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.

Idea evaluation and feasibility studies, TEK215

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2008-06-02 - 2008-06-10
Antal svar: 19
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 54%
Kontaktperson: Anneli Hildenborg»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers

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»4 21%
Around 20 hours/week»5 26%
Around 25 hours/week»9 47%
Around 30 hours/week»1 5%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.36

- It felt like most of the lectures did not contribute to reach the goals that was stated in the course PM.» (At most 15 hours/week)
- or even less (taking in consideration that some of the lectures were really boring, and that I only attended first few hours of each lecture).» (At most 15 hours/week)
- During the idea evaluation of the projects I worked a lot, in between these I attended the lectures only. I think I spent 20 hours/project --> 80 hours, then add all the lecture hours and about 40 hours to get through the course literature.» (Around 25 hours/week)
- Large amount of hours on and off.» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

19 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»1 5%
50%»4 21%
75%»11 57%
100%»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.84

- most lectures felt very last minute, and were either irrelevant for us MEI-student (like all the biotech things) or contained stuff we were already familiar with. you"d go to a lecture, stay for an hour before realizing that it was uninteresting, and then leave at the first opportunity. » (50%)
- I went to basically all the lectures but when I felt that the information in the lectures didn"t help with either the feasibility reports or the exam, then I left due to lack of time» (75%)
- Very long lectures, 4 hours. Many lectures were not directly useful and often time was scarce. Thus the low attendance.» (75%)
- In between 75-100%. If I did leave a lecture it was the last hour out of the three. » (75%)
- I was present on each lecture but left some lectures as I decided that I won`t benefit from staying.» (75%)
- I left some of the lectures early since I did"t feel that they contributed to my learning or to the subbject we were studying.» (75%)
- Absent from 2 sessions.» (100%)

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»1 5%
The goals are difficult to understand»3 15%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»11 57%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»4 21%

Genomsnitt: 2.94

- The course didn"t really contain anithing new, it was mostly an unstructured way of talking loosely around sustainability and commercialization. it felt like we were doing boring administrative tasks for CSE, without learning much new stuff » (The goals are difficult to understand)
- The course PM is very optimistic because of the very many issues we were supposed to learn during the course. The course goals had too little overlap with what the lectures and literature was about.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- The goals did not meet my expectations, I thought that I was going to be learned how to do evaluations on ideas, general practices, but there was a lot of extra info that was not relevant for evaluations.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- We received guidance on how to proceed with idea evaluation, although the amount of details we got were very scarce.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- They are too much typical syllabus goals. Make them practical and real instead, not something that you just put in the syllabus. No credibility.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- But the goals was not coherent with the learnings that was provided by the lectures.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- But the lectures did not support the learning of the goals. » (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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.

17 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 5%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»14 82%
No, the goals are set too high»2 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.05

- The lectures (over all) barely had anything to do with the goals» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Yes, since I attended BDP last semester they seem reasonable to me. However, I know that other students outside BDP were having a hard time.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- I mean that the PM seems to include very many different subject areas. It is not likely that one can teach so many different subjects in one course. Course was very general and did not provide much framework, models or theories. Lectures and literature was more of a discussing nature, which the coarse goals did not imply very much.» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

17 svarande

No, not at all»3 17%
To some extent»13 76%
Yes, definitely»1 5%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.88

- Very confusing questions, where a lot of them had low relevance if compared to the described learning outcomes in the course PM.» (No, not at all)
- The exam was well written and relevant, BUT it would have been nice if we could have discussed the topics before in class, meaning skip the unnecessary lectures and do it more like the exam. The course started in february and we still dont know how our first reports went? The feedback didnt gave anything....i still dont know how well my evaluations went, it is much better to give a grade on the first two immediatly so we know in what direction we are going, and have the total grade to be some average of the hand-ins etc..» (No, not at all)
- The types of questions asked in final exam was quite innovative and a bit strange. Not all examples could be brought to our mind in stressful situation like final exam. We have shown however, our skills in implementation of knowledge in our 4 projects and it is surprising to be asked for those principals again in exam. I preferred some simple questions on theory to be asked instead. » (To some extent)
- The course literature comprised 137 A4 pages of Jolly, which everyone read thoroughly - then ONE question out of SEVEN is about the concepts in Jolly. Jolly should have had more attention in the exam, since we got the impression that it was our main course literature. The exam felt VERY fluffy - it could have been more concrete. We mostly learnt by doing the practical evaluations since the lectures felt very off topic. » (To some extent)
- I think you know this buy know, but it felt like we did projects in one course, had lectures on another and exam on a third.» (To some extent)
- The exam was ok, although some questions were too broadly stated like the last question.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

