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.

Research design & methods TEK 190, TEK 190

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-05-27 - 2009-06-27
Antal svar: 11
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Daniel Ljungberg»


1. I am originally coming from*

11 svarande

Industrial engineering at Chalmers»5 45%
another programme at Chalmers»0 0%
another Swedish university»0 0%
I am an international student»4 36%
I am an exchange student»2 18%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

2. I approximately attended

11 svarande

20 % of the lectures»1 9%
40 % of the lectures»0 0%
60 % of the lectures»2 18%
80 % of the lectures»5 45%
100 % of the lectures»3 27%
I did not attend any lectures»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.81

3. How did you study for the exam?

For example, began with slides, looked for additional explanations in Bryman & Bell, and read summaries of the papers, while discussing with others.

- Read the slides. With the slides as a guide I read the most important things in the book. Finally I quickly skimmed through the articles.»
- slides and summary»
- began with slides, read Bryman & Bell, skimmed the paper and read summaries of them, discussing with others, looking at previos exams»
- Read my summaries of the Bryman and Bell book and the course articles then just check the slides for the last lecture»
- Read through the slides and if topics were not clear, the B&B book was consulted. Also read throughthe summary and not all articles»
- Slides, Bryman & Bell book, compulsory literature»
- exactly like that!»
- I must confess I did not read B&B cover to cover... I read all the articles and discussed them with a couple of fellow students to make sure we all had understood them in a similar way and tried to grasp the essence of each article. Thereafter we went through all the slides and made notes on "things" seemed to be especially important and "things" that each person felt he/she needed to read more about. When we had filled in our blanks, we studied the reports written by fellow students on the different research methods. Finally, I went over the notes from the slides one more time and dicsussed previous exams with fellow students.»
- Not much initially but later on i have read the book, which is quite good. But some articles I feel are not very relevant.»
- Read Bryman & Bell, then looked at slides, and articles»

4. How did you work in the project groups?

- The project work was fine. Although it was a lot. In each group work we firstly read the theory and after that we divided teh work.»
- division of labour :) but with some meetings together»
- Normally we have a kick off meeting where we divide the project in 3 main parts to start then on the second meeting each one bring his part done andwe merge all parts together read all the document together and add the missing parts together»
- The owrk was efficient. Nice and with humor. All group work were handed in on time as well as that everyone could make time for it.»
- Discussions with team members, literature reviews and »
- was active, tried to do the work early»
- All group members worked with all projects. »
- Wonderful»
- Hard!»

Questions on the course

5. How important was the topic of the course?*

11 svarande

Irrelevant»0 0%
Not important»1 9%
Maybe useful»0 0%
Useful»4 36%
Very important»6 54%

Genomsnitt: 4.36 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

6. How much did you learn from the course?*

11 svarande

Nothing at all»0 0%
A little»1 9%
Medium amount»2 18%
Much»7 63%
Very much»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.72 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

7. How demanding was the course?*

11 svarande

Not at all demanding»0 0%
Slightly demanding»0 0%
Quite demanding»1 9%
Demanding»6 54%
Very demanding»4 36%

Genomsnitt: 4.27 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

8. How interesting do you think the topic of the course was?*

11 svarande

Not at all»1 9%
Slightly interesting»2 18%
Quite interesting»6 54%
Interesting»1 9%
Fascinating»1 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.9 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

9. Was the course better or worse than you expected?

- It was better than expected.»
- worse»
- Better actually»
- Better»
- I had to adjust my opinion as in the end it turned ou te be more useful and interesting than I thought. I especially like the guest lectures, nice variation on hte Magnus lectures»
- The course is very important for us but somehow I "realized" it rather late, sad to say. Overall, it"s a good course. But more practical examples should be given to students to further understand the topic. For example, we heard a lot of critiques about questionnaire but we did not know how a "really good" questionnaire looks like. The Sahglenska hospital example was the only one about different research design approaches. More practical examples should be cited to help us understand better.»
- Better»
- I learnt more than I had expected to do, but the workload was more intense than I had expected. »
- Better»
- Better in terms of the content, however, the lectures did not help so much to understand, I hadto study and read a lot myself»

