Nordic Informatics Network in the Agricultural Sciences

Differential Equations and Dynamic Systems in Agriculture

Tune Landboskole, August 20-31, 2000

Evaluation

Comments labeled by the same figure are made by the same student.

Please state your opinion on the following matters concerning the course

Prior information Options Distribution Mean score

Amount & Quality Very poor
Poor
Reasonable
Good
Very good 1
5
3
12
0 3.2

Comments:

4: Course was a bit too difficult. 6: Basic mathematics is not matrices and integration. It should have been more described which basic knowledge is required. 14: [ Good ] But see next "window". 15: Would have been good to get the information about Matlab earlier so that I could have had more time to prepare better. 16: The information that we should be able to use matlab was given too late! -> Should have been in the description of the course -> Matlab is no standard software for people working in agricultural fields! 17: It might be a good idea to ask ppl for their background, i.e. which degree/field they are in to give courseholders an ability to better tailormake the course towards students. 20: Www pages were very good. 21: I believe an outline for what type of math knowledge would be expected is needed in order for a similar class to be successfull. It was clear that there was a BIG gab between students and lectures.

Work load Options Distribution Mean score

Preparation Far too high
Too high
Reasonable
Too low
Far too low 0
0
13
6
1 3.4

During the course Far too high
Too high
Reasonable
Too low
Far too low 0
5
16
0
0 2.8

Comments:

6: Too fast, no basic information about MatLab. 7: There could have been more information about which things (theory) you should know before. 13: Udlevering af skriftligt materiale til forelæsningerne havde været en fordel. 14: You should have mentioned that a repetition of matrix algebra would be wise. 15: Very intense 10 days at Tune, but also rewarding. 16: - Partly not enough information what has to be done during the exercises. - After it was clear that quite a big number of students did not have the required mathematical background and programming knowledge, the exercises should have been adjusted! 18: Would have been nice to have had a book discussing the problem in general. 19: A little more time doing something else would have been preferred - excursion or something like this. 20: Many students had a very poor background in basic maths. They should have prepared themselves much better.

Number of sessions, relatively Options Distribution Mean score

Lectures Far too many
Too many
Reasonable
Too few
Far too few 1
5
13
2
0 2.8

Computer exercises Far too many
Too many
Reasonable
Too few
Far too few 0
1
13
7
0 3.3

Individual project Far too many
Too many
Reasonable
Too few
Far too few 0
1
16
3
0 3.1

Comments:

1: The presentation of PhD projects were too long. 6: Maybe more exercises for MatLab in the beginning of the course. 12: Too many lectures in a row especially in the first two/three days. 14: Could have skipped lectures on thursday and friday. 16: -> No time between the lectures to get familiar with all the new information. 20: Two day project could have been done in one day. Much more ground could have been covered at lectures. Too much time used on technicalities of MATLAB. 21: I had to end the course early and did not do the final project. But the computer exercises worked as individual "projects".

Your benefit Options Distribution Mean score

Professional/Scientific Very low
Low
Reasonable
High
Very high 0
4
8
9
0 3.2

Expectation fullfillment Very low
Low
Reasonable
High
Very high 1
4
8
8
0 3.1

Personal/Social Very low
Low
Reasonable
High
Very high 0
0
9
9
3 3.7

Comments (e.g. "too applied", "too theoretical", etc.):

4: For beginners too difficult. 6: A bit too theoretical. Very much mathematics. 8: I would maybe have had more benefit of solving more of the applied exercises than from the theoretical lectures. 9: Maybe a bit too theoretical. 16: I expected more information about which equation can be used for certain problems and not that much solving of problems and theoretical details. 17: Some of the discussion of the numerical methods too theoretic while the process of modelling wasn't treated very well. 20: the course topic was very well suited for my research projects. The course could have been faster though covering elements of PDEs, stochastic differential equations, more on parameter estimation etc. 21: Again, the level of the math was not outlined clearly enough.

