Visa resultat

Sustainable energy futures (SP1, 2012), FFR170

General impression and course content

1. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		1		1%
Fair»		6		8%
Good»		16		21%
Very good»		50		68%

Genomsnitt: 3.57

- The course itself is fine, I just do not think it should be compulsory on our program. » (Fair)
- Fairly okay, but a bit too much anti-nuclear. I believe that the MPSES-program have the highest probability of being anti-nuclear, therefore these people should learn some more pro-sides from Nuclear. » (Fair)
- As with many courses that is about the environment, there are too many opinions and too few facts.» (Fair)
- Intresting and hard, learned that there is no straight answer but a lot of different views on the climate problem.» (Very good)
- Very good and inspiring lectures. Specially Christian Azar and Niclas Mattsons. You both have a very good way of keeping contact with the audience and keep it interesting and fun to listen. Very inspiring!» (Very good)
- Very interesting course and highly engaged people» (Very good)
- great mixture of interesting topics» (Very good)
- One of the best courses I ever had! Very interesting, up-to-date topics raised during lectures, discussed in an amazing atmosphere created by intrigued teachers and students! Congratulations to the designer of this course!» (Very good)
- All the popular topics (when it comes to sustainability like carbon tax, renewables, Kyoto protocol etc.) are discussed in an interconnected way which provides a deeper and clearer insight about sustainable energy technologies.» (Very good)
- I totally changed my view on the way energy world works and how people should consider this issue.» (Very good)

2. Which Master"s program are you following?

MPSES»		30		41%
MPECO / MPTSE»		6		8%
MPNUE»		13		18%
Erasmus»		14		19%
other»		7		9%
not currently in a Master"s program»		2		2%

Genomsnitt: 2.55

- Actually I"ve not finished my Bachelor at my home university, but I could take a masters course in advance. » (Erasmus)
- Industrial Ecology» (other)
- Master programme of Industrial Ecology» (other)
- Industrial Ecology» (other)
- Erasmus Mundus Master Programme of Industrial Ecology (MIND)» (other)
- I have the intent to start studying MPSES next year.» (not currently in a Master"s program)

3. How well did the course fit into your program?

Poor»		7		9%
Fair»		6		8%
Good»		17		23%
Very good»		43		58%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

- As a chemical engineer student (TKKMT) from chalmers it feels insulting taking this course as it is the fifth course in environmental things-ish...» (Poor)
- I don"t have a comparable course at my home university so I can"t get credits for it» (Poor)
- Interesting course. Maybe not so relevant for the MPNUE program but interesting to look at energy and nuclear in a broader perspective. Interesting with discussions, for example what would be the future roll of nuclear.» (Fair)
- Too much anti-nuclear for being a "sustainable" course. » (Fair)
- It is a bit strange that this course is compulsory for students with a background in chemical engineering as that bachelors programme already includes 18 hp environment centered courses. Or as an alternative it should be possible to take this course as part of the bachelors programme instead.» (Fair)
- It"s good that the course is so general. It covers a lot but on a basic level. » (Good)
- Excellent motivating lecturers. It was fast pace but they managed to teach the most relevant topics in way that was easy to understand.» (Very good)
- I could replace a compulsory course from my home university. » (Very good)
- A perfect first course of our Masters program I think.» (Very good)
- Should be in the 1st year in the masterprogram Industrial Ecology/TSE, not the 2nd year. Should to compulsory and not semi-compulsory. » (Very good)
- This was my only course» (Very good)
- As the nature of the field Industrial Ecology, almost all the topics in the content of the course were taught me before, however, relations between them was never mentioned clearly enough for me to gain a system perspective. I found it very relevant also because of the critical approach followed during the classes, discussing pros and cons of every topic...There is no single solution/answer!» (Very good)
- actually i am engaged in a very technical program so i would never have such a course about the outer world and energy consideration from a global point of view. » (Very good)