19 svarande

Small extent»9 47%
Some extent»10 52%
Large extent»0 0%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.52

- Only a very minor part of the lecturing helped anything in the exam or in the assignments.» (Small extent)
- Some lectures were very good, these were often the guest lecturers though. This content was generally not included in course work or on exam. Sustainability lectures did not have much to do with the subject. Believe that if sustainability should be included it would be beneficial if the lectures were held at a more specific level and less abstract. Would be easier to relate to its issues then and know how to consider these issues in relation to IEFS reports and upcoming projects.» (Small extent)
- non i would say» (Small extent)
- it appeared to be more like a workshop than a class» (Small extent)
- nobody seemed to know what the point of the course was» (Small extent)
- Many of the lectures didn"t seem connected to the course goals and it was hard to understand why we had them.» (Small extent)
- The lectures were not related to idea evaluation at all, especially the sustainability lectures were not relevant.» (Some extent)
- It would have been of more help if it was all better connected so that one could have seen the red thread. » (Some extent)
- See above.» (Some extent)

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

18 svarande

Small extent»6 33%
Some extent»8 44%
Large extent»4 22%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.88

- The literature was jolly book, which were only shortly discussed in the lectures, and the other articles about innovation university and sustainability were not related to idea evaluation.» (Small extent)
- There is not just one correct way of doing evaluations on, show more different approaches» (Small extent)
- I didn"t read the course book if there was one» (Small extent)
- I liked the course book (Jolly), but it felt like a joke that it only was one question where you could use what you had learnt from this book in the exam.» (Some extent)
- The book by Jolly was mostly technical history and reflections. Very interesting to read but difficult to use as learning material and test on. Porters report was also very clever, would recommend to spend more time and detail in class on what porter discusses in that report. » (Some extent)
- Jolly was good, but the book was more like a nice novel then actual facts.» (Some extent)
- the lectures didn`t completely follow the book » (Some extent)
- See above.» (Some extent)
- I liked the articles and learned from them.» (Some extent)
- Well, I did learn a lot, but apparently it was of the wrong kind and I did not have any use for it in the exam. It was VERY difficult that every exam question asked for specific examples. I had not memorized the examples from Jolly, but tried to grasp the bigger image. And the idea evaluation projects that you do remember are the ones that you evaluated yourself, and they do not always work as examples. The porter article was great. Mats article was interesting but it felt like it was something that should have been in BDP semester 1 and not during this course. The entrepreneurial university should be something you learn from the start. » (Large extent)
- Reading the book was essential since a lot of the classes had been devoted to the assignments.» (Large extent)

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

19 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»4 21%
Rather well»14 73%
Very well»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- very unstructured overall. lectures didn"t have a logical connection. » (Rather badly)
- Too few of the lecturers presentation ended up on the web page.» (Rather 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»6 31%
Very good»8 42%
I did not seek help»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- It was unclear to whom you should turn for questions.» (Rather poor)
- The system with contact persons for the assignments worked pretty well in most cases.» (Rather good)
- Much appreciated that we had a general meeting when the student"s concern for the course turned up. » (Very good)
- The communication between us and the teachers was good, and by communicating difficulties in general in the course we got help. It is very much appreciated that the course management took its time to listen. » (I did not seek help)

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

19 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»2 10%
Rather well»11 57%
Very well»6 31%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.21

- combining cip students with MEY people was not good and according to my information, almost none of the MEY students did anything noticable in the combined part of the course.The load was much higher on CIP people and then they were too few for such big projects.» (Rather poorly)
- It wasn"t completely easy to work with students from other programs than CSE/GIBBS when we had already done a pair of assignments before.» (Rather well)
- When evaluating projects that need a special certain background, IT or medical, it"s not very smart to put people in the group that don"t know anything about this subject. Some ideas are better than others to evaluate depending on your background. This should be taken into account when putting together groups. CSE/GIBBS had to take a lot of time to teach the MAE students in their groups the very basics of the background of the idea, which took a lot of time from the evaluation part. This was not good. » (Rather well)
- For the last assignment one of the 3 group members decided not to contribute, which put strain on the two of us interested in passing. » (Rather well)

