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.
Environmental management VMI035 MPECO V09, VMI035, VMI035
Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-06-03 - 2009-06-30
Antal svar: 37
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 44%
Kontaktperson: Kathrine Jahnberg»
Course Evaluation, Environmental ManagementPut a cross in the box that you consider the most appropriate with your perception of the statement. Read carefully! Give a spontaneous reaction, do not think too long! Thank you!1. The teachers motivated me to do my very best during the course and made an effort to make the subject interesting.37 svarandeTotalt:
| Agree-fully» | | 7 | |  18% |
| Agree-partely» | | 17 | | 45% |
| Neither or» | | 9 | | 24% |
| Agree-hardly» | | 4 | | 10% |
| Agree-Not at all» | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.27 Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (13 st)
| Agree-fully | | 3 | | 23% |
| Agree-partely | | 6 | | 46% |
| Neither or | | 3 | | 23% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 7% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.15 DCPM: (2 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-partely | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.5 Erasmus: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-partely | | 2 | | 40% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.4 SMIL: (1 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partely | | 1 | | 100% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2 MEI: (6 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partely | | 3 | | 50% |
| Neither or | | 2 | | 33% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 16% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.66 MPSES: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partely | | 3 | | 60% |
| Neither or | | 2 | | 40% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.4 MPSYS, EMA, Geo, IPM and others: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 40% |
| Agree-partely | | 2 | | 40% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.8 2. I thought that it was an interesting course and I was inspired.*37 svarandeTotalt:
| Agree-fully» | | 13 | | 35% |
| Agree-partly» | | 11 | | 29% |
| Neither or» | | 3 | | 8% |
| Agree-hardly» | | 6 | | 16% |
| Agree-Not at all» | | 4 | | 10% |
Genomsnitt: 2.37 Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (13 st)
| Agree-fully | | 5 | | 38% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 15% |
| Neither or | | 2 | | 15% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 7% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 3 | | 23% |
Genomsnitt: 2.61 DCPM: (2 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-partly | | 1 | | 50% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.5 Erasmus: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 3 | | 60% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2 SMIL: (1 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 100% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1 MEI: (6 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 16% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 33% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 2 | | 33% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 16% |
Genomsnitt: 3 MPSES: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 40% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 2 | | 40% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.6 MPSYS, EMA, Geo, IPM and others: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-partly | | 4 | | 80% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.8 3. I was helped by the course goals in studying the subject*37 svarandeTotalt:
| Agree-fully» | | 5 | | 13% |
| Agree-partly» | | 15 | | 40% |
| Neither or» | | 11 | | 29% |
| Agree-hardly» | | 2 | | 5% |
| Agree-Not at all» | | 4 | | 10% |
Genomsnitt: 2.59 Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (13 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 7% |
| Agree-partly | | 4 | | 30% |
| Neither or | | 5 | | 38% |
| Agree-hardly | | 2 | | 15% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 7% |
Genomsnitt: 2.84 DCPM: (2 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2 Erasmus: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 3 | | 60% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 20% |
Genomsnitt: 2.8 SMIL: (1 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 1 | | 100% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2 MEI: (6 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 33% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 3 | | 50% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 16% |
Genomsnitt: 2.66 MPSES: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 40% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 20% |
Genomsnitt: 2.6 MPSYS, EMA, Geo, IPM and others: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 5 | | 100% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2 4. In the examination I was expected to show if I could generalise my knowledge and apply my knowledge in new situations.*37 svarandeTotalt:
| Agree-fully» | | 7 | | 18% |
| Agree-partly» | | 22 | | 59% |
| Neither or» | | 8 | | 21% |
| Agree-hardly» | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all» | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.02 Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (13 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 15% |
| Agree-partly | | 7 | | 53% |
| Neither or | | 4 | | 30% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.15 DCPM: (2 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 1 | | 50% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.5 Erasmus: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 4 | | 80% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.2 SMIL: (1 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 100% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1 MEI: (6 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 33% |
| Agree-partly | | 4 | | 66% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.66 MPSES: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 40% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 40% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.8 MPSYS, EMA, Geo, IPM and others: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 4 | | 80% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.2 5. I had enough time to learn the subject.*37 svarandeTotalt:
| Agree-fully» | | 15 | | 40% |
| Agree-partly» | | 13 | | 35% |
| Neither or» | | 4 | | 10% |
| Agree-hardly» | | 5 | | 13% |
| Agree-Not at all» | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.97 Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (14 st)
| Agree-fully | | 6 | | 42% |
| Agree-partly | | 6 | | 42% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 7% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 7% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.78 DCPM: (2 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.5 Erasmus: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 4 | | 80% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.2 SMIL: (1 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 100% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1 MEI: (6 st)
| Agree-fully | | 4 | | 66% |
| Agree-partly | | 1 | | 16% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 16% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.66 MPSES: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 40% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 40% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2 MPSYS, EMA, Geo, IPM and others: (4 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 25% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 2 | | 50% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 25% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.75 6. The course strengthened my ability to reason with others in a credible and analytical way.*37 svarandeTotalt:
| Agree-fully» | | 10 | | 27% |
| Agree-partly» | | 16 | | 43% |
| Neither or» | | 3 | | 8% |
| Agree-hardly» | | 6 | | 16% |
| Agree-Not at all» | | 2 | | 5% |
Genomsnitt: 2.29 Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (13 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 15% |
| Agree-partly | | 6 | | 46% |
| Neither or | | 2 | | 15% |
| Agree-hardly | | 2 | | 15% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 7% |
Genomsnitt: 2.53 DCPM: (2 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-partly | | 1 | | 50% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.5 Erasmus: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 40% |
| Agree-partly | | 1 | | 20% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 2 | | 40% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.4 SMIL: (1 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 100% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1 MEI: (6 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 16% |
| Agree-partly | | 3 | | 50% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 16% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 16% |
Genomsnitt: 2.5 MPSES: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-partly | | 3 | | 60% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.2 MPSYS, EMA, Geo, IPM and others: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 40% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 40% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2 7. The teachers gave useful comments on my work during the course.*37 svarandeTotalt:
| Agree-fully» | | 6 | | 16% |
| Agree-partly» | | 16 | | 43% |
| Neither or» | | 6 | | 16% |
| Agree-hardly» | | 7 | | 18% |
| Agree-Not at all» | | 2 | | 5% |
Genomsnitt: 2.54 Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (14 st)
| Agree-fully | | 3 | | 21% |
| Agree-partly | | 3 | | 21% |
| Neither or | | 3 | | 21% |
| Agree-hardly | | 5 | | 35% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.71 DCPM: (2 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-partly | | 1 | | 50% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.5 Erasmus: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 40% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 2 | | 40% |
Genomsnitt: 3.4 SMIL: (1 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 1 | | 100% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2 MEI: (6 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 33% |
| Agree-partly | | 1 | | 16% |
| Neither or | | 2 | | 33% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 16% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.33 MPSES: (4 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 3 | | 75% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 25% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.5 MPSYS, EMA, Geo, IPM and others: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 5 | | 100% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2 8. The course developed my analytical skills.*37 svarandeTotalt:
| Agree-fully» | | 10 | | 27% |
| Agree-partly» | | 15 | | 40% |
| Neither or» | | 4 | | 10% |
| Agree-hardly» | | 7 | | 18% |
| Agree-Not at all» | | 1 | | 2% |
Genomsnitt: 2.29 Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (14 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 7% |
| Agree-partly | | 8 | | 57% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 7% |
| Agree-hardly | | 3 | | 21% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 7% |
Genomsnitt: 2.64 DCPM: (2 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2 Erasmus: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 3 | | 60% |
| Agree-partly | | 1 | | 20% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.8 SMIL: (1 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 100% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1 MEI: (6 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 33% |
| Neither or | | 2 | | 33% |
| Agree-hardly | | 2 | | 33% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 3 MPSES: (4 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 50% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 50% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.5 MPSYS, EMA, Geo, IPM and others: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 40% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 40% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2 9. The teachers encouraged us to use and try our own ideas.*37 svarandeTotalt:
| Agree-fully» | | 9 | | 24% |
| Agree-partly» | | 14 | | 37% |
| Neither or» | | 8 | | 21% |
| Agree-hardly» | | 4 | | 10% |