4. Is something in the course unnecessary, overlapping with other courses or should it receive less treatment?

5. Did you miss anything from the course, or did a subject receive insufficient treatment?

Lectures & calculation exercises

6. Please rate the lectures given by the following people!

- The lectures about CCS and climate negotiations were specially good, bringing the opinions of such experts in these different matters. VGood!»
- Some of the lecturers could be a little more objective. Also, some of the guest lecturers were not that inspiring. In a whole however, I have found this course both objective and inspiring.»
- Christian Ekberg or ANders Nordlund should be the lecturers for the nuclear energy bits.»
- Where are the women?»
- I sometimes got the feeling that the lectures of the teachers connected more closely to the course where formated in a way that fit the course best. Thus they received a better rating from me in a larger extent.»
- The topic of Erik Ahlgren was very interesting but the content of the lecture and the style of presentation was quite uninteresting.»
- As said before, Niclas and Chrisitan are top of the line! You both definitely qualify to my top teachers so far! (I thought about erasing this sentance in order not to over use superlatives, but I think you deserve to hear it.)»
- Did sadly miss a few lectures, should be an option did not attend on the questionnaire»
- i can hardly remember all of them : D but the one i remenber were very good. »
- I don"t think Azar is the guy that should take the Nuclear lessions. That should be changed!»
- Over all very good guest lecturers. »
- Tomas Kåberger didn"t really give a balanced picture of the potential of wind power. He spent the entire lecture on the possibilities just mentioning the actual limitations that exist very briefly at the end. That wasn"t very educational and may be more suitable for a lunch seminar. For the nuclear energy lectures maybe it would be good if at least one of the lectures could be a guest lecturer from the nuclear engineering department or someone else working in that field. »
- Some classes could have been more interactive.»
- those i have marked very good were outstanding and i enjoyed the lecture. the reason i have marked some fair is that i fell asleep during the lecture»

Christian Azar (main lecturer)
71 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Good»		11		15%
Very good»		60		84%

Genomsnitt: 3.84

Daniel Johansson (fossil fuels)
65 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		11		16%
Good»		40		61%
Very good»		14		21%

Genomsnitt: 3.04

Mårten Levenstam (energy efficiency in the transport sector, a perspective from Volvo)
68 svarande

Poor»		3		4%
Fair»		17		25%
Good»		29		42%
Very good»		19		27%

Genomsnitt: 2.94

Jonas Nässén (energy efficiency)
66 svarande

Poor»		1		1%
Fair»		18		27%
Good»		35		53%
Very good»		12		18%

Genomsnitt: 2.87

Anders Lyngfelt (carbon capture & storage)
67 svarande

Poor»		2		2%
Fair»		16		23%
Good»		30		44%
Very good»		19		28%

Genomsnitt: 2.98

Tomas Kåberger (wind power & post-Fukushima renewable energy policy)
66 svarande

Poor»		1		1%
Fair»		7		10%
Good»		27		40%
Very good»		31		46%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

Bo Normark (grid integration of intermittent renewables, smart grids)
67 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		18		26%
Good»		29		43%
Very good»		20		29%

Genomsnitt: 3.02

Niclas Mattsson (solar energy and intermittency)
66 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		2		3%
Good»		18		27%
Very good»		46		69%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

David Bryngelsson (biomass & bioenergy)
65 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		3		4%
Good»		37		56%
Very good»		25		38%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

