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.

Structural Bioinformatics, TDA506

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-03-05 - 2009-03-23
Antal svar: 5
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Graham Kemp»

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.

5 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»3 60%
Around 20 hours/week»2 40%
Around 25 hours/week»0 0%
Around 30 hours/week»0 0%
At least 35 hours/week»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.4

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

5 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»2 40%
100%»3 60%

Genomsnitt: 4.6

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?

5 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»0 0%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»2 40%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»3 60%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- I have a read them many times» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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.

5 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»5 100%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- A bit tough to say before the exam.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

5 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»2 40%
Yes, definitely»0 0%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»3 60%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

Teaching and course administration

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

5 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»0 0%
Large extent»3 60%
Great extent»2 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

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

5 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»1 20%
Large extent»3 60%
Great extent»1 20%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Thinking of the practicals (rather than course litterature).» (Large extent)
- especially the papers, the text book was of very heterogeneous quality» (Great extent)

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

5 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»3 60%
Very well»2 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- The handouts on the web didn"t cover all the "physical" handouts from the lectures - which made it harder to gather all info at the same place (computer).» (Rather well)
- There were a lot of images shown which would be hard or impossible to find after lectures. I wish that all handouts including images as this course is so much about visuals are present on the course page.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

5 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»0 0%
Very good»4 80%
I did not seek help»1 20%

Genomsnitt: 4.2

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

5 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»1 20%
Very well»2 40%
I did not seek cooperation»2 40%

Genomsnitt: 4.2

11. How was the course workload?

5 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»3 60%
High»2 40%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

12. How was the total workload this study period?

5 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»1 20%
High»2 40%
Too high»2 40%

Genomsnitt: 4.2

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

5 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»0 0%
Good»2 40%
Excellent»3 60%

Genomsnitt: 4.6

- very interesting field! all of the softwares used are unfortunately not very stable » (Good)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- PG Nyholms lectures, practicals»
- The practicals»
- The reading list provided very good foundation to the field of structural bioinformatics. Even thought it push more workload, but i strongly believe that it deserves to the knowledge I got from the course. Your reading list is very classic, and i"m going to forward this reading list to my friends back home (",)»
- The focus on relevant papers, it was an extraordinary oppurtunity to get this big picture»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- All handouts should be on the course web page.»
- The selected topics are really good in that it provided introduction to broad area of studies in the field. Although diverse topics are selected, but I feel that the content integrity are being preserved (unlike some course that too many topics are selected, and just make me confuse ,p). This is a really good starting course to the structural bioinformatics area. It would be great if the course handouts were adapted and provided freely on the internet like MIT" open course ware project.»
- I miss what has happened the last decade. All papers except them concerning drug design were before from 2000, surely something important must have happened lately. I don"t get why there was so much focus on NMR and X-ray xtalization.. boring and unusable knowledge.»

16. Additional comments

- How about "Structural Bioinformatics II"?»
- The lecturer from biognosis is really bad unfortuneatly, additionally the handouts we got from him contained only like half of the slides he showed and in different versions.. it was a mess..»

Kursutvärderingssystem från