| Agree-Not at all» | | 2 | | 5% |
Genomsnitt: 2.35 Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (14 st)
| Agree-fully | | 3 | | 21% |
| Agree-partly | | 4 | | 28% |
| Neither or | | 4 | | 28% |
| Agree-hardly | | 2 | | 14% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 7% |
Genomsnitt: 2.57 DCPM: (2 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.5 Erasmus: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 40% |
| Agree-partly | | 1 | | 20% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 20% |
Genomsnitt: 2.4 SMIL: (1 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 100% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1 MEI: (6 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 16% |
| Agree-partly | | 3 | | 50% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 16% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 16% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.33 MPSES: (4 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 50% |
| Neither or | | 2 | | 50% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.5 MPSYS, EMA, Geo, IPM and others: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-partly | | 4 | | 80% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.8 10. The examination made me understand the subject in a deeper way.*37 svarandeTotalt:
| Agree-fully» | | 6 | | 16% |
| Agree-partly» | | 14 | | 37% |
| Neither or» | | 6 | | 16% |
| Agree-hardly» | | 7 | | 18% |
| Agree-Not at all» | | 4 | | 10% |
Genomsnitt: 2.7 Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (14 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 14% |
| Agree-partly | | 3 | | 21% |
| Neither or | | 3 | | 21% |
| Agree-hardly | | 4 | | 28% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 2 | | 14% |
Genomsnitt: 3.07 DCPM: (2 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.5 Erasmus: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 1 | | 20% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 2 | | 40% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 20% |
Genomsnitt: 3.6 SMIL: (1 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 100% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1 MEI: (6 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 16% |
| Agree-partly | | 4 | | 66% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 16% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2 MPSES: (4 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 50% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 25% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 25% |
Genomsnitt: 3 MPSYS, EMA, Geo, IPM and others: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-partly | | 4 | | 80% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1.8 11. The workload during the course was too heavy and we didn’,,t have enough time to really understand the subject.*37 svarandeTotalt:
| Agree-fully» | | 3 | | 8% |
| Agree-partly» | | 9 | | 24% |
| Neither or» | | 9 | | 24% |
| Agree-hardly» | | 11 | | 29% |
| Agree-Not at all» | | 5 | | 13% |
Genomsnitt: 3.16 Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (14 st)
| Agree-fully | | 2 | | 14% |
| Agree-partly | | 3 | | 21% |
| Neither or | | 5 | | 35% |
| Agree-hardly | | 2 | | 14% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 2 | | 14% |
Genomsnitt: 2.92 DCPM: (2 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 100% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2 Erasmus: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 40% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 2 | | 40% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 3 SMIL: (1 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 100% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 4 MEI: (6 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 16% |
| Agree-hardly | | 4 | | 66% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 16% |
Genomsnitt: 4 MPSES: (4 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 25% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 25% |
| Agree-hardly | | 2 | | 50% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 3 MPSYS, EMA, Geo, IPM and others: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 2 | | 40% |
| Neither or | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 2 | | 40% |
Genomsnitt: 3.4 12. The teachers were good at explaining issues connected to the subject.*37 svarandeTotalt:
| Agree-fully» | | 5 | | 13% |
| Agree-partly» | | 16 | | 43% |
| Neither or» | | 8 | | 21% |
| Agree-hardly» | | 3 | | 8% |
| Agree-Not at all» | | 5 | | 13% |
Genomsnitt: 2.64 Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (14 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 7% |
| Agree-partly | | 6 | | 42% |
| Neither or | | 3 | | 21% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 7% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 3 | | 21% |
Genomsnitt: 2.92 DCPM: (2 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 50% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 50% |
Genomsnitt: 3 Erasmus: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-partly | | 3 | | 60% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 1 | | 20% |
Genomsnitt: 2.4 SMIL: (1 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 100% |
| Agree-partly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 1 MEI: (6 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 3 | | 50% |
| Neither or | | 3 | | 50% |
| Agree-hardly | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.5 MPSES: (4 st)
| Agree-fully | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-partly | | 1 | | 25% |
| Neither or | | 2 | | 50% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 25% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 3 MPSYS, EMA, Geo, IPM and others: (5 st)
| Agree-fully | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-partly | | 3 | | 60% |
| Neither or | | 0 | | 0% |
| Agree-hardly | | 1 | | 20% |
| Agree-Not at all | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.2
FinallyUse the space to share your views! 13. My expectations on this course were to …,.*Totalt:Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (0 st)
- high. I think that the course should have gone deeper into the strategies of companies instead of playing around with stakeholders and fishing games.»
- My expectations on the course were low to start with, since all old students in IE have informed us that the course was bad. These expectations were met, since I think the course was poorly structured with lectures that were extremely bad.»
- get an deeper knowledge about EMS and be able to analyse companies performance»
- learn how to implement sustainable methods and thinking into an industry for example. »
- I had no specific expectations on what to learn, however now after the course I am fully satisfied with it!!!»
- gain insight into how environmental work is performed in the "real" world.»
- learn about corporations»
- Jag trodde jag skulle få verktyg att kunnna jobba med detta i ett företag men tycker bara att man fick ett utomstående perspektiv igen. »
- gain knowledge on the management of environmental issues.»
- learn more about how to work with the environment.»
- unknown»
- do some more practical projects than theoretical knowledge»
- It will be very intersting and usefull to inhance my skills.»
- Learn how to manage environmental systems. »
DCPM: (0 st)
- learn more in the subject and to get a different perspective on the other subject that I study.»
- more than I expected, now im sure how to use environmental and economic issues as a part of the business strategy. »
Erasmus: (0 st)
- understand the companies" views and actions in SD and environment more specifially»
- understand how companies manage environmental issues and can they profit from green business thinking.»
- learn on environmental management in companies not from a theoretical approach more concrete example. »
- Learn about the environment in an unbiased way»
- To learn about env. man.»
SMIL: (0 st)
- achieve a deeper understanding of environmental management issues»
V: (0 st)
- Have a better understanding of the industrial perspective regarding environmental control, use and impacts.»
E, M, K, I: (0 st)
- learn more about env. man. »
- how we can manage environmental "part" of a company»
- pass in order to get environmental points so that I can graduate»
- .»
- to know how the industry/company hanlde the environmental problems.»
- Understand more about environmental work in companies.»
- Few»
- Get an overall view of the subject, put in context as compared to the bits and pieces presented during undergraduate years.»
MPSES, EMA, Geo: (0 st)
- -learn about the influence of enviro mgmt in an organization.
-to develop understanding of writing qualitative academic reports
-learn of the different tools used within environmental management
-empirical data of the effectiveness and influence of enviro mgmt systems
-develop ability to critically review academic articles »
- Get a good intruduction to environmental management. Learn more about how environmental issues are handled in practice. Learn some managament ideas. »
- understand how companies work with environmental questions. I thought that I would learn some tools or strategics, but it was hard to separate the different issues that were discussed. »
- learn more about environmental management, and management in the whole»
- neither»
- get deeper knowledge about how to manage environment in production»
14. The most important I have learned during the course were…,*Totalt:Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (0 st)
- -»
- Nothing»
- the different motives companies have to do environmental work and how to be more critical on their reports and promotion.»
- .»
- General knowledge of environmental management systems. A bit of how they work, what they achieve etc»
- Don"t know»
- dont know»
- RDAP»
- the complicated matter of environmental problems facing companies large and small.»
- How companies look at environmental work. However, I found it bit discouraging to hear people say that environmental managers do not have any power in companies and are not part of that many decisions.»
- reasons for comapies NOT to be enviro friendly, very interessting»
- wide my eyesight, some very new concepts, ways of thinking ....»
- importance of invironmental issues and stackholders in business and ways of dealing.»
- Critical review of Envi.al reports and what envi.al management is. The pros and cons with EMSs»
DCPM: (0 st)
- to analyze environmental texts.»
- The role of the environment when business are made. »
Erasmus: (0 st)
- read articles which are not technical»
- that there are no clear and unambiguous ways to combine business and environment. »
- green marketing»
- environmental behaviour»
- Learned how many factors are affecting the environmental work in a company»
SMIL: (0 st)
- the connection between globalization and environmental challenges»
V: (0 st)
- I learned what I expected plus the assessment of real reasons behind the industry actions towards environmental issues.»
