Utvärderingar
Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida
|
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.
Course Evaluation - Technical Change and Industrial Transformation 2008, IDY 040
Status: Avslutad Öppen för svar: 2008-12-18 - 2009-01-18 Antal svar: 33 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 47% Kontaktperson: Eugeniai Perez Vico» Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Industriell ekonomi 300 hp
1. I am a student originally coming from,33 svarande
the School of Technology Management and Economics» | | 21 | | 63% |
another school at Chalmers» | | 2 | | 6% |
another Swedish University» | | 0 | | 0% |
I am an international student within the MEI-program» | | 7 | | 21% |
I am an exchange student (e.g. Erasmus)» | | 3 | | 9% |
Genomsnitt: 2.06 2. Of the lectures, I have attended,33 svarande
20%» | | 1 | | 3% |
40%» | | 0 | | 0% |
60%» | | 2 | | 6% |
80%» | | 16 | | 48% |
100%» | | 14 | | 42% |
Genomsnitt: 4.27 3. Overall, the course wasPlease grade from 1-5 where: 1= Very poor 5= Very good33 svarande
1, Very poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 2 | | 6% |
3» | | 5 | | 15% |
4» | | 13 | | 39% |
5, Very good» | | 13 | | 39% |
Genomsnitt: 4.12 - Far too academical to be useful. The basis with industry cycles and clusters etc. is great, but I think the managerial perspective must be increased a lot. Reading 24 articles in 4 weeks, what"s the logic? You can embrace that much information. » (3)
- Really good course but should change the quarter for it is to much work mixed with Creating new business» (4)
- A pure pleasure!» (5, Very good)
- god lectures andinteresting subjects, bra upplägg» (5, Very good)
- Now when it is over, I feel like I have really learned a lot. I did not really realize this during the lectures.» (5, Very good)
- Staffan is a fantastic lecturer and the course is well-structured.» (5, Very good)
- Interesting content, good lectures, relevant subject, clear course structure and a good selection of articles that were related to the lectures.» (5, Very good)
- Very interesting course with good structure.» (5, Very good)
- the course structure, study materials was really good» (5, Very good)
4. How much did you learn from the course?Please grade from 1-5 where: 1= Nothing at all 5= Very much33 svarande
1, Nothing at all» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 0 | | 0% |
3» | | 7 | | 21% |
3» | | 13 | | 39% |
5, Very much» | | 13 | | 39% |
Genomsnitt: 4.18 - allmänbildande
tycker om när man får reflektera» (5, Very much)
- Now when it is over, I feel like I have really learned a lot. I did not really realize this during the lectures.» (5, Very much)
- Apart from learning to read articles efficiently and writing a paper, I realy felt that I learnt about the world around me within the context of the course content.» (5, Very much)
5. The structure of the course wasPlease grade from 1-5 where: 1= Difficult to follow 5= Easy to follow33 svarande
1, Difficult to follow» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 3 | | 9% |
3» | | 7 | | 21% |
3» | | 13 | | 39% |
5, Easy to follow» | | 10 | | 30% |
Genomsnitt: 3.9 - Perfectly structured, no complaints whatsoever» (5, Easy to follow)
- The structure of the course was very good with the early written exam and a paper where we were allowed t focus on whatever interrested us the most.» (5, Easy to follow)
6. The pace of the course wasPlease grade from 1-5 where: 1= Too slow 5= Too fast32 svarande
1, Too slow» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 1 | | 3% |
3» | | 19 | | 59% |
3» | | 5 | | 15% |
5, Too fast» | | 7 | | 21% |
Genomsnitt: 3.56 - Just right» (3)
- The amount of reading material was very heavy, especially considering the fact that the workload on the CNB course running parallel to this one was heavy also. These two courses should not, as i know has been pointed out, run at the same time. » (3)
- Many articles, but I really liked the structure that focused on the literature in the beginning and later the paper.» (3)
- Very much to read» (5, Too fast)
- The compulsory reading is far to massive. » (5, Too fast)
- Too much to read in the beginning!» (5, Too fast)
7. The administration of the course wasPlease grade from 1-5 where: 1= Very poor 5= Very good32 svarande
1, Very poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 2 | | 6% |
3» | | 9 | | 28% |
3» | | 11 | | 34% |
5, Very good» | | 10 | | 31% |
Genomsnitt: 3.9 - Access to teachers and course resources was easy.» (5, Very good)
8. Did the course meet your expectations?Please grade from 1-5 where: 1= Not at all 5= Very much32 svarande
1, Not at all» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 2 | | 6% |
3» | | 5 | | 15% |
3» | | 11 | | 34% |
5, Very much» | | 14 | | 43% |
Genomsnitt: 4.15 - Better, the name is not so "sexy" but the course was really good.» (5, Very much)
9. How demanding was the course?Please grade from 1-5 where: 1= Not demanding at all 5= Very demanding32 svarande
1, Not demanding at all» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 1 | | 3% |
3» | | 9 | | 28% |
3» | | 13 | | 40% |
5, Very demanding» | | 9 | | 28% |
Genomsnitt: 3.93 - Hard to write a good enough essay: the course as a whole had a good balance. » (3)
- The reading was very time-consuming.» (3)
- The exam and case was not great in time.» (5, Very demanding)
- See question 7» (5, Very demanding)
- Lots of material and a high pace, but still good» (5, Very demanding)
- Too much articles» (5, Very demanding)
- Not understanding but keeping up with the reading. » (5, Very demanding)
10. How difficult was the coursePlease grade from 1-5 where: 1= Not difficult at all 5= Very difficult32 svarande
1, Not difficult at all» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 2 | | 6% |
3» | | 15 | | 46% |
3» | | 15 | | 46% |
5, Very difficult» | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 3.4 - Challenging ideas, but well explained and teachers/seminars available helped. » (3)
- The course held a high standard throughout.» (3)
11. Did the examination form mirror the course content?Please grade from 1-5 where: 1= Not at all 5= Very much31 svarande
1, Not at all» | | 1 | | 3% |
2» | | 1 | | 3% |
3» | | 10 | | 32% |
3» | | 10 | | 32% |
5, Very much» | | 9 | | 29% |
Genomsnitt: 3.8 - I don"t think you had any benefits of having read the articles. Far too broad questions where lecture notes would have been enough. » (1, Not at all)
- The exam was one of the better ones Ive done. It covered all the major topics and appreciated both the fact that the max number of pages per question was specified and that the exam was divided into five relatively equivalent questions (in terms of points awarded per question and their scope). » (5, Very much)
- Great exam! good to have page limitations» (5, Very much)
- Great written exam!» (5, Very much)
12. Did the examination form give opportunities for reflection and learning?Please grade from 1-5 where: 1= Not at all 5= Very much32 svarande
1, Not at all» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 2 | | 6% |
3» | | 6 | | 18% |
3» | | 18 | | 56% |
5, Very much» | | 6 | | 18% |
Genomsnitt: 3.87 - The exam was still very much about providing ideas from the course. Reading, essay and lectures were the key learning bits. » (3)
- The article did.» (3)
13. Overall the lecturer Staffan Jacobsson wasPlease grade from 1-5 where: 1= Not good 5= Very good32 svarande
1, Not good» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 1 | | 3% |
3» | | 3 | | 9% |
4» | | 11 | | 34% |
5, Very good» | | 17 | | 53% |
Genomsnitt: 4.37 - Enthusiastic, clear and knowledgable. Great lecturer. » (5, Very good)
- Too many examples from the "renewable resources"-sector. Too much of the lecturers own opinions when it comes to the importance of politics.» (5, Very good)
- staffan is really good. Its worth to be in his class» (5, Very good)
14. How did you perceive your lecturer"s (Staffan Jacobsson"s) competence on this topic?Please grade from 1-5 where: 1= Very poor 5= Very good33 svarande
1, Very poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 0 | | 0% |
3» | | 0 | | 0% |
4» | | 11 | | 33% |
5, Very good» | | 22 | | 66% |
Genomsnitt: 4.66 15. How did the lecturer (Staffan Jacobsson) present the information?Please grade from 1-5 where: 1= Very badly 5= Very well32 svarande