Erik Ahlgren (energy in the developing world, fuel cells & hydrogen)
65 svarande

Poor»		10		15%
Fair»		26		40%
Good»		24		36%
Very good»		5		7%

Genomsnitt: 2.36

Karl-Johan Bondeson (climate negotiations)
63 svarande

Poor»		3		4%
Fair»		10		15%
Good»		22		34%
Very good»		28		44%

Genomsnitt: 3.19

7. How did you find the difficulty level of the calculation exercises?

Too easy»		2		2%
Somewhat easy»		9		12%
Good»		37		51%
Somewhat hard»		22		30%
Too hard»		2		2%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- The mathematics aren"t hard, it just a matter of getting used to how you guys think» (Somewhat easy)
- Very large different between the different exercises!» (Good)
- Would prefer some kind of solution manual» (Good)
- I found the exercises a bit uneven in the difficulty.» (Good)
- The content was not hard, basically all the questions were on an ok level. The difficulty was in getting all the details right and for this the exercises were very helpful and I think I learned allot.» (Good)
- If it is necessary to make assumptions (e.g. load factors), it would be nice, if you could write explicitly and every time something like "Make reasonable assumptions for missing data"» (Good)
- had to get used to that kind of calculations in the beginning, but we learnt really good how to deal with that in the exercises» (Good)
- It was varying quite a lot. Sometimes the level was extremely easy(biomass) but sometimes more difficult and very time consuming (nuclear).» (Good)
- In the handed out solutions the assumptions made are not always stated explicitly. For example: In the handed out solutions for the old exams the enrichment is calculated on mass basis which is wrong, as it is actually on molar basis. The result is very similar but the assumption that answers will be roughly similar is not stated. That should be improved as it is stressed that we students must always state the assumptions made on the exam. » (Good)
- i find these exercises quiet good at giving orders of magnitude for the things being discussed in the lecture» (Good)
- in my opinion in some of the questions, it was difficult to guess what is actually asked for. The language was bit confusing.» (Somewhat hard)
- Some term in the exercises are difficult to understand, such in the case of bio fuels yields (chapter 4). In general after discussing them in class they became much more clear anyway.» (Somewhat hard)
- In general, there was the problem of interpretation of data given, constraints and the question as such.» (Somewhat hard)
- Hard but when we went through them in the exercises it felt like "Why didn"t i come up with that."» (Somewhat hard)
- I think biomass is hard. Good with the focus on units, like difference between joule of heat/joule of electricity. Gives another perspective on calculations than most other courses I have taken. Interesting and fun, but hard (not in a bad way, but sometimes very frustrating).» (Somewhat hard)
- It"s hard for students without relevant background to find the assumptions in many exercises. » (Somewhat hard)
- tricky points - still important to be aware of - were brought up» (Somewhat hard)
- Information is missing and calculation steps are not obvious.» (Too hard)

8. How relevant were the calculation exercises for the course?

Poor»		1		1%
Fair»		9		12%
Good»		27		38%
Very good»		34		47%

Genomsnitt: 3.32

- I don"t think that they were necessary, but it probably saved you guys some a heap of questions regarding some of the calculation topics. Also good for reflecting over subjects» (Good)
- Excellent. They manage give a real perspective on the energy issues.» (Very good)
- Without both the aspect of diskussion and calculation the course would not have been as good, so exercises were important in that aspect » (Very good)
- The calculation exercises were relevant for the exam but not for the lectures.» (Very good)
- They gave a better overview of the problems » (Very good)
- Good quantitative justifications for the arguments discusses in the class.» (Very good)

9. Please rate the lessons given by the teaching assistant in your group (please skip the others)!

- Moved too slow so that one lost track of what he was talking about..»
- Niclas has made sure we understood everything, also very positive debates and discussions. VGood!»
- Pedagogical and with humour.»
- Niclas is so optimistic, encouraging and positive!»
- Better structure of writings on the table would be great! A little more involvement of the class even if the excercises are not prepared, would be better!»
- He"s a keeper!»
- Sometimes Niclas spent time solving the same exercise in two different ways, and then did not have time to do all exercises. I would prefer to prioritize calculating all exercises first, then showing alternative ways.»
- I found it a bit hard to hear/understand him but otherwise very good.»
- Torough and listen to ous students and applying the tempo after ous.»
- Niclas motivated a lot by his character and knew really lots of things about related topics, that were not directly part of the course. Thus very very good!»
- David was very good, but I prepared and did all calculations at home and then I only had a question or two. But since it was a lesson all I could do was to come there and then wait for the David to get to the exercise where I had questions and hope that I would get an explanation then. This was not very time efficient. »
- I like that the start of the excersises sometimes has been a short crash course of the main concepts or a short repetition.»
- Sometimes it was difficult to understand him due to his accent but he was very engaged that everyone understands the calculations»
- Do not like the format of these, Would prefer being handed out solutions before and use the time of lectures, with question about the exercises and discussion time. Not just writing off the answers from the board. I normally got stuck at home before, and had not time to attempt and solve all exercises before the lecture.»
- very good way of explaining and discussing»
- In the beginning we had some suggestions for her teaching and she improved a lot.»
- please write some conclusions of the discussions on the board next time...the rest was very good!»
- Skilled and pedagogical.»
- I found that a lot of the students did not try to solve the exercises beforehand, and so more time was spent on the math than the discussions. »
- very clear explanations of the terms and conditions used not only in exercises, but also in lectures, integration of calculations with material from lectures, very helpful in replying to students" questions!!!»
- He always had a good attitude towards students, helped a lot to clarify the issues students had been facing with the exercises.»
- smiling and good discussins in the lesson»

Niclas Mattsson (group 1)
26 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Good»		3		11%
Very good»		23		88%

Genomsnitt: 3.88

David Bryngelsson (group 2)
22 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		1		4%
Good»		9		40%
Very good»		12		54%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

Yaw Sasu-Boakye (group 3)
15 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		2		13%
Good»		9		60%
Very good»		4		26%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

Mariliis Lehtveer (group 4)
15 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		7		46%
Good»		6		40%
Very good»		2		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

Debates

10. How did you like having debates in the course?

Poor»		5		6%
Fair»		19		26%
Good»		31		42%
Very good»		18		24%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- Better organized and maybe with credits towards the exam to make them more interesting» (Poor)
- I hate debating!» (Poor)
- I think this part of the course should be revised. I think it should be better if the groups were smaller, perhaps 2 people per group. » (Poor)
- Would be better to have it on ordinary class time with more students. More arguments and counter arguments. » (Poor)
- I am familiar with most of the debates from Sustainable Development course, the debates were somehow already heard. Still, positive.» (Fair)
- They were good to have as further discussion moments, but most of them were not well prepared» (Fair)
- The problem is, that some people are just not able to debate, so it was often only few people debating. But else, I liked the debates.» (Fair)
- I didn"t give me so much, neither my own or the others. » (Fair)
- Debates are interesting but scary. The first one was a bit unorganized but the rest good. » (Fair)
- It was disrespectful of some classmates that it was very empty in some debates... No Audience although the participants were very well prepared. » (Fair)
- didn"t give anything » (Fair)
- Not everyone was prepared enough which prevented the debate go further from common sense analysis.» (Fair)
- they were unnecessary actually. » (Fair)
- An anchor would be helpful for the debates so that the discussion is a little more structured and therefore the learning outcome is better.» (Good)
- It was a fun way to learn pros and cons in different questions. » (Good)
- Debate should worth some points of the total score since it takes a lot of time and efforts to prepare.» (Good)
- The idea of having dabates was very good but sometimes they were a bit tensed» (Good)
- good way of acquiring knowledge on the subjects.. I think there should also be a debate about efficiency improvement Vs costs and public acceptance of new techs OR one about renewables integrating to the grid Vs intermittency and stability of grid» (Good)
- Good idea, poor execution. Some of the debate subjects should be replaced.» (Good)
- Debates, unless carry some marks or grades will never be taken up very seriously by all the students of the group.» (Very good)
- It open up to a new way of thinking and helps you get into that state of mind.» (Very good)
- Really good way of bothering intensivly with typical problems in energy questions. One could think about formulating the questions more specific as it is sometimes difficult to answer questions like "For or against Nuclear Power" because it"s always related to the circumstances...» (Very good)
- Good for learning I guess. » (Very good)

11. Please rate the individual debates:

- The points of the nuclear seemed more obvious, probably since they are more common in every day debates.»
- Would have been nice to have maybe just one not from nuclear engineering programm debating the nuclear energy.»
- I think all topics were really good. Some debates were more interesting and some other not as good, but I think that mainly was because of or thanks to the students participating. Good with the concluding arguments that Niclas used to sum up in the end.»
- I think it was more fun than that you actually learnt a lot from them. (of course the debate groups learnt a lot about their specific area)»
- debate 4 could be updated: e.g. KP goals (up to 2012) for next year, countries that are included under the term "developing", as not all non-annex countries can be characterised in this way. »
- i only took part of the first and was not that rich »

Debate 1: Carbon capture & storage
64 svarande

Poor»		5		7%
Fair»		14		21%
Good»		33		51%
Very good»		12		18%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

Debate 2: Fuel choices in the transportation sector
61 svarande

Poor»		4		6%
Fair»		14		22%
Good»		31		50%
Very good»		12		19%

Genomsnitt: 2.83

Debate 3: Nuclear energy
61 svarande

Poor»		1		1%
Fair»		10		16%
Good»		31		50%
Very good»		19		31%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

Debate 4: Climate targets for the developing world
53 svarande

Poor»		1		1%
Fair»		13		24%
Good»		26		49%
Very good»		13		24%

Genomsnitt: 2.96

Literature

12. How did you like the course compendium?

Poor»		3		4%
Fair»		14		19%
Good»		46		63%
Very good»		9		12%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- It"s very lazy to just compile a group of articles, the 300 pages could be condensed down to probably 80 or less pages. If you would just make an effort.» (Poor)
- There is many articles, I have missed to have a collection of must read, in order to prioritize. Also, attending to lectures has resulted more useful. Maybe not so crucial articles could be published in the home course page, therefore be kind of voluntary?» (Fair)
- Too much/detailed information. More background informations» (Fair)
- You guys should seriously add a table of content + a register.» (Fair)
- The compendium lacked structure and some of the articles had too small font size.» (Fair)
- It is interesting that all the texts are so old. Hasn"t there come anything new, interesting the past years?» (Good)
- Some of the texts were very long compared to their content.» (Good)
- I thought some articles had to small fontsize. » (Good)
- Very interesting, but as a Course compendium pretty ample as there are a lot of interesting(!!) but not necessary information due to pass the exam. The article about fossil fuels is rather boring because of its length, the nuclear article is very good!» (Good)
- The course compendium covered almost exactly the same things as the lectures, which I think is good. But some articles was very long and yet they didn"t contain much. That was a bit annoying» (Good)
- Chapter 8 was to long and din"t give that much. And chapter 20 didn"t give anything of value at all. » (Good)
- The chapter about electric / hybrid vehicles is not very good, I would skip that» (Good)
- Nice to have everything in the same place!» (Good)
- The chapters about oil feels like they"re not up to date and they"re hard to read with a lot of irrelevant numbers introduced in the text. Except from that it was interesting. Maybe a bit too many chapters.» (Good)
- some very interesting articles, but also some very long, not necessarily related to what was discussed or presented in classes.» (Good)
- some articles were way too long like the fossil fuel one» (Good)
- As mentioned above, there was a problem of how to interpret some of the excercises. Apart from that, it was really good to have everything gathered at one place (schedule, course PM, debate information, calculations etc.) (except the "roman").» (Very good)
- I liked most of the articles, some more than other. I do think number 18 should be replaces because that was not good according to me. Maybe you could try to find some other article since it is an interesting and important topic I think.» (Very good)
- the only article that did not fit in from my point of view was the very long article about oil» (Very good)
- It"s mostly very optimistic texts, maybe a bit to much focus on America.» (Very good)
- It was enough. We had everything we needed there.» (Very good)

