User: unknown || Login || NEWS: Evaluation, Last changes, We are full, Schedule on-line, Prof. Socie as lecturer
WCFA2016-VFA
Evaluation of the workshop
In order to get some feedback from the participants about the meeting and the lectures, we asked them to fill our questionnaires anonymously. They could select values in between the 1 (awful) to 10 (magnificient). Though the number of participants coming for the first part was higher (65) then for the second part (62), the number of returned evaluation sheets was substantially lower. Anyway, the overall statistic evaluations is provided here:
The more detailed evaluation in individual evaluated sections can be analyzed here below:
| Values stated: Average mark/Number of evaluations | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slides | Show | Comprehensibility | Gained knowledge | Importance of the topic | |
| M. Růžička: Introduction | 8.8/20 | 7.8/20 | 8.7/17 | 8.2/14 | 8.6/14 |
| Comments: | very confusing | ||||
| J. Papuga: Stress-life analysis | 8.9/20 | 8.6/20 | 8.9/16 | 8.2/18 | 8.8/17 |
| Comments: | --- | ||||
| D. Socie: Strain-life analysis, loads | 9.1/20 | 9.8/20 | 9.4/16 | 9.2/18 | 8.8/17 |
| Comments: | --- | ||||
| D. Socie: Other factors | 9.1/20 | 9.7/20 | 9.3/16 | 9.1/18 | 8.9/17 |
| Comments: | --- | ||||
| M. Růžička: Composites | 7.9/20 | 7.1/20 | 7.7/16 | 7.5/17 | 7.9/16 |
| Comments: | many topics, no explanation | ||||
| J. Jurenka: Fracture Mechanics | 7.7/20 | 6.3/20 | 7.3/16 | 6.8/16 | 8.5/16 |
| Comments: | many abbreviations | struggle to understand | ||||
| J. Jurenka: Welds | 7.8/20 | 6.5/20 | 7.3/16 | 7.4/16 | 8.4/16 |
| Comments: | without explanation, boring carriage (I'd be happy to understand this note - something related to Alice: Behind the Mirror?) | ||||
| J. Papuga: Multiaxial fatigue | 8.4/20 | 8.6/20 | 8.5/16 | 7.9/17 | 8.5/17 |
| Comments: | pls, give more time to this topic | ||||
| J. Papuga: FE-based fatigue prediction | 8.2/18 | 8.4/18 | 8.6/16 | 7.8/15 | 8.4/14 |
| Comments: | too long | too complicated tables | ||||
| J. Papuga: Software, data | 9.0/12 | 9.1/11 | 9.2/11 | 8.3/10 | 8.3/10 |
| Comments: | too theoretical | nice presentation | ||||
| N. Bishop: Vibration fatigue | 8.9/30 | 9.2/30 | 9.1/30 | 8.7/30 | 9.3/30 |
| Comments: | Too much about how great his SW is. I would prefer more about theory and how it works step by step much more in every detail. | Too many switches in presentations and topics. | Too many slipping among slides. | Color full copy of slides is better. | Might have more examples (with video) | An outline of the presentation would have been nice. Tracking the correct slide was not always simple. | ||||
| Comments overall: | too many pauses, too many topics for 1 day | very good seminar, well done! | paper program would be handy to have in bag | ||||
Answer of the organizers:The fact that in no case the overall evaluation of any lecture got below 7 is quite positive for us, and for lecturers as well. From the very start, the first day was intended to be introductory, so that you could understand the differences and similarities between common fatigue prediction approach, and the PSD-based prediction on random loading lectured by Neil Bishop. It is true, that some of the parts were really just brief sketches, but this concerned topics, which were repeatedly highlighted by the participants as the right topics for a next workshop (welds, composites).
Concerning the many comments to Neil's presentation, maybe he will comment it by himself later on. Note please that he's all the time trying to push the research in the direction of safe applicability of presented methods, and cooperated with various fatigue solver developers. It is then quite logical that he talks quite personnaly about the achievements and developments concerning his SW. Check the heap of materials and videos available on the USB-flash, and I guess you'll find that some parts remained untold. Neil decided to make the things in the lectures simple, so that you could understand. My personal opinion (Jan Papuga) is that the workshop content in the second part was one of the best I have ever seen, taking into account that we started from zero level.
The meeting itself was rated separately, and the results are provided here:
| Values stated: Average mark/Number of evaluations | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Information before meeting | Realization on-site, location | Room, equipment | Meals | |
| Organization Part I | 9.2/18 | 9.5/19 | 8.9/19 | 9.3/19 |
| Organization Part II | 9.3/30 | 9.6/30 | 9.1/29 | 9.7/30 |
| Comments to "Information before meeting": | HR dept did it instead of me | Would be nice to have the info on USB-flash drive before the seminar | |||
| Answer to "Information before meeting": | Would be nice to have the info before we start, but the amount of data is huge, something more than 3GB. Second, we had everything ready not later than on Friday, while the workshop started on Tuesday. So the available void period was not that long. I guess you have to accept the status quo, and study the available material on the USB-flash during next two-three years to get ready for next Neil's visit. | |||
| Comments to "Realization on-site, location": | --- | |||
| Comments to "Room, equipment": | small desks (2x) | uncomfortable seats (2x) | room size acceptable to get this number of people in | could be smaller one (I wonder that) | better A/C in the lecture room would help | |||
| Answer to "Room, equipment": | At the end, I decided not to allow more people to apply for the workshop, because I was afraid, we'll have problems to get in. Apparently, you felt comfortable. Yes, the space for one person was not that big, but still it worked. The pauses were frequent enough to bring fresh air into the room, though one person complained. True, the seats were not very comfortable, but it is as in one fairytale, where the hero placed a hedgehog skin on his knees while seating, so that he could not get asleep. You know, we decided for more a nature-friendly variant, I guess nobody there would prefer so many hedgehogs to be killed. | |||
| Comments to "Meals": | just due to standing (rated 9) | good combination | |||
| Answer to "Meals": | The catering service and the meals they provided were the best evaluated item of the workshop. No comments. | |||
| Further notes: | (1) More examples, with detail going through | (2) Printed papers have many mistakes - some equations are printed very bad. Why aren't papers colour printed? Many figures doesn't make sense->many lines and no more. | (3) Please provide some video that shows examples | |||
| Answers: | In order to have more examples, I assume we'd need another day, and a lot of companies would not allow you to come. We apologize
for the print problems, it was our mismatch in the communication with the print office, which unfortunately got a link to a bad version of the slides. The equations should be correct in the
pdf file available on the USB-flash, so you can correct it from there. The slides are not in color, because it would substantially increase the price of the whole workshop. I do not
know, how often you get teaching materials in color? Concerning the videos - check the USB-flash, and there you'd find a lot of material to digest. I wrote above, study it
to get ready for inquiries once Neil Bishop will come back. Or you can try to contact him directly. Note please, that originally only the B/W prints were announced. The fact that you have now also a USB-flash memory stick is kind of an add-on. | |||
papuga@pragtic.com, last update: November 13, 2016
EXTERN LINKS:
