Aktuella utvärderingar

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.

Cognitive ergonomics (2009), MPP036

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-12-14 - 2009-12-23
Antal svar: 19
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 41%
Kontaktperson: Oskar Rexfelt»

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

19 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»3 15%
Around 20 hours/week»5 26%
Around 25 hours/week»6 31%
Around 30 hours/week»5 26%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.68

- It was very workintensive towards the end of the course and it really wasn"t possible to do more work than was already done in the beginning of the course.» (Around 30 hours/week)

2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

19 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»7 36%
100%»12 63%

Genomsnitt: 4.63

- It collided with my other course (Adv. CAD MPP020).» (75%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

19 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»3 15%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»5 26%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»11 57%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

16 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»15 93%
No, the goals are set too high»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

16 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»7 43%
Yes, definitely»5 31%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»4 25%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

- not examined yet» (?)

Teaching and course administration

6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

19 svarande

Small extent»2 10%
Some extent»10 52%
Large extent»7 36%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.26

- I must mark the lowest grade here, I really wanted more pedagogic teaching, the guest lecturers were of a very mixed quality.» (Small extent)
- Some lectures could be more practical about the project, and leave more theoretical parts to reading. » (Some extent)
- for more information of method, we need to check papers» (Some extent)

7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

19 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»8 42%
Large extent»6 31%
Great extent»5 26%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- There have been a lot of information, but also a lot of redundancy and, sorry to say it, but irrelevant information.» (Some extent)
- Some literature were not very good and didn"t give much. The book chapter was very useful. » (Some extent)
- Good compendium, very interesting even if at times not practical enough.» (Large extent)

8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

19 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»2 10%
Rather well»10 52%
Very well»7 36%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

- Would prefer handouts electronically. The English is often not clear in its meaning!» (Rather badly)
- A bit faster upload of lectures would have been appreciated.» (Rather well)
- The document name could be clearer on the website. It was hard to find the correct file. » (Rather well)
- The article hand-outs were good, but perhaps they could be handed out digitally instead?» (Very well)

Study climate

9. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

19 svarande

Very poor»1 5%
Rather poor»2 10%
Rather good»8 42%
Very good»7 36%
I did not seek help»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

- There were no tutor session, the students had to seek the teacher. Couldn"t get an feedback if we were carrying out the methods right or not. Would be good if we could have had a few tutor sessions where we could ask questions and get an immediate answer. » (Very poor)
- I"d have liked to have more opportunities to ask questions to both Lars Ola and Anna-Lisa, but I will not complain about the email response because it worked nicely.» (Rather poor)
- There could be more formal supervision times to check on the progress of the project, and give some advice. Setting goals for the study prior to starting would be interesting and give guidance while applying the methods.» (Rather good)
- Mail was very good but some supervision or at least a bit more attendance of the teacher during guestlectures would be good» (Rather good)
- Lars-Ola was available and helpful.» (Very good)

10. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

19 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»2 10%
Rather well»5 26%
Very well»12 63%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

- Its mostly a group dynamics thing, no hard feelings from me. With that said, I probably worked the least with this course. Our ambitions differed a bit.» (Rather poorly)
- The problem was one group mate that was late to about every group meeting we had and it turned out there was no solution to the problem because whatever we agreed to he was late anyway, most often at least 0.5 h, sometimes 2h and that is a lot of time. I never talked to the examiner about it because it felt very unpolite and we are grown up people so arriving late should not be a problem or at least that was what I thought!!! » (Rather poorly)
- It was ok, but with no guidelines or tutor session if was hard to get a good structure of what is going to be done first. » (Rather well)

11. How was the course workload?

19 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»11 57%
High»7 36%
Too high»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.47

- I didnt work much since Im engaged in two boards which take a lot of time and from which I learn a lot. So my ambitions were not very high. But it was hard since we had bad access to the machine (ultrasound) so the first few weeks not much happened or could happen.» (Adequate)
- There were a lot of methods to be carried out. » (High)
- there are some assignments for each part which take times.» (High)
- The group situation I talked about of course influenced, but I think it would have been wise to let us choose what methods to use instead of telling us to use them all.» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

19 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»7 36%
High»10 52%
Too high»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

- the workload is high but we enjoy it very much.» (High)
- Like I said, external factors and not the courses.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

19 svarande

Poor»1 5%
Fair»3 15%
Adequate»4 21%
Good»8 42%
Excellent»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.47

- Sorry I don"t like to be negative, but I think the project was too extensive, many of the methods never properly explained and the groupwork turned out to be problematic.» (Poor)
- We learn some useful methods but the course is very unispiering and boaring. It could be much better!» (Fair)
- I didnt feel that we got into deep knowledge on cognitive ergonomics. The models used are too simplistic and basically repeated throughout, instead of going deeper and deeper. Having a lecture on haptics - great! but just with one doctors ongoing research instead of learning the field of haptics was a shame, since its so rich novel and unexplored field. If we had more theories regarding haptics it would be a big advantage later since working engineers dont know haptics. The most we learned in our project was just good old semi-structured interviews. The methods were a way there, but some were just asking questions which I feel a good product developer asks anyway. » (Fair)
- No feedback at all. What about the first hand-in task. I still don"t know anything about mine...» (Fair)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Project work is good. THe basic idea of the course is great.»
- clear assignment and the fact that we got all litterature printed out, very good!»
- The main methods, the articles were great for learning. The sound lecturer was good. Unfortunately I missed the eye tracking guy. »
- The literature materials, they are excellent.»
- The project.»
- The presentation in the end»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The number of methods. This could be conducted more in the span of 15 credits time. Perhaps split in two courses?»
- More time for re-design»
- Having a step back, explaining the brain instead of Wickens would make for better discussions. Overall I think the methods took a very long time to teach compared to their utility. Perhaps not everyone needs to do all the methods? I seriously doubt the applicability of some methods, e.g. SWAT - it seems overly complex and expensive. But maybe it was just because it was explained poorly. The midway presentation felt forced and we hadnt gotten anywhere and what people presented was not interesting. Replace that with some "handledning". »
- I have been critical when writing this, it is because I was not satisfied with the course, but I think the most important thing that should definitely be changed to next year is some supervisor meeting in the project, at least 2-3 with either Anna-Lisa or Lars Ola, in which we can come with questions and they can check our status and if we have understood what to do...»
- The lectures about methods that are to be used in the project are scheduled much to late in the course. We had to perform the methods (expecially those including interviews) before the lectures to be able to finish on time which is not a very efficient way as the lectures would have made it possible to perform the methods both quicker and better.»
- Too many theoretical tasks. More focus on methods and how to carry out them. Students should better choose a few methods among the ones offered because not all of them fit for the individual projects.»
- Add some tutor sessions for the project, give more guidelines. »
- Communication and the task instructions should be redone and written in proper English»

16. Additional comments

- very good course!»
- The field of cognitive ergonomics lack in theoretical understanding of psychology in my opinion (I used to study psychology). Through the articles one can instantly tell if the theories are grounded in psychology in a good way, and these articles were the best. With that said, I might be biased.. =) Thanks for the course!»
- No feedback was given on the initial hand-in tasks. Perhaps a little less time could be spent on analysis methods and a bit more on how to work to actually develop improvements and new products.»
- More introduction how to conduct methods in the lectures. Provided papers were often confusing and didn"t support the work. Meeting with other project groups and exchange of information would also help.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från