1, Very badly» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 0 | | 0% |
3» | | 6 | | 18% |
4» | | 12 | | 37% |
5, Very well» | | 14 | | 43% |
Genomsnitt: 4.25 - In think could be better with a lecture guess, who works applying the knowledge ...(for example)» (4)
- men vore kul med mer exempel, inte bara energi industrin» (5, Very well)
- Very good lecturer! Good content, easy to listen to.» (5, Very well)
16. How was the lecturer"s (Staffan Jacobsson"s) commitment and interest?Please grade from 1-5 where: 1= Not good 5= Very good33 svarande
1, Not good» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 0 | | 0% |
3» | | 2 | | 6% |
4» | | 9 | | 27% |
5, Very good» | | 22 | | 66% |
Genomsnitt: 4.6 17. How did you perceive your lecturer"s (Magnus Holmén"s) competence on this topic?Please grade from 1-5 where: 1= Very poor 5= Very good33 svarande
1, Very poor» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 2 | | 6% |
3» | | 11 | | 33% |
4» | | 9 | | 27% |
5, Very good» | | 11 | | 33% |
Genomsnitt: 3.87 - alltid svårt att följa med i hans föreläsningar även om han säkert är mkt kunnig» (3)
- A very interesting guest lecture» (5, Very good)
- A very good and interesting lecture. Should keep this lecture with Magnus for next year.» (5, Very good)
18. How did the lecturer (Magnus Holmén) present the information?Please grade from 1-5 where: 1= Very badly 5= Very well33 svarande
1, Very badly» | | 2 | | 6% |
2» | | 6 | | 18% |
3» | | 11 | | 33% |
4» | | 8 | | 24% |
5, Very well» | | 6 | | 18% |
Genomsnitt: 3.3 - I personally find Holmens lecturing style difficult- unstructured and perhaps sometimes he presents things in a more complicated way than they should be» (2)
19. How was the lecturer"s (Magnus Holmén"s) commitment and interest?Please grade from 1-5 where: 1= Not good 5= Very good33 svarande
1, Not Good» | | 0 | | 0% |
2» | | 6 | | 18% |
3» | | 11 | | 33% |
4» | | 9 | | 27% |
5, Very good» | | 7 | | 21% |
Genomsnitt: 3.51 - Interest there, hard to judge commitment from one lecture. » (5, Very good)
20. How was the seminar leader"s commitment and interest?Please grade from 1-5 where: 1= Very poor 5= Very good29 svarande Totalt:
1, Very poor» | | 1 | | 3% |
2» | | 2 | | 6% |
3» | | 10 | | 34% |
4» | | 9 | | 31% |
5, Very good» | | 7 | | 24% |
Genomsnitt: 3.65 Fördelat på olika grupper: Staffan Jacobsson as seminar leader: (20 st)
1, Very poor | | 1 | | 5% |
2 | | 0 | | 0% |
3 | | 8 | | 40% |
4 | | 6 | | 30% |
5, Very good | | 5 | | 25% |
Genomsnitt: 3.7 - Did not attend.» (?)
- I was not there» (3)
- I didn"t attend.» (3)
- Could have been better structured. I would have liked more focus on the articles etc...» (4)
Hans Hellsmark as seminar leader: (7 st)
1, Very poor | | 0 | | 0% |
2 | | 2 | | 28% |
3 | | 2 | | 28% |
4 | | 2 | | 28% |
5, Very good | | 1 | | 14% |
Genomsnitt: 3.28 - pick a few articles that the student can prepare for rather then all the material at the same time» (2)
- I felt that he was unprepared. He thought it would be possible to discuss the articles more, but that was difficult since people hadn"t read them. It would have been better to decide that we would discuss for example five articles and tell people that those five articles need to be read through before the seminar. The literature seminar could also have been used more efficiently to give an overview of the whole course. » (2)
- I did not attend the seminar, so I can not answer this properly.» (3)
- Helpful discussion» (5, Very good)
Eugeina Perez Vico as seminar leader: (2 st)
1, Very poor | | 0 | | 0% |
2 | | 0 | | 0% |
3 | | 0 | | 0% |
4 | | 1 | | 50% |
5, Very good | | 1 | | 50% |
Genomsnitt: 4.5 21. How did you perceive your seminar leader"s competence on the topic?Please grade from 1-5 where: 1= Very poor 5= Very good25 svarande Totalt:
1, Very poor» | | 1 | | 4% |
2» | | 0 | | 0% |
3» | | 5 | | 20% |
4» | | 10 | | 40% |
5, Very good» | | 9 | | 36% |
Genomsnitt: 4.04 Fördelat på olika grupper: Staffan Jacobsson as seminar leader: (18 st)
1, Very poor | | 0 | | 0% |
2 | | 0 | | 0% |
3 | | 3 | | 16% |
4 | | 8 | | 44% |
5, Very good | | 7 | | 38% |
Genomsnitt: 4.22 - Did not attend.» (?)
