Visa resultat

Idea Evaluation and Feasibility Studies, TEK215

Your own effort

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

21 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		3		14%
Around 20 hours/week»		3		14%
Around 25 hours/week»		4		19%
Around 30 hours/week»		8		38%
At least 35 hours/week»		3		14%

Genomsnitt: 3.23

- Has been extremely many hours working with the projects. It has been hard to keep up with the other course I am taking due to this. » (Around 30 hours/week)
- The assignments took a lot of time, but was also very fun to do. » (Around 30 hours/week)
- Much more than 34houts/week. I would say rather around 60.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

21 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		8		38%
75%»		9		42%
100%»		4		19%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- Really unstructred lectures» (50%)
- I quickly realized the lectures had very little to do with the course literature or the projects in addition to being quite unrelated to eachother, and chose to put down work effort on the projects instead.» (50%)
- Classess didnt have as good standard as promised.» (50%)
- Lectures in IEFS course were not good! They need improvement and exactly same structure as in fall.» (75%)
- almost 100 %» (75%)
- Would be good if the papers handed out on the seminars would be uploaded on studieportalen. Otherwise it is easy to miss out on something.» (75%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		1		4%
The goals are difficult to understand»		1		4%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		13		61%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		6		28%

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- It was a little bit hard to grasp what course was about in the beginning. Feedback which has been missed out to a big part would have been very valuable in terms of getting a better picture.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

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

20 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		1		5%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		17		85%
No, the goals are set too high»		2		10%

Genomsnitt: 2.05

- However, I believe that the expectations from the techer of what is possible to achieve, expecting us to only work 20h with each case, is not reasonable.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- The goals in PM seems reasonable. Each lecturer seemed to have their own understanding of them, however, and went by their own agenda instead of communicating and ensuring a common course goal.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- I think it is reasonable in the way that I had a background that I think was enough for taking this course. However, the amount of time that I have spent in relation to the number of credit are not reasonable. Everything has been fun to study but it is not reasonable that this much time has to be spent for those credits.» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

No, not at all»		2		10%
To some extent»		15		75%
Yes, definitely»		2		10%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		1		5%

Genomsnitt: 2.1

- I believe an exam likethis should be oral in order for one to be given a fair chans to show what one has learned. » (To some extent)
- The exam was good, and related to the PM and the projects in a good way. However, some lecturers, prominently Bo, seemed to have different goals in each of his lectures. Fortunately these were not tested on the exam.» (To some extent)
- This is a course that SHOULD NOT be examined trough a written exam! Doing this is only silly, since you cant really study nor write an exam that fits. I STRONGLY suggest that till next year, skip the written exam and make a home exam or a larger project as the examination! Strongly suggests!» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		7		33%
Some extent»		10		47%
Large extent»		3		14%
Great extent»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 1.9

- The lectures were very unclear and inconsistent.» (Small extent)
- many lectures were unstructured and made me frustrated because I we where there for four hours in a row, and it did not give that much» (Small extent)
- During all my soon 4 years on Chalmers I have never experienced such confusion among teachers of the same course. Excluding the guest lecturers, the teachers seemed to have quite different views of what the course aimed to achieve, which resulted in contradictionary statements which served rather to confuse than to teach. With a few exceptions the purpose of each class was quite unrelated to previous lectures. At one time the teachers left the classroom spontaneusly for half an hour, resulting in half the students going home. New information about the projects were added, seemingly independantly, by different teachers going as far as contradicting eachother. » (Small extent)
- I think the ideas and concepts pertaining to the cource were very good, but perhaps they could have been a bit more clearer and demonstrative suring the lectures, for example, giving real examples on previous cases and using the tools to demonstrate to us.» (Small extent)
- The seminars should have been better and much more structured. » (Some extent)
- was only useful in combination with the books, but had not time to read during the weeks, only in the end, and then i finally could realize what you had been talking about...» (Some extent)
- Some of the seminars have been good and has helped me in the learning. But there has been many times when it has been really hard to understand since the communication during the semarinars have been hard to follow.» (Some extent)
- Did not really connect all lectures with assignments. » (Some extent)
- The purpose of certain lectures/seminars was hard to identify, especially when trying to relate it to the tasks that had to be performed during the group work.» (Some extent)
- The lectures were often messy and the message didn´,t really get through. More synchronized with a red thread would be preferable.» (Some extent)

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

Small extent»		4		19%
Some extent»		11		52%
Large extent»		5		23%
Great extent»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 2.14

