ENKÄTER
 

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.

PhD course: Theory for Research in Design, Architecture and Planning

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-05-20 - 2009-06-20
Antal svar: 5
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 33%
Kontaktperson: Jaan-Henrik Kain»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers
Klass: Övriga

Goals and fullfilment of goals

1. Learning outcome

This PhD course is part one of a longer course aiming to provide an introduction to research in design, architecture and planning from three different perspectives. Part one has focused on theories. How did the course succeed in providing an introduction to theory?

5 svarande

Very insufficiently»0 0%
Insufficiently»0 0%
Sufficiently»4 80%
Excellently»1 20%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.2 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- So much in such a short time. It took me a wek after the course to figure out what we"d heard and it made me feel I"d missed something essential. » (Sufficiently)
- For me it has been very well timed, since I started my Ph D project this year.» (Excellently)

2. Are the goals reasonable in relation to the scope and amount of credits?

5 svarande

Too small scope in relation to credits»0 0%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»4 80%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»1 20%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.2 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Reasonable with 3 for a week"s schedule. Too much to fit in a week. Give the lecturers 1,5 hours where 30 mins is for discussion and lengthen by a day. » (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.7

Education and course administration

3. What support have you got for your learning from course literature and other material?

5 svarande

Very little»0 0%
Rather little»1 20%
Rather big»3 60%
Very big»1 20%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- the literature list was huge! And material provided by other participants helped too. » (Very big)

4. How did the organisation, memoranda, direct information etc. function?

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather well»3 60%
Very well»2 40%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.4 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.2

Lectures

5. What is your assessment of the lecture:

Theory of Science/Sociology of Science: Morten Sager

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
God»3 60%
Excellent»2 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.4 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- "God" sounds like Very high praise - I click "God" but I mean Good. » (Excellent)

6. What is your assessment of the lecture:

Planning Theory: Jaan-Henrik Kain

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
God»5 100%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

7. What is your assessment of the lecture:

Gender and Post-colonialism: Mikela Lundahl

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
God»4 80%
Excellent»1 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.2 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- A little messy structurally. The only lecture that day I had to reassemble my notes from to understand it all... » (God)

8. What is your assessment of the lecture:

Political Science: Victor Lapuente

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
God»4 80%
Excellent»1 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.2 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Good to have an introduction to this subject, since we work in a partly political field!» (Excellent)

9. What is your assessment of the lecture:

Sociology: Per Månson

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»1 20%
God»2 40%
Excellent»2 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.2 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

10. What is your assessment of the lecture:

Urban Theory: Guy Baeten

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
God»3 60%
Excellent»2 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.4 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

11. What is your assessment of the lecture:

Organizational Theory: Alexander Styhre

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
God»5 100%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

12. What is your assessment of the lecture:

Consumer Theory: Lena Hansson

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»1 20%
God»4 80%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.8 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Content was very good, but it became an issue of language rather than her subject, which was unfortunate.» (Bad)

13. What is your assessment of the lecture:

Systems theory: Mats Svensson

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
God»3 60%
Excellent»2 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.4 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

14. What is your assessment of the lecture:

Spatial Experience: Monica Billger

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
God»5 100%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

15. What is your assessment of the lecture:

Historiography: Claes Caldenby

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
God»4 80%
Excellent»1 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.2 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

16. What is your assessment of the lecture:

Tectonics: Fredrik Nilsson

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
God»5 100%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

17. What is your assessment of the lecture:

Design Theory: Fredrik Nilsson

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
God»4 80%
Excellent»1 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.2 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

18. What is your opinion of:

the Micro-seminar Thursday afternoon

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»2 40%
God»1 20%
Excellent»2 40%

Genomsnitt: 3 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I would have liked some more structure to this. Questions set to discuss, topics about the paper to be written et c... But it"s good that the intention for such a seminar is there» (Bad)
- Could have been better structured!» (Bad)

19. How did the writing of the short paper and the comments you received from your peers contribute to your learning?

5 svarande

Not at all»0 0%
Not much»0 0%
Some»0 0%
Very well»5 100%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 4 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- It did me good to have to phrase this, and it did me good to have others understand it! » (Very well)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.2

Work environment

20. How has the cooperation been, between you and the other students?

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»0 0%
Very good»5 100%
I have not tried to cooperate»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 4 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Not sure what you mean by cooperate here... But it meant a lot just to get to know other PhD students within our field(s)» (Very good)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 4

Concluding questions

21. What is your overall opinion of the course?

5 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
Passed»0 0%
Good»3 60%
Very good»2 40%

Genomsnitt: 4.4 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

22. What should be preserved next time?

- the micro-seminar»
- Cross-criticism was good. Covering many different areas was also very good.»
- the common discussions were very good and useful, also the cross-critique»

23. What should be changed next time?

- Time. More time. »
- Perhaps make some sessions optional based on students needs and research area. This would also provide some time for reflection and networking. Currently, one is expected to attend all topics.»
- In stead of having a "micro-seminar", a general discussion would be better. Four days is a long time. Perhaps a concentration to three days would be better? A more structured litterature list.»

24. Other comments

Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 4.4
Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.24
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.73

Kursutvärderingssystem från