either don't want the questions to be too hard so I get that it's probably hard to balance. (Good)
- This is not the reason why I go to lectures. (Very bad)

Please enter any further comments and opinions about the course:

- Acceleration should have been covered more.
- Really good that Mattias listened to feedback.

Kursutvärderingssystem från

[Theoretical physics home page] [KTH home page]   webmaster