- The course literature was poorly integrated in the course.» (Small extent)
- The Jolly book is 10 years old, and quite contradictory to other readins in other subjects, which at least to me indicates these are old theories no longer valid. Using the internet as examples from 1998 is quite pointless, to me. Day"s scenario chapter was good, even if Mats Magnusson in the R&D Strategy course for the MEI program described the system far better. I can recommend discussing it with him. Generally, please look over possible course literature and update to something recent that at least gives the impression of being right in time, so I as a student can relate it to other literature. In this case, with other literature from 2006-2008 and this book from 1998, its easy to just assume that Jolly is outdated and wrong. » (Small extent)
- Mostly read the course literature if there was something I did not understand, however Jolly was good. I think the most valuable things were the articles and things handed out during seminars.» (Some extent)
- Mostly to understand the lectures» (Some extent)
- Literature was useful for the preparation of the exam, for the group assignment however it provided only little information, it was mainly useful as background information.» (Some extent)
- Jolly was really good as som eof the chapters in Day.» (Large extent)
- Good books. » (Large extent)
- very good literature, even though it was quite good» (Great extent)

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

Very badly»		2		9%
Rather badly»		4		19%
Rather well»		10		47%
Very well»		5		23%

Genomsnitt: 2.85

- Some articles were not given to all students, the lecture halls kept changing and the grading of the cases is still a mystery to me. » (Very badly)
- Not all the documents distributed were available on the course homepage - if so they sometimes where badly named, which required additional time for finding the documents needed.» (Rather badly)
- As I mentioned before, would have really appreciated handed out material to be posted on studieportalen.» (Rather well)
- Tomas Faxheden did a great job with the student portal. Its a bit weird that project 1 isn"t handed out 4 weeks after its hand-in, but the administration worked good otherwise.» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		1		4%
Rather poor»		3		14%
Rather good»		9		42%
Very good»		7		33%
I did not seek help»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 3.19

- When asking questions different answers were obtained if any.» (Very poor)
- Many answers were very cryptic and hard to understand, and when we asked further no answers were provided.» (Rather poor)
- The general fuzzyness of the tasks, espesially the first project (Nietorp) where no Idea provider were evident, made for a bad initial atmosphere. No consideration was taken to the twenty-or-so non-GIBBS students who had poor chemistry understanding. If a project is based on chemistry, which half the class understands and the other half don"t, explanations is needed. Questions regarding technical details (mainly directed at Bo) was not answered at all, or in a rushed way, was my experience. During the other two projects the idea providers were there for technical questions, so we did not even try to ask the teachers based on experience from the first.» (Rather poor)
- Got help when I needed.» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		2		9%
Rather well»		5		23%
Very well»		14		66%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.57

- It seems to me a bit unfair to put together the MEI-students with all the exchange students. The general level of the exchange students is far below that of the other groups. This is an unfortunate fact, but something the teachers by now should be aware of. In all our projects the swedish MEI students had to do put down a lot of additional time, as many of the exchange student lacks ability to write in english, and someone else have to rewrite their pieces. In addition grades usually cannot be translated to their home country, so they can only get a pass, which is reflected in the workload they put into it. I personally want higher grades, and have to put in extra effort due to them slacking. » (Rather poorly)
- The work, once together, has worked very well. But since I was in a group with others who were taking other courses it was extremely hard to find time to work together. This also meant that some had to spend more time working that others.» (Rather well)

11. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		5		23%
High»		14		66%
Too high»		2		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.85

- I think it has been a high workload and that is ok as long as it feels that you get credits for it. It has not felt like that during this course.» (High)
- Somewhat high due to having to redo others work, see Q 10, but would otherwise have been good.» (High)
- Spending around 50h with each case is pretty much. » (Too high)
- With this many cases the workload has to be more evenly distributed, as many student are taking several courses. The ideas should have been presented earlier avoiding 1.5 weeks of nothing to do in the middle. » (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		4%
Adequate»		3		14%
High»		11		52%
Too high»		6		28%

Genomsnitt: 4.04

- Barely had time with my other course.» (High)
- I will never answer too high, but we had alot to do yes. » (High)
- The school project takes a lot of time and effort» (High)
- It has been very hard to keep up with my other course since this courses has taken all time.» (Too high)
- We had three subjects at the same time with a total of 9 cases during the period in addition to two exams.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		3		14%
Fair»		2		9%
Adequate»		6		28%
Good»		10		47%
Excellent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.09

- No clear connection between literature, cases and lectures. The information about grading etc. was inadequate. » (Poor)
- Poorly executed in general, I"d say. The goal of the course was expressed in different ways by nigh every teacher, which to me indicated extremely bad communication between teachers. In addition there was an unfair segregration between MEI and business school/gibbs students, where MEI students got paired up with the (unfortuantely) generally low performance exchange students, in addition to many subjects discussed being chosen to suit the GIBBS background.» (Poor)
- Very inteesting subject and very fun working with the case but it can improve much regrading structure, teaching etcetera.» (Adequate)
- The course should be more organized» (Adequate)
- Better organization and lectures please» (Good)
- the project work was very good» (Good)
- Very relevant, apart from some classes and the examination trough a written exam. One of the better take away thus far. » (Good)
- The topic the course intended to cover is very interesting, the way it was executed (e.g. order of the topics covered in the lectures- see remark question 14, organisation of the material- see remark question 8, the structure within the lectures/seminars itself- see remark question 16) should be improved.» (Good)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

16. Additional comments