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.

VMI010 Environmental Systems Analysis

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2008-12-08 - 2008-12-19
Antal svar: 42
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 67%
Kontaktperson: Ulrika Palme»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers

1. Did the course meet your expectations?

42 svarande

Yes, completely»3 7%
Yes, almost»21 50%
Partly»14 33%
No, not at all»4 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.45

- I am much clear about most of tools and how they work out in real life.» ( Yes, almost)
- Good» ( Yes, almost)
- I didn"t realise it would be so "wordy" if that"s the right word!» (Partly)
- Gillade inte upplägget på kursen. tyckte att det kunde gjorts mer intressant. hellre ha fler små uppgifter än ett stort arbete. tyckte inte att jag lärde mig att aplicera de olika esa-tools i den här kursen» (Partly)
- It where not applied for geotechnic engineers» (Partly)
- I didnot have any expectation in the begining» (No, not at all)
- Alltför dålig uppläggning av kursen, måste bli mer relaterad till MPGeo» (No, not at all)

2. One objective of the course is to provide basic knowledge of a number of tools/methods, and in-depth knowledge of others. Has that been achieved, according to you?

42 svarande

Yes, entirely»6 14%
Yes, almost»23 54%
Partly»13 30%
No, not at all»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.16

- I feel that that objective has definitely been met for myself, however for those who didn"t do the assignments I guess not.» (Yes, entirely)
- tyckter fortfarande inte att kursen har visat tydligt på hur man kan använda de olika instrumenten.» ( Yes, almost)
- Some was not clearly explained or literature was complicated as RA.» ( Yes, almost)
- Det är väldigt svårt att ta till sig det man lär sig, både i kurslitteratur och på föreläsningar, då ofta de skiljer sig åt» ( Yes, almost)
- I don"t think we have had enough depth-knowledge of any method.» (Partly)
- The texts in the compendium were hard to read. The exercises and project gave more knowledge of how to use the methods» (Partly)
- skulle ha varit mer övningtillfällen tex istället för gästföreläsningar som inte gav något» (Partly)

3. The course also aims at providing understanding of how the various tools and methods relate to one another. Has that been achieved, according to you?

41 svarande

Yes, entirely»3 7%
Yes, almost»22 53%
Partly»15 36%
No, not at all»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.34

- It was good to have a lecture with summary of all tools, but how they complement each other has not been clear enough.» (Yes, almost)
- ja fast inte tillräckligt» (Yes, almost)
- More focus on how they differ.» (Yes, almost)
- I don"t real feel a direct link between all the tools, I feel that in some circumstances I can see how they overlap, as in you could you use a variety of tools and achieve good results but I can"t see the links between them all...» (Partly)
- » (Partly)
- But first in the last lecture. It could have been good to have the lecture about the toolbox a bit earlier. » (Partly)
- En föreläsning om detta så nja kunde varit bättre» (Partly)

4. What is your opinion on the course content and scope? Any parts or aspects that should be taken out or added? Any parts on which focus should be increased or reduced?

- it is ok!»
- I"ve been missing the perspective of the actual use of these methods in companies - are they used, in what extent and for which reasons (just to fulfill legal requirements or for actual evaluation)?»
- It was interesting to use the tools although it all feels a bit theoretical, I appreciate there was attempts to put them into perspective in the real world (the guest lecturers were interesting) but all the tools seem to merge into one another and although in theory the ideas are applicable to real life situations, it would be good to get more examples of this. i like the idea of the compendium (i.e. not having to buy a book) as you feel like you"re getting exactly what you need. Some of the articles were difficult to read however.»
- My opinion everything was well. »
- It is ok»
- It"s ok, but not so interessting. Can not understand why it has to be compulsary.»
- The contents of the course are clear and the relations between different parts are clear. Though, I still miss a guide when to use what tool.»
- i think it is good.but some of the litereture sometimes not interesting.»
- I think CBA should be emphasised more as more companies are interested in cost effective options of product. Also the indicators and EIA.»
- There were not so much information about indicators. The report in the course literature was unclear and vague»
- so far so good»
- translate all the tools into swedish to increase the understnding for the swedish students.»
- most of the course handouts is always late, the course sometime not designed and prepared well»
- I like the content and scope, but some of the main methods are hard to understand from the brief introduction. More focus on the methods and less external speakers would make the content more more clear»
- Maybe more practical examples. »
- Improvisation should be continued. That is enough. Course content is moderate.»
- focus more on maybe 2-3 methods, think that will give the students more»
- No Idea»
- More related to real life situations insted of eg. Kenya in the project.»
- No comment»
- I think it´,s ok though it´,s extensive.»
- Boken och kurslitteraturen måste vara lika»
- öka antal övningar. börja i liten skala för att gradvis göra problemen svårare tex med lca mfa etc. »

5. Was the course well organized?

42 svarande

Yes»23 54%
Partly»16 38%
No»3 7%

Genomsnitt: 1.52

- Yes, although the vague scope of the project was resulting in a project work with somewhat irrelevant focus regarding the course content.» (Yes)
- Assignments, notice of what to read, file-handins were all well organised, thanks! » (Yes)
- but project with enough data sholud be given.» (Yes)
- Bra uppdelat, men olika budskap och svar från lärare.» (Yes)
- It was good to have exercises connected to the lectures.» (Partly)
- vissa delar var bra andra var inte bra dåligt att feedbacken på inlämningsuppgifterna kom så sent» (Partly)
- Information about whether exercises are compulsary or not should have been delivered in the beginning of the course. Answers or feedback should be handed out much earlier than the 7th week, that is absolutely too late! It should also be clear where to find those.» (Partly)
- I thought that the assignments were compulsory until about 2 weeks ago...The information about that was a bit unclear» (Partly)
- You have te be more specific on what"s compulsory or not from the begining!» (No)
- How hard can it be to say that the exercises not are compulsory? The fifth week is a bit late to get that information. » (No)

6. Describe your background (program, under graduate education)

7. Was the course appropriate with regard to your background?

42 svarande

Too easy»2 4%
At the right level»37 88%
Too difficult»3 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.02

- The work load could definitely be increased. Additional content may concern legal aspects and actual use of the methods.» (Too easy)
- should include some deeper knowledge about the tools and how they can be applied by a civil engineer.» (Too easy)
- My background is 2 years of Civil Engineering Bachelors Degree so this subject isn"t directly related but in terms of difficulty ad scope it was at the right level.» (At the right level)
- aningen lätt» (At the right level)
- It is quite different from other courses that has been more substantially. I guess the level is right anyway.» (At the right level)
- but, the focus is on the wrong things. i would like it to have more focus on for example buildings roads etc because that"s where i maybe will use this tools in the future» (At the right level)
- Inte för svårt, men man blir förvirrad när alla lärare tolkar allt olika, frågor på exempel mm, man vet inte hur man självskall kunna tolka och sedan svara på frågan» (At the right level)

8. Did you find the lectures easy to follow and relevant in content?


- The spoken english must be better! Karin have a tendency to say "etc", "whatever" and "so" all the time. Very anoying.»
- I can"t remember exactly the ones I haven"t marked. The ones from Golder Associates, I wanted to put yes for the lady with short black hair but I couldn"t remember which one she was. She was interesting and presented well, I thought.»
- The structure of some of the lectures could be bether.»
- Bengt och Tomas föreläsning/interna debatt var den absolut sämsta jag har varit på sedan jag började här på chalmers.»
- Ulrika was good»
- Good to have opinions and thoughts from such great number of people»
- The panel debate was not well organised and it was hard to follow the subject discussed. »
- Did not participate in some of the lectures, this should be included as an alternative.»
- I dont remember who is who.. I answered the one I remember clearly.»
- Hagegårds lecture was interestuing but very unprepared and unclear.»
- Karin: Slide overload.»
- I had Anna Nyström Claesson as project superviser and she didn"t forefill my expectations, she wasn"t prepaired and didn"t come whit relevant opinions on our report»
- Unfortinately I did not like Karolina Hagegård. She was not thrustworthy and I dont see the point about doing a work about her master thesis that lacks a lot of important information. »
- I cannot remember some of them so I inserted no!»
- Lecture was boring...»
- Paneldebatten var inte särskilt lyckad trots att tomas rydbeg försökte»

Karin Andersson
41 svarande

Yes»12 29%
Somewhat»17 41%
No»12 29%

Genomsnitt: 2

Ulrika Palme
42 svarande

Yes»36 85%
Somewhat»6 14%
No»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.14

Anna-Karin Jörnbrink, IVF
37 svarande

Yes»13 35%
Somewhat»20 54%
No»4 10%

Genomsnitt: 1.75

Margareta Lundin-Unger, Kungsbacka WWTP
39 svarande

Yes»24 61%
Somewhat»13 33%
No»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 1.43

Karolina Hagegård, WET, CHalmers
38 svarande

Yes»11 28%
Somewhat»16 42%
No»11 28%

Genomsnitt: 2

Bo Bergbäck, Kalmar University
37 svarande

Yes»14 37%
Somewhat»18 48%
No»5 13%

Genomsnitt: 1.75

Maria Paulsson, Golder Associates
33 svarande

Yes»12 36%
Somewhat»17 51%
No»4 12%

Genomsnitt: 1.75

Annika Lindblad-Påsse, Golder Associates
33 svarande

Yes»6 18%
Somewhat»23 69%
No»4 12%

Genomsnitt: 1.93

Johan Widheden, Akzo Nobel
36 svarande

Yes»16 44%
Somewhat»16 44%
No»4 11%

Genomsnitt: 1.66

Bengt Steen, ESA, Chalmers
32 svarande

Yes»7 21%
Somewhat»17 53%
No»8 25%

Genomsnitt: 2.03

Tomas Rydberg, IVL
32 svarande

Yes»9 28%
Somewhat»14 43%
No»9 28%

Genomsnitt: 2

9. How did you like the exercises (LCA, MFA, RA, EIA)?


- The exercises was very comfusing.»
- The LCA, MFA and RA was good. The EIA-exercise did not really result in a deeper understanding for the development of EIA:s.»
- Feedback on the assignments would be good to have sooner, or at all. The MFA feedback was useful but it would be nice to do it sooner as right now most of us have 3 projects and presentations to do plus revision. Although of course we appreciate that there are a lot of students" work to look at. But it would be nice to know before the exam if we have understood how to use the tools.»
- The feedback for the exercises should be much faster! The last exercise (reading the articles for the EIA) didn"t give me any more knowledge of the tools.»
- Too little discussion. A possible reason is that the assignments took too much time and noone could finish in time for the discussion.»
- I think you have to remind the students next year that the exercises are not compulsory, and change this on the student portal. »
- Was it group exercises?»
- There has been so much assignments and project on the GEOMP this period, so I have just rushed through all of them. That is sad. »
- Better instructions between the supervisors and some small intro before every exercise woulde be nice!»
- To big assignments compered to the points we can get»
- It should have been stated more clearly that they weren"t mandatory, and that you could get extra credits for the exam. It should also have be stated how much extra each credit the different exercises gave. I also think that we should have gotten a bit more time for the LCA exercise, so that we didin"t have to work during the weekend.»
- it should have been more clear that the exercises were not compulsory.»
- It was unclear if they were compulsory or not.»
- sometimes even the teacher didnt know the answer and you then ask yourself if its supposed that we (the students) should know it. the exercises varied in quality depending on which teacher you had.»
- The best thing with the course...Very good!!»
- Det är väldigt konstigt när en inlämning är obligatorisk att man måste samarbeta i en grupp. Tänker då på EIA. Sen att man inte får något poäng för MFA förrens man lämnat in en retur är väldigt dåligt.»

Were they instructive?
41 svarande

Yes»19 46%
Partly»20 48%
No»2 4%

Genomsnitt: 1.58

Were they sufficient in scope?
41 svarande

Yes»17 41%
Partly»24 58%
No»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.58

Were they sufficient in depth?
40 svarande

Yes»15 37%
Partly»23 57%
No»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 1.67

Did you get enough help?
40 svarande

Yes»12 30%
Partly»21 52%
No»7 17%

Genomsnitt: 1.87

Did co-operation in the groups work out well?
41 svarande

Yes»25 60%
Partly»12 29%
No»4 9%

Genomsnitt: 1.48

10. How much time did you spend on the exercises as compared to scheduled time?

41 svarande

1 * scheduled time»3 7%
1,5 * scheduled time»14 34%
2 * scheduled time»14 34%
more»10 24%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

- About 5 hours per exercise - what was the scheduled time?» (?)
- The correcting of the exercises should have been performed more quickly. » (1,5 * scheduled time)
- För mycket för den poängen man fick, MFA uppgiften, som jag tidigare nämnt, måste kompletteras för att få poäng.» (1,5 * scheduled time)
- It took far more time then what the teachers said.» (2 * scheduled time)
- jag tyckte inte att tiden (på övningen) vi fick var tillräcklig.» (2 * scheduled time)
- tyckte uppgifternaa var ganska ok, förutom den sista om EIA alldeles för komplex text. tröttnade direkt, vilket gjorde hela den övningen totalt ointressant» (2 * scheduled time)
- Again.. Exercises are good, points for the exam are even better, but sometimes this period there have been so many assignments. It is good to know what"s compulsary and not. It said on the student portal file-hand in that they were compulsary, and they weren"t.» (more)
- the texts were hard to read, so for me it took som etime to get the question and trying to find the answer» (more)