The course centre Options Distribution Mean score

Your room Very bad
Bad
Average
Good
Very good 0
1
4
9
7 4.0

General facilities Very bad
Bad
Average
Good
Very good 0
0
2
10
9 4.3

The food Very bad
Bad
Average
Good
Very good 0
0
0
7
14 4.7

Lecture rooms Very bad
Bad
Average
Good
Very good 0
0
1
12
8 4.3

Comments:

6: A very nice place. 7: Tables in lecture room could have been arranged better, so that everybody could have seen better. 10: Great food!!! 16: Perfect! 17: The beer was expensive :) 20: I'm grateful to whoever paid for the superb facilities for this course.

The following questions refer to the various parts of the course:

The basic introduction and cases by Per Grove Thomsen
Numerical methods by Ken Jackson
Evening lectures by guest teachers
The project

Basic introduction, case 1	Options	Distribution	Mean score
Lectures	Very bad Bad Average Good Very good	0 1 6 11 2	3.7
Hand-outs	Very bad Bad Average Good Very good	0 2 8 8 1	3.4
Computer exercises	Very bad Bad Average Good Very good	0 3 7 10 0	3.4
Comments: 6: Too fast. No basic description. 8: Lectures were probably at a higher level than I could follow. It's a long time since I studied basic math. 9: The lectures were good but not so easy to follow for one. The computer exercises were too few. 12: Needed more introduction before having computer exercises. 15: Difficult to apply car suspension to "Agriculture". Would have been good to have an exercise which was more within the research interest of the participants. 16: -> Too theoretical -> No agricultural applications -> Too many details. 17: - No handouts prior to lecture. - Basic introduction should have focused on biological application, not springs of the car/whale sounds. The same understanding could have been obtained with higher relevance for what we work with. 20: Per's a good teacher. No solutions to exercises. Missing boundary condition for road/car-exercise. theory behind time dependent boundary conditions was not covered before exercises. 21: Først efter ca. 2 dage blev det klart, at flere havde problemer med matematiske emner som komplekse tal.

Numerical methods	Options	Distribution	Mean score
Lectures	Very bad Bad Average Good Very good	0 0 5 11 4	4.0
Example programs	Very bad Bad Average Good Very good	0 1 2 11 5	4.1
Computer exercises	Very bad Bad Average Good Very good	0 2 5 9 3	3.7
Comments: 6: Very fast, but understandable. 7: Maybe the speed was sometimes too fast for native-english people. 8: I felt that I learned a lot from the exercises. 9: The examples and the computer exercises were good but too few. 10: It could be good if we had some of the equations already written during the presentation then I could have been able to listen more. I think I spent too much time writing (maybe my own fault). 12: These example programs were good, and they should have been shown earlier to learn Matlab. 13: Jeg var ikke her. 14: The little booklet should have been handed out at the start of the course. A very short table of matrix algebra "rules" could have been nice too. 15: A bit quick... "Difficult" mathematical theory for those who haven't studied math before, BUT very well presented. 16: [ Lectures ] Too many details mentioned -> No overview in the beginning what the aim is. [ Example programs and Computer exercises ] Too difficult at least for those who were not used to Matlab (or programming in general!) 17: - Too theoretical given ppls background. Should maybe have focused more on what comes handy in practice. - Good Matlab examples. 18: Too much equations. Too little practical examples. 20: Ken is very pedagogic, and really cares that students should learn. Too much time spent on Matlab technicalities.

