Visa resultat

Technical Change and the Environment 2008, ENM015

Your background

1. What program do you follow?

Industrial Ecology»		22		40%
Other Chalmers Master Program»		21		38%
Erasmus student»		9		16%
Other»		3		5%

Genomsnitt: 1.87

- Engineering Mathematics.» (Other Chalmers Master Program)
- Sustainable Energy Systems» (Other Chalmers Master Program)
- Sustainable Energy Systems» (Other Chalmers Master Program)
- Innovative and Sustainable Chemical Engineering (MPISC)» (Other Chalmers Master Program)
- MPISC» (Other Chalmers Master Program)
- "sustainable energy system"» (Other Chalmers Master Program)
- CAS Master» (Other Chalmers Master Program)
- Engineering Physics, then Sustainable Energy Systems» (Other Chalmers Master Program)
- PhD student. » (Other)

General impression

2. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		3		5%
Adequate»		10		18%
Very good»		28		51%
Excellent»		13		24%

Genomsnitt: 3.94

- I choosed the course partly from that I had heard from friends who took the course last year that it was very good. It has really fulfilled my expectations. » (Very good)
- It covered a wider field of subjects than I expected, which all were very interesting and exciting.» (Very good)
- Very interesting» (Very good)
- Scope: Really good. Definitely an ambitious course.» (Very good)
- I like history..» (Excellent)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		6		11%
The goals are difficult to understand»		0		0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		16		30%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		31		58%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- I came late to the course and missed the introduction lectures - my fault.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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

47 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		2		4%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		44		93%
No, the goals are set too high»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 1.97

- We lost plenty of time by repeating the same things. We could spend this time on learing something else instead.» (No, the goals are set too low)
- Even though I have not studied many courses about environmntal subjects, I feel that the goals were reasonably challenging.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

No, not at all»		2		4%
To some extent»		19		39%
Yes, definitely»		22		45%
I do not know/have not been examined yet»		5		10%

Genomsnitt: 2.62

- I don"t think that I can show on the exam what I have learned in this course. I think that a normal exam suits this course much better!» (No, not at all)
- Might be hard to express all your knowledge through writing. But I feel very positive to this type of examination, ie. home examination.» (To some extent)
- Although, I had som trouble relating task#3 (environmental assessment) to the course» (Yes, definitely)
- I personally felt inadequate for the task.» (Yes, definitely)
- However it was a bit difficult to know what parts of the course that was supposed to be included or that was asked for in the different exam questions.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

6. How do you value the quality of the course administration (web page, handouts etc)?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Adequate»		13		24%
Very good»		19		35%
Excellent»		21		39%

Genomsnitt: 4.15

- Some lecture slides were only available after the lecture.So it was more difficult for me to take notes without there... » (Adequate)
- Good that the lectures slides are posted on the website shortly after the lectures. » (Very good)
- The handouts should be given out earlier before the lecture. Maybe 1 day before.» (Very good)
- Good, but no solutions to assignment C posted, as was promised.» (Very good)
- Times for the oral exam could have been posted somewhat earlier, maybe.» (Very good)
- It is a big help that all the lectures are published on the course page. Thank you for that!» (Excellent)
- It"s all been working good!» (Excellent)
- Lots of useful information, clearly outlined.» (Excellent)

7. To what extent have the lectures, assignments and literature been of help for your learning?

- There is a lot to read so the lectures gives a good overview of what is important. »
- Feedback for the assignments would have been nice. Especially as a preparation for the exam.»
- I think there is a little too much literature which makes it difficult to read everything.»
- Assignment C was strange»
- Extremely much literature to go through.»
- I didn"t even read Grubler and the amount of books was too much. It went over the recommended price range given by the student union by far.»
- There is too much literatur... 2 books with alltogether more than 800 pages and lots of differnt articles in the compendium (and these are not all but some in a difficult english) all in all i have to say that this is too much for just one course, you dont have time to read all that stuff eventhough it is (ok not all) really interesting...»
- It seems - infortunately - that I haven"t really given the course as much attention as I perhaps ought to have...»
- the problem with the litterature is that I think That two books would be enough. Because it"s difficult to read all, especially when we have another course with books too.»