10. Comments on the lecturer

- The lecturer was good and comprehensive most of teh times.»
- »
- Fairly good in this course»
- Was good but i still believe that in the lecture should be presented better examples of a complete good research since we mainly analyze just errors on other resEarchs. Too many examples of what goes wrong in the research (black swan, Martin Wallin) not so many about how to do a good research. »
- Somethimes not always easy to follow, or structure was not that clear. However questions asked were aswered clearly»
- Excellent and helpful lecturer. »
- To be honest, hardly any students are especially excited about a methods course, but I feel that Magnus made the best he could out of the situation. »
- I liked the way the lecturer was interested in looking after how students are performing and their views. But in terms of lectures there are some rooms for improvements.»

11. Comments on the lecture slides

- Slides were too full. Often duplicates.»
- »
- Un-structured (use the slides you intend to talk about and skip the rest), as it is now, there are some packages of 90 slides where we talked about approx 30»
- They present a lot of information but some of them were not presented at class»
- Structure can be improved as well that in the first three lectures basically the same slides are presentes»
- Should be more structured and avoid repetitive slides. »
- The slides worked good as a preparation for the exams, but they are too long!»
- Lots and lots of text which makes them very, very when repeating previous lectures but they are not ideal when sitting in class. Therefore, during lectures, I try not to look at the slides since I tend to stop listening when I read them. »
- It is good but not the best. Some mistakes in slides.»

12. Comments on the guest lecturers

Jan Bröchner, Jonas Larsson, Jennie Björk, Martin Wallin

- Jan was not so comprehensive. Jennie"s lecture was interesting and well understood. Martin Wallin"s lecture was really good.»
- »
- Jan Bröchner + Jennie Björk =felt a bit out of the normal course and not very well integrated Did not attend Larsson... Wallin"s wasnt very interesting, why should i care?»
- Jan was an interesting lecture about how to analyze data. Jonas i think that need to explain more concrete examples but probably is tough to base in just one case., but the lecture as it is presented is too abstract and general concepts difficult to translate to a reality case. Jennie is an important method but she already presented for the MEI student in R&D course Martin, i think this lecture provides more questions than real answers. You really need one month to find out that innocentive is a main organization in open innovation?? You really want to present the results of a study that by structural equation modelling coefficients the research model is not valid, before the model is reformulated?? »
- Martin Wallin I found to be the most interesting, Jennie Bjork as well bu the SPSS lecture I found difficult to place as this was not really part of the course»
- Jan Bröchner is a catastrophe!»
- I only attended Jonas Larsson"s lecture and althought the lecture in itself was interesting I did not feel that it added that much relevant material regarding research methods in general. »
- Jan Brochner - Still quite not sure what was the purpose of his lecture, numerical data analysis... hmmm? Jonas Larsson - Good lecture but a little bit boring Jennie Bjork - Interesting topic and ok lecture Martin Wallin - Good lecture»

13. Comments on the course book?

- Too much too read.»
- »
- Good and clear, good layout with lots of details.. Good homepage with quizes.»
- It is a very complete book but sometimes it does not follow a good structure sometimes it shows the advantage and disadvantages of the methods and sometimes not. You have to read it in a sequential first the first chapters since it tend to refer to examples of these chapters.»
- Heavy»
- The book is more for academic purpose. A more practical book with more examples will be more favorable.»
- Very boring and hard to understand»
- It would have been possible to present the same information in a much thinner book. The layout of the pages is messy, all the different colourful boxes with examples and lord knows what cuts up the text into little bits and pieces. However, most of the contents are easy to understand.»
- I loved it»
- Good. Everyone has to read it!»