11. How did you like the case work?


- A case work and a exam? If no exam, we could have made a much better work.»
- I didn"t have any scheduled consultation time ( I don"t think! »
- It was very good to have case work. However, the project should be more relevant to the civil engineering branch.»
- utnyttjade ej vår handledare särskillt mycket»
- I think it should have been in the context of Geo and Water Eng"g. for better understanding. However, it was very essential.»
- Some groups had many hand ins during the period, we only had the first with the preliminary problem definition. Maybe all groups could have meetings with their instructor, not just a few?»
- It was hard to find data to the report, and the instructions should be more clear about what should be in each chapter. I see that you find it important, so hand it out from the beginning. The source of our project work, Hagegård"s masters thesis was not easy to follow and get good facts from.»
- Hard to focus and delimitate in the project when looking at all thre alternatives in Kenys. We had very different levels of ambition within the group where I felt like I was the only one wanting a higher grade than 3. Think i have written, by far, the most of our report.»
- Boring and irrelevent. Could change the subject to ex a building and do LCA, RA etc on that construction.»
- It is a little hard to work with this kind pf groupproject when people have diffrent background and goal for grades. Otherwise it was pretty fine. »
- It would have been good to know if you wanted us to use any specific parts (LCA, RA, MCA...) in the case work. I though that the setup for the presentation/opposition was good.»
- good to be allowed choose groups by ourselves»
- The data for biogas digester was not good, so there were to much time in looking for better data than working with the tools.»
- as i said before it would have been better with some sort of connection to the civil engineering program »
- all data were in Swedish!»
- The project should have more then 20% influence on the grade at least 50%.»
- Tyckte ämnet var helt orelevant, Biogas i kenya, borde vara kopplat till den linje man läser, alltså något inom bygg etc. Hade gjort uppgiften mer intressant för oss. »

Was it relevant for the course?
42 svarande

Yes»28 66%
Partly»10 23%
No»4 9%

Genomsnitt: 1.42

Good with hand ins of report?
41 svarande

Yes»25 60%
Partly»13 31%
No»3 7%

Genomsnitt: 1.46

Was the task to big?
42 svarande

Yes»6 14%
Partly»20 47%
No»16 38%

Genomsnitt: 2.23

Did you receive sufficient support from supervisors?
41 svarande

Yes»22 53%
Partly»15 36%
No»4 9%

Genomsnitt: 1.56

Did scheduled consultation hours work?
40 svarande

Yes»16 40%
Partly»17 42%
No»7 17%

Genomsnitt: 1.77

Did the co-operation within the group work?
42 svarande

Yes»31 73%
Partly»8 19%
No»3 7%

Genomsnitt: 1.33

12. Course literature


- The litterature sucks! It is easier to find the info at wikipedia, and is more understandable...»
- The course literature was easy accessible and very relevant - it"s rare that the literature is as good as in this course.»
- I don"t feel that all of it was necessary, it was good to have an idea of the lecture topic before going to the lecture but some of the literature was far too in depth and complicated and took a very long time to read (even as a native speaker!)»
- vissa delar var bra andra var riktigt riktigt dåliga. tråkigt att få kopierat kompendie där man måste böja på hela häftet för att kunna läsa den understa raden i mittuppslaget»
- The literature used for RA is good but a more basic rather simpler form of it can be found elsewhere. The present RA literature is difficult to understand and have to be put in extra reading and for the literature of RA another book or chapters from book can be searched»
- It is very good to coleect different articles. However, the MFA chapter was too long. And the RA chapter was hard to get an overview of, too much information about legislation i EU and so on..»
- Very hard to read, both the content of some parts, and the actual copy of it. »
- It will be a project for the exam-week to read it all again, because many texts were a bit hard to follow... the worst thing was the bad quality of some of the copies. Hard to read the whole page where the book is folded, and some texts have extremely small and dizzy letters.»
- Good, LCA for hitchikers, ESA tools. Not that good, MFA, Indicators»
- Difficult to follow the capters»
- The MFA wasn"t so easy to read, but the LCA and the DfE was very easy to read and interesting.»
- There is not enough examples to understand the concepts better, CBA is hard to read.»
- Boring... Make a shorter summery that make sence...»