Lectures
53 svarande

No value»		0		0%
Small value»		1		1%
Medium value»		6		11%
Large value»		18		34%
Great value»		27		51%
I did not attend/read»		1

Genomsnitt: 4.36

Assignments
52 svarande

No value»		0		0%
Small value»		8		15%
Medium value»		14		26%
Large value»		19		36%
Great value»		11		21%
I did not attend/read»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.63

Literature
53 svarande

No value»		1		1%
Small value»		3		5%
Medium value»		9		17%
Large value»		27		52%
Great value»		11		21%
I did not attend/read»		2

Genomsnitt: 3.86

8. How do you value the quality and relevance of the lecture(s) given by...?

- Björn"s lectures were always very interesting and of high quality. One problem was though that a lot of the material in the course was repeated several times (If you have taken the sustainable development course, you have now heard about the German roof top program three or four times ..)»
- I think Karl Hillman has great potential. He still lacks the ability to capture the audience like Björn has, but he has great knowledge and I think that in time he will reach Björn"s level. »
- Hanna Jönsson: content was very good but presentation was a little boring Karl Hillman was boring, lack of energy in the presentation»
- The guest lectures were a sad moment in the course since most of them were really bad. The lecture by Staffan Jacobsson was by far the worst lecture I"ve ever attended in my life... His thirty minutes book review was poorly appriciated.»
- I did not attend to Lars Ingelstam and Hanna Jönsson"s lectures. »
- Björn is the most charismatic and entertaining lecturer ever. Once he said something about not wanting to be boring, well you don"t have to worry about that Björn. My favorite is "That"s not a bicycle. This is a bicycle", John Cleese couldn"t have said better.»

Björn Sandén
53 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Adequate»		6		11%
Very good»		15		28%
Excellent»		31		59%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 4.48

Martin Edlund
52 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		1		3%
Adequate»		8		24%
Very good»		16		48%
Excellent»		8		24%
No opinion»		19

Genomsnitt: 3.93

Lars Ingelstam
52 svarande

Poor»		2		6%
Fair»		2		6%
Adequate»		12		41%
Very good»		10		34%
Excellent»		3		10%
No opinion»		23

Genomsnitt: 3.34

Staffan Jacobsson
52 svarande

Poor»		2		5%
Fair»		0		0%
Adequate»		9		25%
Very good»		17		48%
Excellent»		7		20%
No opinion»		17

Genomsnitt: 3.77

Hanna Jönsson
52 svarande

Poor»		5		13%
Fair»		2		5%
Adequate»		18		48%
Very good»		11		29%
Excellent»		1		2%
No opinion»		15

Genomsnitt: 3.02

Karl Hillman
52 svarande

Poor»		1		2%
Fair»		5		12%
Adequate»		15		38%
Very good»		15		38%
Excellent»		3		7%
No opinion»		13

Genomsnitt: 3.35

9. How do you value the quality and relevance of the different assignments?

- Could have been better with more discussions and specially in smaller groups. There were never any discussion about assignment D. »
- Feedback would have been nice.»
- I think it would have been good with a discussion after assignment C. I liked ass. B because I thought that I had a very interesting article (Kemp). »
- The seminars were unfortunately not rewarding at all due to poor structure, too many students and uninspiring leadership..»
- Assignment A and B could have been conducted in smaller groups. Duncan said that he was going to post the right way of doing assignment C since he didn"t present it at the lecture, but he never did, that"s a bummer.»
- I belive that the quality of assignment D become much lower because students aren"t as motivated when the get no point for their work.»
- In assignment B I think we should have been divided into small groups with one from each side before the large group discussion. That way you have to take part in the debate, as it was now it was rather easy to disappear in the crowd.»
- A: Honestly, seemed to be a rather trivial thing to waste an assignment on. B: Interesting debate, could have been pursued further. C: Offered ample opportunity to think about the subject, but the presentations were long to attend... Unfortuantely, no matter how well researched, listening to presentations is never really that interesting... D (the exam): I found it difficult to show what I"ve learned by writing so freely.»
- Ass C got no attention after it had been handed in.»
- It would have been good to have had some more feedback on C and D.»

Assignment A
53 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		8		15%
Adequate»		18		33%
Very good»		22		41%
Excellent»		5		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

Assignment B
53 svarande

Poor»		1		1%
Fair»		5		9%
Adequate»		20		37%
Very good»		21		39%
Excellent»		6		11%

Genomsnitt: 3.49

Assignment C
53 svarande

Poor»		6		11%
Fair»		10		18%
Adequate»		16		30%
Very good»		18		33%
Excellent»		3		5%

Genomsnitt: 3.03

Assignment D
53 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		3		5%
Adequate»		14		26%
Very good»		23		43%
Excellent»		13		24%

Genomsnitt: 3.86

10. Which debate did you attend related to Assignment B? The group lead by...

Duncan Kushnir»		32		60%
Karl Hillman»		17		32%
I did not attend the debate»		4		7%

Genomsnitt: 1.47

- First we discussed everybody that had read the same article and then all together in one big group. I would have preferred some time discussing with in a group with one person that had read each article to get insight in all the articles. » (Duncan Kushnir)
- The group was too big for discussions. The assignment was interesting otherwise.» (Duncan Kushnir)
- See above» (Duncan Kushnir)
- Intresting, good moment in the course» (Duncan Kushnir)
- Karl"s moderation skills are very good. The same is true fot the presentations.» (Karl Hillman)
- It was nice but could be better in smaller groups» (Karl Hillman)
- Karl Hillman lead the discussion in a very good way.» (Karl Hillman)