13. How much of the course compendium did you read?

0 - 20%»		4		5%
20 - 40%»		9		12%
40 - 60%»		15		21%
60 - 80%»		18		25%
80 - 100%»		25		35%

Genomsnitt: 3.71

- I only read the article about my debate subject and the calculation exercises. And I"m convinced that it was enough for the exam. So there is a lot of addionional background information but it"s also enough to read through the slides.» (0 - 20%)
- So badly structured. » (0 - 20%)
- Although they are very interesting, it is difficult to find time to read all the articles while having to make exercises or attend other courses.» (20 - 40%)
- I read all the recommended parts, don"t know the percentage of the compendium for that.» (60 - 80%)
- I used chalmers bibliotek to seek up articles with small fontsizes. Maybe the links could be in the compendium. » (60 - 80%)
- lets say 70%..» (60 - 80%)
- most of the articles were interesting. good choice !» (60 - 80%)
- Chapter 4 was crap, too long and boring.» (80 - 100%)
- I liked all the articles even though some seemed to apply less to our course.» (80 - 100%)
- I read most of it in the beginning of the course. » (80 - 100%)
- I have tried to read the recommended chapters before the lectures which I think has been a good thing for me.» (80 - 100%)
- I found it interesting!» (80 - 100%)

14. How did you like "Solving the climate challenge" (Makten över klimatet) by Christian Azar?

Poor»		1		1%
Fair»		6		11%
Good»		17		33%
Very good»		27		52%
I did not read it»		21

Genomsnitt: 3.37

- It is probably good as a quick reference to climate issues but wasn"t of any use when reading the course. It would have benefitted from a reading guide that explained the use of footnotes, and perhaps some kind of distinction between footnotes referring to literature and footnotes referring to additional information on the given subject.» (Poor)
- Easy to read but feels a bit biased at times. Wind and solar is uncritically accepted as solutions without really mentioning the drawbacks, e.g. Germany is mentioned as a successful example of wind- and solar expansion but in reality you have large companies going bankrupt, high electricity bills, jobs moving out of the country etc.» (Fair)
- The book is good, but for people who"s been studying the compulsory environmental classes on the bachelors level it was almost pure repitition. We also get a lot of the argumentations in the book via the lectures. Easily read though.» (Fair)
- The book was interesting to read. However it wasn"t very useful in the course and you can definitely pass without having read it. Also it is a waste of paper to print it in A4 format when the book is only half as big anyway.» (Fair)
- It was too much to read everything, but it is great to have it. » (Good)
- Except for the layout and the translation (spelling) into english!» (Very good)
- Christian is a nice guy, he has lot of cozy uncle (mysfarbror) potential.» (Very good)
- easy to read and yet informative » (Very good)
- It was inspiring to read and covered most of what we discussed from the other side, compared to calculating.» (Very good)
- Good point and easier to read than the course compendium.» (Very good)
- Interesting and easy to read» (Very good)
- I like it a lot. Had it from before the course so I had already read it, but I learned a lot also this time and I think many of the lectures followed it in a good way.» (Very good)
- Easy to read and a mixture of history, science, technology written in a story-telling way, which makes the reader want to continue reading to the end!» (Very good)
- Very smooth and dynamic language. Interesting way of explaining a topic, it was like telling a story with very well diffused quantitative data to support the arguments and good sense of humor!» (Very good)
- No time to read yet...» (I did not read it)
- i have it but did not read it yet. i actually plan to read when i go back home» (I did not read it)

Course administration and study climate

15. How well did the course administration (scheduling, web page, handouts, etc.) work?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		4		5%
Good»		31		42%
Very good»		38		52%