14. How was group work 1, in terms of learning and demand?

- Not so much work good introduction to the course»
- »
- Good first insight... Unneccesary to make it as a group work, could have taken an hour from a class to do the same thing.»
- I really like it was a good assignement to understand the challenges of making a good semi structured questionaire.»
- I think everyone did not take it that serious»
- Some of the questions we asked were not related to the research questions. I learned how to form good research questions through semi-structured interview. Good exercise I think.»
- Not demanding, but I learnt alot about the difficulty/importance of matching interview questions with research questions. »
- Easy one to begin with»
- easy»

15. How was group work 2, in terms of learning and demand?

- Too much work for what it was although good for opposing a master thesis later on.»
- very good»
- Did not learn very much for the amount of time that needed to be spent on reading the report (which was not very good). Unfair amount of work from the different groups.»
- It is important to learn what results can be considered as valids and which ones not. And also polish presentation skills.»
- Nice to gain feedback on»
- I learned how to criticize the validity of an report even though the report came from an famous institution. Magnus did a good job in giving me some comments and recommendations about my presentation. »
- I learnt some, fairly demanding. Difficult to figure out on what level the feedback/critique should be on. »
- Good one, I liked the presentation part more.»
- time consuming »

16. How was group work 3, in terms of learning and demand?

- Very fun and interesting.»
- »
- Very good and interesting setting! Useful for future»
- It is good to try the KJ Shiba but as stated the learning is incomplete since we really need to practice more this method to really get it.»
- It was a good exercise even though it"s rather difficult to master the skills of KJ Shiba method. More practice will be needed. »
- Not that demanding, apart from the hours spent in the actual workshop. THere was a considerable amount of frustration during the workshops but all in all it was a good experience. »
- Very important one»
- fun»

17. How was group project 4, in terms of learning and demand?

- Pretty demanding but helpful»
- »
- Good practice for thesis etc... It"s hard to write good questionnaires.»
- Good to conduct a research but i believe that the instructionsof this assignment as which parts ar the most importants for the grading (as pretest)should be included in the assignment description from the beggining. Also i think that in the course lectures and slides should be a better explanation of how to show that you have pretested your questionaire.»
- We scored poorly due to the pre-test. Magnus did mention we have to pre-test it but we did not know to what extent we should be more explicitly describing the testing processes. »
- Very demanding and time-consuming.In order to maximize the learning in this project, it would have been good to have structured supervision on it. Did not learn that much, learnt much more in project 6. »
- Good one»
- it was fun to do the interviews, we learnt a lot. It was quite demanding though»

18. How was group project 5, in terms of learning and demand?

- Not so demanding but adequate in order to learn the method»
- very good»
- Good insight into a new research method that may come in useful at times!»
- The learnings outcomes were really good learning to research a subjct and then present it.I think the assignment description was not so good what increase heavily the demand since first you loose a lot of time trying to understand what you really need to include in the report. »
- Our topic was metadata, tags, and folksonomy. It was an interesting topic to research and to know.»
- It was no comments on the presentations!»
- I learnt a lot about "our" method and I feel that I learnt "enough" about the other methods. Pity though that not all methods were represented at all seminars. It was a quite demanding task, we spent alot of time on it.»
- Good one, had to work hard to complete.»
- Very demanding»

19. How was group project 6, in terms of learning and demand?

- Too demanding for having it in the end.»
- »
- Also quite interesting, but did not bring much extra learning (just something that needs to be done without contributing to my learning)»
- Important learning outcomes to made a research the demand is reall high since as seen in the course there is too many validity and reliability criterions hat you have to look for. But i think was good to change the deadline since that permit us that after studying for the exam to better understand these criterions.»
- The best, but also the most demanding and difficult, representative for the course»
- In order to maximize the learning in this project, it would have been good to have structured supervision on it. This project is one of those projects that no matter how much time you put in, you never feel that you have put in enough time. »
- Good one and quite demanding»
- It was good and useful from both perspectives»