11. How was the course workload?

19 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 5%
Adequate»12 63%
High»3 15%
Too high»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- The course workload was adequate, but unbalanced. Some fields received too much attention, and for some parts of the course we did not get enough time. For example, we had a high workload during the evaluation part, and during the period when we were supposed to study for the exam. Please, put the lectures BEFORE the evaluation period, and then the IEFS exam BEFORE the "real" project evaluation period. » (Adequate)
- we had too many assignments, maybe because the course wasnt organized as well as it should have been so people responsible for the course wanted to fill in the course with content and ended up overloading it with too much group work» (High)
- Too much focus on the assignments, the last one shouldn"t be less than a week prior to exam.» (High)
- 4 reports, 1 sustain, 1 exam??? Starting in February. A normal curse has 1-2 handins and 1 exam, in addition we hade 12 evaluations during two weeks....» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

19 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 5%
Adequate»6 31%
High»8 42%
Too high»4 21%

Genomsnitt: 3.78

- It varied very much, sometimes we had little to do and many times were overwhelming» (High)
- Sometimes it was TOO high, and at other times there was suddenly nothing. Please coordinate the courses that are running in parallell.» (High)
- IEFS + Bioentre + Bioethics + idea evaluation + (Insert africa) + preparations for summer wokr = too much work --> poor quality of work and little time for reflection and reading of home work» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

19 svarande

Poor»8 42%
Fair»8 42%
Adequate»2 10%
Good»1 5%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.78

- The idea of having an idea evaluation course is just great and I had big hopes for the course, but they very not met at all. The assignments were good but the key thing is that none of the lecturing nor reading tied to either the assignments or the exam.» (Poor)
- To fluffy and especially when the lectures were not coherent with the rest it became very confusing.» (Poor)
- Most of the lectures were not related to idea evaluation. In the end of the course I did not feel that I had more knowledge, skills and tools that can help me for evaluating the ideas. I expected more lecture of the people who have started a company, so they can tell more about reality.» (Poor)
- It felt like we just got a book to read and nothing more, everything else was irrelevant» (Poor)
- This was probably the worst course I have attended at Chalmers, and quite possibly in my life. Taking in consideration that I am paying to live in Sweden, I would classify this course as even worse considering the cost-effect.» (Poor)
- It didn"t contain anything new. it felt like a first year course, and we"re all on our last now. we should prepare for life after school, and the course felt like a prestudy for CSE/GIBBS projects (which I"m not doing)» (Poor)
- The guest lectures were good. Otherwise I do not feel that the course taught much substantial content. IEFS report x 4 should have been gone through some inspiration and more frameworks and more things to keep in mind. As it was the reports were made by all students independently from anything connected with course material. Dissappointing since the idea evaluation could have been much better with some more tools to work with.» (Fair)
- It really has potential, I love the idea, but it needs more coordination and more communication of the learning goals and the lectures and literature should really help in reaching the goals.» (Fair)
- It was poor, but got better after feedback. I think you know what you should do until next year.» (Fair)
- We should have got better tools during the lectures for us to apply for the projects.» (Fair)
- For a big part of the course I, as a MEI student felt that we were just along for the ride, and that CSE/GIBBS students were in focus. This is fine but should be clearly communicated when offering the course to others.» (Adequate)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- the idea evaluation papers»
- The idea of the assignment where we evaluate real ideas.»
- nothing in particular»
- The CIP-ps lecture and Karl Bergmans lecture.»
- The jolly book was quiet interesting and the assignments on idea evaluation was good way of learning.»
- the project evaluation should definitly be preseved because one learns most by doing them but the lecutures covering the methodology have to be earlier than it was.projects should not be handed out at the very first.»
- The evaluation periods. The Porter article. More hands-on lectures like Kalle Bergmans. The first chapter in Jolly, with the circles and bridges. But don"t focus so much on all examples in Jolly.»
- The idea reports, very good! Best part of the education. But there should definetley be some better guidlines over what a evaluation of ideas is before we start.»
- working on projects (but not as many as this year)»
- The lecture about deregulations»
- The idea evaluation as such is very important for the field of innovation and entrepreneurship of technological advancements»
- possibility to screen projects during a long time.»
- The projects, but there should be fewer of them to be able to dig deeper. »
- The hands-on experience from working with real projects. The book is pretty interesting, each chapter should be treated separately in class.»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- the rest»
- Tie the lecturing and the reading to the assignments and the exam.»
- More inspiration, tools, examples and similar for aiding the skills in making IEFS reports»
- Sustainability lectures and the lectures about the innovation system. And also the other things that did not support the learnng outcomes to a good extent.»
- first of all the exam method did not suit this kind of course, instead some projects regarding idea evaluation is a better practice. The lectures should be more informative in terms of how to evaluate each idea. Some people who started a company should give some lectures about their experience and how we can apply those in our companies.»
- the lectures with the guys for sustainable development has to be changed or taken away because they just lost every sinlge student in this very important issue.»
- The sustainability part can be decreased a lot. The porter article is really good, and the important stuff in the lectures can probably be broken down to two short lectures, with the sustainability report writing in between. The backcasting article is soooo lame, to get students interested in sustainability one should use the interesting articles. Everyone I"ve spoken to liked the Porter article but disliked the backcasting one, or did not even bother to read it. The lecture held by the lady in sustainability could be skipped, it was way too detailed. Or just shorten it and keep the important stuff. »
- Complete reorganization of the course. Instead of overloading course with sustainability lectures, it might be more appropriate to have lectures which correspond to the course goals. Btw. there was nothing wrong with goals and objectives of this course BUT with the organization as a whole.»
- sustainability. you need to tie in the book into your teachings... not just examine book content but barely discuss it in class.»
- The course should be more structured, the last lecture (the summary) was very clear but only in the end when we had already done the idea evaluation by ourselves with no much guidance. »
- Make it ONE course, where everything makes sense and no trade-offs. Don"t put the exam next to final selection.»
- The lectures.»
- Less focus on assigments - 5 hand-ins and 5 presentations... devoting that much time to presentations is a waste. Especially when having only two sessions per week. Fewer assignments, but more in-depth, provided that students are taught how to use the tools.»