11. How do you value the quality and relevance of the different books?

- Could be good if there were page numbering in the collection of articles. »
- Interesting to see both a more negative view (Ponting) and a more positive view (Grubler) of technology development. The articles were also interesting apart from Man and the atom. »
- I didn"t buy Grübler because too expensive and I had already a lot to read with Ponting and the articles.»
- There are too many pages to read. Ponting is very hard to skim... Many of the articles overlap.»
- Too many articles, since we in the industrial ecology program have a large amount of articles to read in the other course as well, so the reading is hard to have time for.»
- I think that the"fit" between litterature, lectures and course goals is very good. Most of what you have reed feels definetly relevant.»
- ALOT to read in not too much time...»
- i have reas just some few articles so i am not supposed to judge... but Pointing is really intersting and good to read... as i read just some parts of Grübler i wont even judge this too but was i have read was interesting... but as i mentioned above: too much literature!»
- Grübler seemed to be quite interchangeable with the lectures, so I didn"t read it, only at little. »
- What to say... Lots of things to read, little time. What I have read of Ponting was interesting, but closely following "Guns, Germs and Steele" by Diamond, thus for me feeling a bit superfluous. »
- It"s horrendiously long and keeps repeating every single point for at least two pages too long, however the general point is very good and thoughtworthy.»

Ponting: A (new) green history of the world
51 svarande

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		1		2%
Adequate»		7		14%
Very good»		19		38%
Excellent»		22		44%
No opinion/ have not read»		2

Genomsnitt: 4.26

Grübler: Technology and global change
51 svarande

Poor»		1		2%
Fair»		6		15%
Adequate»		14		35%
Very good»		13		33%
Excellent»		5		12%
No opinion/ have not read»		12

Genomsnitt: 3.38

Collection of articles
52 svarande

Poor»		1		2%
Fair»		3		6%
Adequate»		19		40%
Very good»		16		34%
Excellent»		8		17%
No opinion/ have not read»		5

Genomsnitt: 3.57

Your own effort

12. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		2		3%
Adequate»		31		59%
High»		18		34%
Too high»		1		1%

Genomsnitt: 3.34

- I think the assignments should give points to the examination, now I spend time on things not contributing to my grade which is not that motivating... » (Adequate)
- I think there was a little too much to read.» (Adequate)
- A lot depends on how much time you spend on reading. I have two other courses at the same time so I haven"t had time to read everything. But I"ve read Ponting and been able to catch up the important things from the other books. Good with assignments well spread out over the the course and that the home exam is one week before the exam week. Thanks to this the workload has been well spread out and the exam doesn"t take efforts from preparing for other exams. » (High)
- It was much reading. I spent a lot of time with the literature and I still didn"t have time to read everything. But it was interesting.» (High)
- There is a lot of reading and writing...» (High)
- so much to read...» (High)
- Very much to read, but good to have a midterm exam so that I started early with the literature.» (High)
- Maybe too much to read.» (High)
- Mainly the reading is tough to keep up with. » (High)

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

53 svarande

At most 10 hours/week»		9		16%
Around 15 hours/week»		15		28%
Around 20 hours/week»		20		37%
Around 25 hours/week»		6		11%
At least 30 hours/week»		3		5%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

- To be able to finish the course with a better grade I would have had to work 30 hours/week, but I didn"t have time for that.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- Very hard to say?» (Around 20 hours/week)
- It is very hard to say.» (Around 25 hours/week)
- I finished both books! Yeah!!!» (At least 30 hours/week)

14. How large percentage of the lectures did you attend?

53 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		2		3%
50%»		8		15%
75%»		16		30%
>90%»		27		50%

Genomsnitt: 4.28

- Schedule collisions preventet a high degree of attendance.» (25%)
- Would have attended more, but had several mandatory travels abroad.» (50%)
- a little bit more than 75..» (75%)
- Crashed with another course.» (>90%)

Study climate within the course

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		1		2%
Rather good»		15		40%
Very good»		21		56%
I did not seek help»		16

Genomsnitt: 3.54

- Although I didn"t really seek help or asked a lot of questions, it was encouraged throughout the course to do so.» (Rather good)
- Even though I posed few questions, the climate felt inviting, so that I could have asked more questions, should I have wanted to.» (Very good)
- thank you Duncan, nice answers of emails!» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		2		4%
Rather well»		22		44%
Very well»		26		52%
I did not seek cooperation»		2

Genomsnitt: 3.48

- Good that assignment D should be done in groups. It could have been even more discussions. » (Rather well)

Summarizing questions about the course

17. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

18. What should definitely be changed to next year?

19. Additional comments