Evening lectures	Options	Distribution	Mean score
Lectures	Very bad Bad Average Good Very good	4 3 9 3 1	2.7
Hand-outs	Very bad Bad Average Good Very good	2 2 11 4 0	2.9
Comments: 2: The evening lectures were maybe a bit too focused on engineering subjects and to little on agricultural subjects. 3: Too specific (e.g. Energy Systems) 4: The Energy-lecture was a bit out of subject! 6: Difficult to concentrate, Simulink lecture was good, no connection to agriculture. 8: We should have used more time on exercises - they were waste of time. 9: The lectures were good but I didn't get any benefits from them. 12: Power systems covered too much technical information compared to the amount of the actual dynamics. Stochastic diff. were very good. 13: Mandag aften - only. 14: Thursday: bad; Friday: average; Monday: good. 15: Power systems: Too theoretical => would have been nice to see transition from architecture/features to model. Applicable in agriculture?? 3rd evening (SimuLink) was good. 16: Too many -> Every second evening would have been enough. 17: - Very interesting examples, good with different input. - Power systems presentation focused too much on how the system worked instead of how modelling is done. 18: The lectures were very bad presented except Friday. 19: One has been very good = Simulink. Other with Energy was a little too far from the subject. 20: Power systems and stochastic diff. eq. was a waste of time for this audience. The former was out of scope and the latter was much too advanced. The control system software illustration was good though. 21: Foredragsholderen om kraftværker var lidt for langt væk fra de biologiske aspekter.

The project	Options	Distribution	Mean score
General benefit	Very bad Bad Average Good Very good	0 0 1 13 6	4.2
Comments: 6: Too difficult examples, especially with the kind of introduction; working with MatLab intensively => Good! 7: Very useful. Petter Wiberg really is a great teacher! Thanks for him! 9: Now I'm more confident about use MatLab and handling with mathematical problems. 15: Excellent way to implement what we have learned. As always, one wish there would have been more time to do it. 16: ... Finally something coping with agriculture ... 17: - Very good that it was possible to work in direction of preference - could work on something closely related to own PhD project. - Poor introduction to project catalogue. Bo Martin Bibby should maybe have participated in evaluation? 20: Could have been done in one day. 21: Jeg var desværre forhindret i at deltage her!

Other comments. You may for instance mention some positive circumstances (if you need more paper just ask in the reception) and some negative circumstances concerning the course:

4: Petter deserves an extra thank you! 6: Very little connection to agriculture, more for mathematicians than for agricultural modellers; too little introduction and explainations. Very nice atmosphere!!! 10: The teachers were very helpfull and patient trying to help us during the exercises! They did really a good job! It has been a very good course overall! I knew from the beginning that I would have hard to follow it because I have too little experience in mathematics and programming. But I have learned so much starting at my level. And now I know which part of the mathematics I should work on, that's good! Thank's very much! You have been a great team! 11: The course teachers have been very positive engaged and helpfull. 12: The introductions of individual PhD projects were too long, I think two days of this were too much. Perhaps only 10 min. per person!! 15: => Excellent set-up of the course, considering that people had such different backgrounds, i.e. experience with computer programming, mathematical background etc. => I had expected more about "what model to choose for different systems", how to evaluate a system to find a reasonable model and how to "transfer" a biological system into a mathematical expression. => Very nice course course facilities, and nice to have most of the participants gathered all the time. => Fun fun fun!... and I don't mean functions. The atmosphere has been great! I'll miss it once I have caught up on my sleep. => Lots of learning experiences - GOOD! Thank you. 16: The description of the course did not really fit the course. -> No teachers working in the field of agriculture. -> Would have been important to keep the balance between the theoretical and practical part. -> I expected more guest lectures from people working with modelling in agriculture! 17: - Good arranged with perfect working condition: sleep -> eat -> work -> eat -> work -> eat -> work -> sleep. - Good with ppls individual PhD presentations, but they should have been put in the evening and do Matlab exercises in the afternoon instead. - Could have had a joint social program on Sunday. - Given ppls background it might have been a good idea to use 1h to explain general programming concepts, especially scope and parameter transfer mechanism. 18: Allk together it has been a good course. But I would have liked to have had more exercises in coming from the problem -> model -> equations -> Matlab. 20: On the whole a very good course. Future courses like this at Tune are encouraged. Howabout something about statistical modelling.