16. Additional comments

- unfortunately this course was new and the planning was not very good. We also reeived way too little information about our schedules, hence the irritation about the course»
- Some funding companies should be introduced and some additional information about what is really needed to evaluate ideas. My knowledge about evaluating ideas have not changed a lot after this course.»
- Change the course into a seminare based course where you have to prepare for the seminars with hand-ins. Make the seminars really crisp and rellevant. Try to not make the course into a bio-course, which this was. Try to pose the questions Why do we do a valuation? What is it, and how can you do it, who does it? Discuss the elements in a report, why they are there etc. How should I do a market analysis???? Try to discuss the topics you wrote down in the paper for the reports. »
- this course needs more structure, each lecture must give students a particular body of knowledge and shouldn"t only hold discussions/reflections of particular interest to only some of the IEFS students»
- the course felt like the content was thrown together at the last minute. noone seemed to know what the course was supposed to teach, and I got the impression that it was just an excuse to give credits for the administrative task of going through the project ideas for CSE/GIBBS. As a MEI student it felt completely unrelated, and it felt like the course didn"t have a purpose as far as learning objectives go. We"re supposed to have moved on by now, we"re in our last year. It didn"t feel useful to me, but maybe it was for CSE/GIBBS students starting their projects this fall. »
- It is not a good idea to have different groups (CSE and others). The question is, the course is open to other students and those students fulfil the prior requisites? or the course is only for a specific masters program (CSE)?. No matter what the case is, everyone should be treated in the same way, following the same rules and with the same knowledge, otherwise it looks like CSE is doing a "favor" by letting other students to follow their courses, this is not a good impression.»
- I had great expectations for this course, and as a MEI student it was nice to get some "reality" for a change. However, much of what could have been good disappeared in the assignment frenzy. It was too much of trial-and-error and the basic tools should have been gone through. Also, as always when it comes to Chalmers and environment/sustainability, there was a sense of forcing into the course. It should be taught, but integratef in a better way.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från