Was the course literature valuable?
42 svarande

Yes»17 40%
Partly»21 50%
No»4 9%

Genomsnitt: 1.69

Was it easy to read?
42 svarande

Yes»4 9%
Partly»21 50%
No»17 40%

Genomsnitt: 2.3

13. Was the English proficiency of the teachers satisfactory?

42 svarande

Yes»29 69%
Partly»11 26%
No»2 4%

Genomsnitt: 1.35

- Teachers" English at Chalmers is great- Especially Ulrika, brilliant!» (Yes)
- Better than many other courses, mostly because of Ulrika. » (Yes)
- ulrika var bra. de andra var okej på uttal» (Partly)
- The standard is too low generally at Chalmers. In this course, the proficiency varied. Two or three of the lecturers were very good, but I still find that insufficient.» (Partly)
- Ulrika was good at english. Karin had an annoying use of the words "etcetera" (average one in 1-2 minutes) and "whatever" (average one in 5 minutes), this removes focus and encourages word counting.» (Partly)
- Can always be better, still feels like a lot of knowledge from the teachers are lost when they need to speak swedish - although this course is the best in english this autum!» (Partly)
- Some of the teatchers sucks... Some are good» (Partly)
- I think the course would be much better in swedish. The students would have understood more and the teachers could have raised the standard aswell.» (Partly)
- Etc etc etc!» (No)

14. Was your own English proficiency sufficient?

42 svarande

Yes»23 54%
Partly»18 42%
No»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 1.47

- I am English! » (Yes)
- kände ibland att jag inte hängde med» (Partly)
- B/c there are some terminologies( even words)which are seldom used in other areas except in ESA. » (Partly)
- Yes. in all parts but the book, where most of the text was really hard to penetrate. Karins chapter excluded. » (Partly)
- Can always be better.» (Partly)
- a lot of new words to learn.» (Partly)

15. Other comments on the course?

- it is difficult to use tool precisely.»
- No need for a study visit. The guest lectures is also pointless. Try to make the quality of the regular lectures better instead.»
- When giving a compulsory course it is important to motivate why the course is compulsory. Most of the students - although myself excluded - have not understood what use they"ll ever have of this course. The methods has to be put in to context, a context more linked to the students" background.»
- Overall I thought it was interesting and it got better as the course went on. Thanks all!»
- nope»
- Tycker att rättningen av övningsuppgifterna har varit mycket dålig! Projectet har varit odefinierat och svårarbetat, tycker inte att det gett så mycket.»
- The information regarding if the exercises was compulsury or not should be clearer in the beginning of the course.»
- jag hade stora förväntningar på den här kursen och blev verkligen besviken. hade förväntat mig intressanta föreläsningar...»
- The project work can be started early so students can have more time to learn them»
- During lectures,sometimes slides were just read and skipped with out sufficient explanation.The lecturers should make sure if they have really conveyed the messege.»
- In both this course and the parallell "Drinking Water Engineering", which many students are taking, there are group works and individual assignments to make. Having that many things to hand in all the time takes the focus from learning and more into "producing", in a way I don"t appreciate.»
- There could have been more optional assignments/questions to work with during the course to help the leraning, e.g. giving us some questions that we could work with during the course (like the seminar questions, but more of them)»
- I didn"t get so much from the literature seminar, and that is a pity, because I think most of us had not done the learning questions, not that we are not interested. Hand in of three reports and three presentations the last (half!)week was enough work. I am sure that I will have a lot to discuss in a couple of days.»
- -The project groups should be divided by the supervisors so the nationalities are mixed. And divide them after what subject one wants! -The panel debate was NOT good. Didnt give anything. Should be changed a lot or taken away.»
- Good course, but some better knowledge of some of the methods would be good. Maybe you can connect the Risk part with more "expers" on this subject. »
- Fel fokus, flummiga föreläsningar när man just läst kapitlet i boken. Kursen kunde varit intressant, men det blev det motsatta tyvärr. Kursen måste bort från det obligatoriska blocket!»
- Tycker att själva tanken om att lära sig om lca mfa mm är viktigt. Kändes dock som att mycket i kursen var orelevant och att fokus helt borde lagts på dessa verktyg. Tanken med arbetet var också bra att få applicera verktygen mer konkret. Men snälla ge inte nästa klass i uppdrag att utvärdera en halvfärdig ogenomtänkt biogasanläggning i kenya, satsa på något som är kopplat till linjen, detta gör att känslan av kursen mer relevant.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från