Hans Hellsmark as seminar leader: (5 st)
1, Very poor | | 0 | | 0% |
2 | | 0 | | 0% |
3 | | 2 | | 40% |
4 | | 2 | | 40% |
5, Very good | | 1 | | 20% |
Genomsnitt: 3.8 Eugeina Perez Vico as seminar leader: (2 st)
1, Very poor | | 1 | | 50% |
2 | | 0 | | 0% |
3 | | 0 | | 0% |
4 | | 0 | | 0% |
5, Very good | | 1 | | 50% |
Genomsnitt: 3 - I could not assist to the new date» (1, Very poor)
22. The literature seminar was usefulPlease grade from 1-5 where: 1= strongly disagree 5= strongly agree25 svarande Totalt:
1, strongly disagree» | | 1 | | 4% |
2» | | 3 | | 12% |
3» | | 7 | | 28% |
4» | | 7 | | 28% |
5, strongly agree» | | 7 | | 28% |
Genomsnitt: 3.64 Fördelat på olika grupper: Staffan Jacobsson as seminar leader: (17 st)
1, strongly disagree | | 0 | | 0% |
2 | | 2 | | 11% |
3 | | 6 | | 35% |
4 | | 7 | | 41% |
5, strongly agree | | 2 | | 11% |
Genomsnitt: 3.52 - Did not attend.» (?)
- Not very usefull because there was not a lot of discussion and interaction» (2)
- More useful if everyone had come prepared to discuss» (4)
- A good chance to ask questions.» (4)
Hans Hellsmark as seminar leader: (5 st)
1, strongly disagree | | 0 | | 0% |
2 | | 1 | | 20% |
3 | | 1 | | 20% |
4 | | 0 | | 0% |
5, strongly agree | | 3 | | 60% |
Genomsnitt: 4 - I think you should keep the literature seminar. But it could be improved a lot. See answer under question 20.» (2)
Eugeina Perez Vico as seminar leader: (3 st)
1, strongly disagree | | 1 | | 33% |
2 | | 0 | | 0% |
3 | | 0 | | 0% |
4 | | 0 | | 0% |
5, strongly agree | | 2 | | 66% |
Genomsnitt: 3.66 23. The supervision for the project wasPlease grade from 1-5 where: 1= Very poor 5= Very good32 svarande Totalt:
1, Very poor» | | 1 | | 3% |
2» | | 3 | | 9% |
3» | | 4 | | 12% |
4» | | 11 | | 34% |
5, Very good» | | 13 | | 40% |
Genomsnitt: 4 Fördelat på olika grupper: Staffan Jacobsson as supervisor: (9 st)
1, Very poor | | 0 | | 0% |
2 | | 0 | | 0% |
3 | | 1 | | 11% |
4 | | 4 | | 44% |
5, Very good | | 4 | | 44% |
Genomsnitt: 4.33 - Best supervision so far!» (5, Very good)
- Great to get detailed choaching all the way, thankyou Staffan!!!» (5, Very good)
- It was great to have a supervisor who took the time to think about and dicuss the topic with us first and then go through our draft in detail and give specific feedback. » (5, Very good)
Hans Hellsmark as supervisor: (6 st)
1, Very poor | | 0 | | 0% |
2 | | 1 | | 16% |
3 | | 1 | | 16% |
4 | | 3 | | 50% |
5, Very good | | 1 | | 16% |
Genomsnitt: 3.66 - The first one was very bad but our second was very good.» (3)
- Ours was a good supervision: a bit close to the deadline though. If we had had serious issues, then there would not have been much time to correct them.» (4)
- Hans is one of the few supervisors that Ive met at Chalmers who actually gave constructive feedback. He was able to specify meaningful areas for improvement and challenged the ways in which we had thought. Im very grateful to have had him as a supervisor!» (5, Very good)
Magnus Holmén as supervisor: (9 st)
1, Very poor | | 1 | | 11% |
2 | | 1 | | 11% |
3 | | 1 | | 11% |
4 | | 3 | | 33% |
5, Very good | | 3 | | 33% |
Genomsnitt: 3.66 - Very unfair how much time each supervisor spent with the groups. » (1, Very poor)
- Very big difference between Staffan and Magnus regarding the difficulty level of the paper.....» (3)
- He was very clear about what he wanted. After talking to other groups we did however feel that the expectations from the different supervisors varied a lot. Could have been more then one supervision meeting (except the initial kick-off meeting) or at least a possibility to send the report in again for feedback via mail.» (4)
- Very good comments. Very helpful. Holmén did his very best to help us. Although, only two meetings was a bit to little when the article is 60% of the grade.» (4)
Eugenia Perez Vico as supervisor: (8 st)
1, Very poor | | 0 | | 0% |
2 | | 1 | | 12% |
3 | | 1 | | 12% |
4 | | 1 | | 12% |
5, Very good | | 5 | | 62% |
Genomsnitt: 4.25 - One meeting with the supervisor is not enough.» (2)
- It would be good to have more than one meeting for commenting on the paper. We did not feel we had constant help.» (3)
- She was a good supervisor. She gave good feedback! You should keep her for next year!» (5, Very good)
- I liked the way the coruse was presented» (5, Very good)
24. For the course as a whole, too little or too much attention was paid to?- energy industry»
- .»
