|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENKÄTER | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visa resultatHär 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.
New Venture Formation (NVF), CIP036Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2009-01-27 - 2009-02-06 Antal svar: 6 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 27% Kontaktperson: Anneli Hildenborg» Klass: Övriga
Goals and goal fulfilmentThe 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.1. How understandable and reasonable are the course goals?6 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.66 - None were communicated» (I have not seen/read the goals) 2. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?6 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.5 - No goals were communicated» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet) Study climate3. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?6 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.33 - In general, questions emailed to the course manager and instructors were either not answered or took two weeks for a response.» (Very poor) 4. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?6 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3 5. How was the course workload?6 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.66 - I really appreciated the moving back of a deadline due to the many other essays due at the same time. Coordination of deliverables within the program is suggested.» (Adequate) Summarizing questions6. What is your general impression of the course?6 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.83 - Many of the resources provided were in Swedish. Though I understand there are specifics relating to Swedish law that may require Swedish documents, my learning was severly inhibited in these areas.» (Poor) Part I: General Questions7. What is your overall impression of the VEF course? Please motivate your answer!- Very Poor. The class lacked structure, the teaching appeared to be random and disjointed, and the final assignement did not relate well to the project. I found the Target Costing lectures and assingments to be the most value. The lack of English for many of the learning resources was both frustrating and gave the feeling of disadvatage when compared to the Swedish students.»- Good. See above. Well balanced. Relevant modules. Expert lecturers.» - I think some of the assignements where redundant and didnt give anything.» - Scattered.» - Good. I liked that this course presented cases and facts about other companies. We also gained valuable legal knowledge» 8. What would you recommend us to do differently next year, do you have suggestions for improvements?- More dedicated educators»- Create a basic knowledge base that all students can begin from and then have Structured lectures with a clear end goal. » - Clearer comunication of how the grade is built-up, what is expected, etc.» - Clearer descriptions of the outcomes» - I think this course would get better if it was focused to one period, the first of the fall.» - Teach Kaj English. Change the course content or give different expectations. » 9. What was your general impression of the administration of the course?- Poor. Lack of learning resources for English speaking students would be the largest detriment in this area. When reachable, the instructure was responsive.»- Good, but lack of communication (long respond times) from time to time.» - not good» - a bit difficult when the examinor was in Thailand. Sometimes difficult to get the neccessary info about the hand-ins» 10. What did you think about the hand-ins?- Very unclear of what to do»- By hand-ins I assume you mean the bushcrawler assignment and the target costing assingment. Both of those were valuable and created the largest value in the course.» - Good. » - I think that the tech-tree assignment should have been the first assignment because that one gave more to the venture than the other once, and will also facilitate for further cooperation with cip-ps.» - good intentions» - Good. they were all valuable from a learning perspective and from the Projects perspective» Part II: Seminars11. An overview of knowledge-based business development- If you really wanted feedback on the seminars I would suggest you not wait so long after they have occured. I barely remember who the speakers were and what they discussed.»- God» - Very interesting, good to define early. the DSA was a great tool» 12. Controlling the innovation- Good»- valuable questions to degunkify. good lecture and good help» 13. Brand and identity- Very good»- Good lecture, good hand-in. unfortunately we have not received grades or feedback on the hand-in. I would like feedback in order to learn» 14. Strategic verification and venture formation- Good»- If this is the lecture by Eric about Sjöräddningssällskapet, then it was very interesting, I learned about selling concepts rather than products in order to control the innovation» 15. Technology valuation- Good»- Really cool lecture, difficult to grasp but we like challenges» 16. The firm as a nexus of contracts- Very good - well integrated deliverable.»- Could have needed some extra info before the assignment, but I liked the structure of the hand-in»
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66%