Author: phd@dina.kvl.dk. Updated: 3 October 2000

Prior information	Options	Distribution	Mean score
Amount & Quality	Very poor Poor Reasonable Good Very good	1 5 3 12 0	3.2
Comments: 4: Course was a bit too difficult. 6: Basic mathematics is not matrices and integration. It should have been more described which basic knowledge is required. 14: [ Good ] But see next "window". 15: Would have been good to get the information about Matlab earlier so that I could have had more time to prepare better. 16: The information that we should be able to use matlab was given too late! -> Should have been in the description of the course -> Matlab is no standard software for people working in agricultural fields! 17: It might be a good idea to ask ppl for their background, i.e. which degree/field they are in to give courseholders an ability to better tailormake the course towards students. 20: Www pages were very good. 21: I believe an outline for what type of math knowledge would be expected is needed in order for a similar class to be successfull. It was clear that there was a BIG gab between students and lectures.

Work load	Options	Distribution	Mean score
Preparation	Far too high Too high Reasonable Too low Far too low	0 0 13 6 1	3.4
During the course	Far too high Too high Reasonable Too low Far too low	0 5 16 0 0	2.8
Comments: 6: Too fast, no basic information about MatLab. 7: There could have been more information about which things (theory) you should know before. 13: Udlevering af skriftligt materiale til forelæsningerne havde været en fordel. 14: You should have mentioned that a repetition of matrix algebra would be wise. 15: Very intense 10 days at Tune, but also rewarding. 16: - Partly not enough information what has to be done during the exercises. - After it was clear that quite a big number of students did not have the required mathematical background and programming knowledge, the exercises should have been adjusted! 18: Would have been nice to have had a book discussing the problem in general. 19: A little more time doing something else would have been preferred - excursion or something like this. 20: Many students had a very poor background in basic maths. They should have prepared themselves much better.

Number of sessions, relatively	Options	Distribution	Mean score
Lectures	Far too many Too many Reasonable Too few Far too few	1 5 13 2 0	2.8
Computer exercises	Far too many Too many Reasonable Too few Far too few	0 1 13 7 0	3.3
Individual project	Far too many Too many Reasonable Too few Far too few	0 1 16 3 0	3.1
Comments: 1: The presentation of PhD projects were too long. 6: Maybe more exercises for MatLab in the beginning of the course. 12: Too many lectures in a row especially in the first two/three days. 14: Could have skipped lectures on thursday and friday. 16: -> No time between the lectures to get familiar with all the new information. 20: Two day project could have been done in one day. Much more ground could have been covered at lectures. Too much time used on technicalities of MATLAB. 21: I had to end the course early and did not do the final project. But the computer exercises worked as individual "projects".

Your benefit	Options	Distribution	Mean score
Professional/Scientific	Very low Low Reasonable High Very high	0 4 8 9 0	3.2
Expectation fullfillment	Very low Low Reasonable High Very high	1 4 8 8 0	3.1
Personal/Social	Very low Low Reasonable High Very high	0 0 9 9 3	3.7
Comments (e.g. "too applied", "too theoretical", etc.): 4: For beginners too difficult. 6: A bit too theoretical. Very much mathematics. 8: I would maybe have had more benefit of solving more of the applied exercises than from the theoretical lectures. 9: Maybe a bit too theoretical. 16: I expected more information about which equation can be used for certain problems and not that much solving of problems and theoretical details. 17: Some of the discussion of the numerical methods too theoretic while the process of modelling wasn't treated very well. 20: the course topic was very well suited for my research projects. The course could have been faster though covering elements of PDEs, stochastic differential equations, more on parameter estimation etc. 21: Again, the level of the math was not outlined clearly enough.

The course centre	Options	Distribution	Mean score
Your room	Very bad Bad Average Good Very good	0 1 4 9 7	4.0
General facilities	Very bad Bad Average Good Very good	0 0 2 10 9	4.3
The food	Very bad Bad Average Good Very good	0 0 0 7 14	4.7
Lecture rooms	Very bad Bad Average Good Very good	0 0 1 12 8	4.3
Comments: 6: A very nice place. 7: Tables in lecture room could have been arranged better, so that everybody could have seen better. 10: Great food!!! 16: Perfect! 17: The beer was expensive :) 20: I'm grateful to whoever paid for the superb facilities for this course.