- I thought it was well-balanced»
- no»
- Perhaps a little bit much score for the article compared to the exam. I like that the cases gets a lot of points which in turn shows that they are of importance for the course. But 15 (or what ever it was) lectures á 2 hours to explain the course and make us ready for the exam (40% of the grade)and only 2 opportunities á 1 hour to help us with the article (60% of the grade). It just did not felt balanced...I hope you understand what I mean.»
- Too much attention for how to write a scientific paper.»
- Too much attention on the "renewable sources"-sector.»
- Too little to the article, and too much to read»
- too much»
- Too little on practical implications and far to much on the academical perspectiv»
- Cant say»
- The readings were not examined befor the exam.»
- I think that the course was structured in a very good way. I did not miss any parts and do not think to much attention was paid to any parts.»
- The paper was worth too much compared to the little time given to it»
- Too much attention on renewable energies»
25. Reflections on the usefulness of writing an academic paper?- It was very useful. »
- Very useful, but also difficult to write a meaningful paper on such fresh ideas!»
- great!»
- .»
- Really useful but I think that the paper could have been introduced earlier.»
- I found it very interesting to gain insight into how an article is produced! The advice staffan agve on his "how to write an article" lecture was extremely helpful - particularly the advice derived from his own experience.»
- very good, very useful.
»
- It feels like if you are trying to make all of us ready to be a PhD. Most of us only have about one year left in school, only a handful will continue with higher studies on PhD level. Therefore the academic angel of an paper did not feel so important for me. Try to focus the paper so its something everyone can have use of. Few people writes academic papers in their job...»
- It is useful but could be much quicker!»
- Good idea to write a scientific paper. But I think it should be possible to write the paper by yourself and not necessarily in a group. Because it would be nice to have the possibility to write an own paper and have feedback on your own ideas, in a heterogene group you have to make so many compromises that the final paper often don"t get so interesting. »
- Good. Something new»
- The paper has helped me to reflect about our topics. that was good»
- Academic papers are great for those who want to go for Ph.d, but honestly are there more than 2 in each class. I think the examination should better reflect how and what the students are aiming for later in career, and writing academic papers is not very common out in the industry. Yes, I agree we need to practice our writing but there are hundreds of ways of doing this besides writing academic papers. »
- It is very good learning experience (specially knowing how to write a scientific paper).»
- It would have been more useful if the number of supervision meetings were more»
- Useful yes, but I think it is too big part of the examination. Should rather be max 40 %.»
- The topic of the paper was narrow but I think i can use the method of how do write a paper in the future.»
- cant see the use of it»
- It was specially useful for the ones (like me) who had never written an academic paper.»
26. Are there overlaps with other courses and, if so, please point these out and evaluate whether or not the overlaps were negative.- There were no overlaps rather some ideas got clearer.»
- Overlaps with Technical Change and the Environment. Synergistic though, same base ideas, different viewpoints and methods of evaluation. »
- It is perfectly placed after the economics of innovation course and at the same time as creating new business. They all complement each other. However, they all take a lot of time!»
- There was in my opinion overlaps or at least strong similarities between this course and the Economics of Innovation course in the previous period. The focuses was of course somewhat different. Also similarities with the CNB course that was in parallel with this one. We were using papers from these courses in the report for this course and so on.»
- Theoverlaps with the CNB course we ONLY positive! One could draw knowledge from both courses and see different perspectives on similar areas of study. Very motivating!»
- nope, If there were overlaps, there were useful.»
- Of course there were overlaps, and to many to bring them up here. This however is a good thing according to me. Something are worth to hear twice and even more sometimes.
One example is how ever Porter"s Five Forces Model which has been discussed in all of our courses the last four years at I. Increasing returns and economiers of scale is another.»