Genomsnitt: 3.46

- Solutions were missing.» (Fair)
- Would be good to be able to print the lecture slides the day before or something so that one can bring these to make notes on during the lecture.» (Fair)
- The idea of putting the schedule and the pm in the course book was very good. I always knew what to read to be prepared for the lectures. » (Very good)
- No problems» (Very good)
- We never had a administrative problem. Only some people in the beginning couldn"t enroll but it has nothing to do with the administrator.» (Very good)

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

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		3		4%
Good»		24		38%
Very good»		36		57%
I did not seek help»		10

Genomsnitt: 3.52

- There are just too many people want to discuss with the teacher. » (Good)
- In the exercise sessions and during coffee breaks, we were able to ask questions.» (Good)
- Although, it was hard to find Niclas since he lacks an office.» (Very good)
- Highly interactive lectures! Good way to keep 100+ students awake :)» (Very good)
- Very good at the calculation exercises and the debates, not that easy after lectures (understandable of course since there is ~344 people asking questions during brakes/after the lecture)» (Very good)
- I have really enjoyed the questions from other students in the lectures, and I think that they have made many of the lectures even better. A very nice climate at the lectures I think. » (Very good)
- For me this was the main purpose of visiting the excercises.» (Very good)

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

73 svarande

0 - 20%»		2		2%
20 - 40%»		1		1%
40 - 60%»		1		1%
60 - 80%»		12		16%
80 - 100%»		57		78%

Genomsnitt: 4.65

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

73 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		23		31%
Around 20 hours/week»		26		35%
Around 25 hours/week»		20		27%
Around 30 hours/week»		4		5%
At least 35 hours/week»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

- it was quiet helping to attend the lecture because then i know which things were discussed so i focus my reading on them» (At most 15 hours/week)

19. How was the course workload?

Too low»		3		4%
Low»		8		10%
Adequate»		57		78%
High»		4		5%
Too high»		1		1%

Genomsnitt: 2.89

- I was very pleased with having evenly spread calculation exercises to spread the load.» (Adequate)
- i am happy about the load» (Adequate)
- I have had some trouble with the calculations so I have had to work on that a lot on my own. » (High)

20. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		1		1%
Low»		4		5%
Adequate»		36		50%
High»		29		40%
Too high»		2		2%

Genomsnitt: 3.37

- I am taking an CTH course that is given by GU, which is super simple (read bad). However, I am also taking french at 100% at GU - therefore I put "adequate" workload (although for me in person it"s been "high").» (Adequate)
- Good working load.» (Adequate)
- My other class was really demanding.» (High)
- My bad, I have been taking 3 courses...» (Too high)
- But I think that it is the other course I am taking that has had to high work load. This one is good.» (Too high)

Goals and goal fulfilment

21. How understandable are the learning outcomes?

The goals are difficult to understand»		2		2%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		23		32%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		46		64%

Genomsnitt: 2.61 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- My expectations and the actual course content differed a little, though I was positively surprised. The course style with different lectureres and the debates for instance was more lively than the course description suggests.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- But I don´,t se why opportunity cost is so important that it is worth mentioning in the goals. It is tricky to understand, I think I have kind of an understanding for it, but if I were to say five things that I have learned in this course I would not mention that. Maybe change that one to climate affect and how to solve the climate challange.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- There are many different areas (fields) touched. So, yes it is impossible to clarify everything to 100 %, but it up to one also to show interest.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		14		37%
Yes, definitely»		23		62%
I don"t know / I have not been examined yet»		36

Genomsnitt: 2.62

- Still not 100% what opportunity cost actually is. Would benefited from more examples of opportunity costs» (To some extent)
- We are forced to think and not only to learn everything by heart. Although I hate examinations..» (To some extent)
- The exam focused maybe a little too much on the calculations and too little on the theory and discussions around concepts.» (To some extent)
- now when i do a calculation i can know whether i am on the right path or not » (To some extent)
- The exam was what I expected» (Yes, definitely)

23. Is there something that you definitely think should be changed to next year?

24. Additional comments (about anything)

Thank you for taking the time to help us improve the course!!