20. Comments on the exam (difficult? demanding?)

- Pretty difficult. I think it was out of the scope of this course at some points (Question B)»
- very difficult»
- Too little time... Quiz questions unclear»
- The optional part the main difficulty was to understand some of the statements since they tend to depend too much in the subject than in the research method.Question B and C were too demanding since in both it seems you have to present all the points for a research method data collection and data analysis. Question A was difficult since we barely talk about Karl Paper"s view of scientific evolution in the course.»
- Difficult, because of the MC not really an idea of the points collected.. Really open questions... Is the answer therefore right or completely wrong»
- The objective questions were really "tricky" and the Karl Kopper"s question was simply too difficult.»
- The exam was very difficult and demanding! On the last 2 questions you could have written 20 pages on each. It never stopped! The questions was put in a way that you could just write and write.... It was impossible to know when it was answered properly. Furthermore, on the 6 projects we never had to use our imagination, we was just given a topic, do this with this research design, this method and so on. Then on the exam we were all of a sudden supposed to do everything ourself which is impossible to do in 4 hours. It should definitely be the other way around....»
- The exam was very difficult. The true/false questions were on a reasonable level, but there was nowhere enough time for the rest of the exam. Karl Popper?? Of all the definitions and notions in this course, the one included on the exam is not even presented in the literature, only in two lecture slides. That is just ridiculous. Given the vast number of students that asked the examiner about Popper during the exam, I"m guessing that I"m not the only one not to memorize him and his opinions. As for the bling-question, I just sat and stared at it for at least 20 minutes, without figuring out what to make of it. In comparison to the UN or HM question on the old exam, this one was much, much more difficult. Personally, I find it hard to believe that I will ever be expected to present a complete research design under such conditions with no more than an hour or so of time to think. Furthermore, I felt that some subquestions had nothing to do with what I was expected to learn in this course. For instance, I was expected to convince these managers and politicians why they should care.... In order to know why they should care I would have needed information that was not available in the assignment, such as why anyone should care. If I was expected to figure this out myself, I would have expected significant experience in makro and mikroeconomics to be a prerequisite for passing this methods course. The power-point presentation question was better but so time consuming that there was not enough time to fininsh the exam. Also, having the PPT-presentation thing in it was very unexpected, it was unnerving to not just worry about the content of the answer but also on how it was presented. All in all, apart from the true/false questions, I was terribly disappointed in the exam since I felt the largest question did not measure my ability to outline a resonable research design as much as my insight in makro/micro economics. During my years at Chalmers, I have harldy never felt that I did not get a grade that represented what I had learnt in the course in question. However, as for this course I am fairly convinced that I have learnt much, much more than my greade will show.»
- I personally feel there should be only multiple choice questions in the exam and not he subjective ones.»
- Very difficult. Multiple choice questions part was very confusing, many options seemed to be contradicting and both correct at the same time. The case solving was difficult. Expectations of the results were not clear enough»

21. How was the "study environment" of the course, in terms of teacher interaction, student portal etc?

- The interaction was very good. Although the study portal was often down it worked pretty well.»
- »
- Good»
- The student portal could be better since a lot of times you could not enter. The teahcer answer quickly to any email you sent to him. »
- Student portal when worked was ok. teachers always available»
- Good, quite easy to get in contact with Daniel or Magnus»
- Supervivision on the larger project works would have been beneficial.»
- Good»
- Pretty good»

22. How was the administration of the course?

- The administration was very good.»
- »
- Did not see much of it..»
- Sometimes we have too many changes or clarifications in the lecture contents. Better to have his clarifications sooner.»
- Well, would be nice to have the grades for the groupworks in a handout document in the portal. Will provide you with an insight how many points you have so far.»
- Daniel and Magnus did not always give the same answer on what was supposed to be done in a project, you need to be synchronized better.»
- No complaints.»
- Nothing special»
- Good»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.81

Other comments

23. Additional comments or suggestions

- I think that project 4 and 6 could be integrated to one big project. Furthermore I believe that such a course should be divided into two entities. One completely theoretical with exams etc. And the other part would be just one big project where we would have also to see statistical analysis and tools like the spss.»
- »
- Less groupworks!! (or skip the exam) Way too much work for 7,5 hp!!»
- The projects should be more important. The exam should be small, maybe only with the multiple choice questions. No projects that doesnt give any points. The projects should be more open like the exam was and wise versa. »
- In order for the exam to actually reflect what the student has learnt, either make the exam smaller or turn it into a take-home exam.»
- There should be emphasis on the numerical analysis part more.»

Thank you for your time.


Magnus Holmén

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.81
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.7

* obligatoriska frågor

Kursutvärderingssystem från