- No.»
- A lot of overlaps with CNB that was useful to get a broad perspective»
- In general it feels like there are a lot of overlaps between the courses this semester. I cannot point out which overlaps are the most imortant, I don"t remember.»
- In some aspects Magnus Holmén"s course Economics of Innovation was overlapping but since that was a bit of an overview course I think it was not a bad thing.»
- Yes, there were overlaps. I could say that some times was a little confuss, specifically in the early phases of industrial change and formation of new business.... there are a lot of knowledge that is overlaped in this part. But on the other hand, was useful for me to get a better understanding of all, I think that for me I was no problem»
- yes there were. The schedule for exams, and paper submission were very tight due to the other course, Creating new business. There should be more synergy.»
- yes, the exam date had an overlap with CNB"s quiz, and that was so negative for the exam I think»
- Overlaps are good, they give continuity.»
- No, I do not think so.»
- Some overlaps with CNB, but CNB is from the point of view of the firm (so they are not exactly overlaps)»
- overlaps with Creating New Business course was useful to understand some topics»
27. Comments on the course literature?- It was more than we could handle.»
- Will keep it. Very handy reference material. »
- good!»
- Too much! Some of the articles was not that good and was just boring. Cut 8 articles and focus more on the rest.»
- To many articles, expensive.»
- Pretty good. No direct comments.»
- Heavy. Perhaps too heavy. All the artcles were very well-written and offered interesting and unique perspectives on the topics. However, Im finding it hard to see if it in fact was too demanding to read everything, (i didnt), because I think the workloads of CNB and TCIT at the same time was not a good thing. Had the ocourse run parallel to another course, where deadlines and suchdid not make life painfully difficult, the amount of reading may perhaps have been adequately demanding. »
- very good.»
- I liked that you guys only used articles. According to me articles provides a broader knowledge base since the are build upon several poeples opinion. It also gives us a change to compare the articles and the authors arguments against eachother, which is not the case when you have a course book written by one singel author.»
- It is a lot, and some topics are over represented.»
- The articles are really good »
- -»
- Generally, good articles - it is clear that Staffan has thought about which ones to bring in. »
- Too many articles»
- good»
- Far to many articles. »
- It is very good.»
- the litterature is too much, I think decreasing the literature would increase the overall learning»
- Too much articles!»
- The articles were really good. »
- too many articles»
- The literature was very interesting, but perhaps there were too many papers to read (maybe the compulsory ones are enough)»
- carefully, well selected»
28. What other comments or recommendations would you make for a future course?- Less articles included. More work on the paper.»
- planera tillsmans med den andra kursen CNB, blev lite mycket att göra ett tag....»
- Great course!»
- The workload this period has been pretty high. Lots to read and many assignments. Try to separate the two courses from this period or somehow pursue us to start doing assignments and readings from week 1.»
- try to combine the two parallell courses on the mei program better next time. Do not put an exam the same week as the last week for a project and a quiz. And do not put final deadline for the scientific paper the same day or the day after in the morning as another exam.»
- Perhaps only this - make sure it rund in a different period than Sörens CNB!!! Otherwise, on the whole, it was a great course!»
- no»
- Since many of the topics of our reports are within areas which are not as central in the course as for an example IS. I don"t think it is neccessary to have the exam prior the article. I think this structure was a nice idea, but it only made us students more stressed and confused.
I also think that you should develop the seminars further. You are on a good path there...»
- Keep it! Maybe a take-home exam instead of exam...»
- A better literature seminar. Possibility to write the paper alone and not in group. Less examples from the renewable resource industry. Talk to the lecturers in the other courses to get an idea about what they will bring up in their courses, especially check with Magnus Holmén.»
- It would be very helpful for us students if the 2 courses running simultaneously would coordinate their activities to make sure that we did not get one "hell week".
From talking to my fellow classmates I have understood that different supervisors (for the paper)have expected very different levels of ambition for the paper.»
- Lesser readings»
- The literature seminar could be divided into more sessions with specific articles to read for each session. This will increase focus on each topic.»
- Very interesting topics but I can"t really see the use of it when I start working. We have learned a lot of things theoretically but not how to work with it or solve it. It should be more specific, maybe in form of different cases, for example on Functional Analysis instead of writing a scientific paper»
- Do not add more litearature. If an article is going to be added, maybe think about removing an existing one.»
Kursutvärderingssystem från
|