E, M, K, I: (0 st)
- there are many different ways to work with EM and the importance of using EM in the right way.»
- greenwashing»
- stakeholder analysis perhaps?»
- .»
- to analysis companies" stategies with the env. mgt. thinking.»
- That there are several rationales for working with environmental issues and you always have to relate it to business terms to get them thorugh.»
- How ecologist think»
- To apply standard reasoning to env. questions, not making it a "stranger" issue than it is.»
MPSES, EMA, Geo: (0 st)
- -how to write an qualitative academic report and how to develop a theoretical framework to which empirical results can be compared
-concepts of environmental management
-environmental management applied in industry
-role of the corporation»
- There are seldom any clear answers. One must look at things in many different ways. »
- that there are now simpel explanations.»
- what is environmental management and how companies deal with it»
- analytic skills»
- management systems and environmental reporting and understanding of reports»
15. Particulary good were…,*Totalt:Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (0 st)
- The Kolk book»
- Nothing»
- the seminars during the course where different articles where discussed.»
- .»
- The seminars, the discussions and the MOVIES - the movies gave good insight in the reality which is very useful!»
- The discussion seminars. Useful discussions and intersting topics»
- The films!»
- .»
- Some of the papers.»
- The seminars. Good that everyone got to prepare by reading the articles. That encouraged to start study early.»
- .»
- the project---environmental report»
-
not understand this question
»
- Fishbank, seminars»
DCPM: (0 st)
- the literature, mainly the articles, but I strongly think that they should be changed to newer ones. It is not good to have articles 10-15 years old in a subject like this. Also the Kolk book was relevant. I also liked the interaction between some of my fellow students.»
- the guest lectures like SKF and Collective Denim that motivates that environment and profits can be done also the workshop gave the accurate picture of the topic and explanation. »
Erasmus: (0 st)
- to think as if I were a manager: those are my constraints, what can I do for the environment? and this is a good exercise»
- lectures and staff.»
- guest lecture on green marketing and SKF»
- the guest lectures»
- The variation of the lectures, with movies, discussions, work shops etc.»
SMIL: (0 st)
- the guest lectures»
V: (0 st)
- The lectures, and the fish banks dynamic»
E, M, K, I: (0 st)
- the seminars, but they could be better prepared with some questions that should be discussed.»
- environmental management system»
- the course book»
- .»
- the final presentation and opposition.»
- The guest lectures from DEM and SKF. And the seminars. Good that you actually apply the literature.»
- Seminars»
- The heavy focus on a project which allowed practice of the theory.»
MPSES, EMA, Geo: (0 st)
- -some of the guest lectures: DEM Collective
-the variety of articles
-films
-the text book was concise and factual...a good future reference
»
- The project was well connected to the course. The lectures were good, except some of the guest lectures. The book and the articles gave a good understanding of the subject. It was good with a mix of lectures, guest lectures, films, discussions, worksshops, etc. »
- the disussion seminars. But since there were now need to fulfil anything you didn"t learn as much as one could have.»
- the project, seminars and workshops»
- course literature»
- Environmental report»
16. Less good were…,*Totalt:Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (0 st)
- The articles...»
- The lectures by Henrikke, they were plain bad. What was extremely bad was the fact that no ppt was used, hence no information on what was said during the lectures was posted in the student portal and the lectures were conduted in such a poor way that it was impossible to get something useful out of them. A pre-made ppt would have eased the understanding of the lectures.
The exam, though extended to 5 hours, took to long time to finish. Everyone in the room sat there the whole time and all of them complained about too little time to finish the exam. Even those who had time to read all the literature before the exam had trouble sorting through the immensity of paper that had to be dug through to answer the questions since we had to relate the questions to specific texts. Furthermore, the exam did test the thing we learnt during the course of the project, hence the exam could be skipped in favor for an even larger project.»
- the workshops»
- .»
- The short and very few lessons and the too many guest lecturers. I only really enjoyed the DEM COllective guest-lecture. THe other ones I found not so interesting and gave very little additional knowledge.
I also disliked that the lessons given by Henrikke was directly connected to the book - and very little additional information was given, and the fact that she only wrote on the black board. I understand that she might enjoy it or believe that that is a better way of teaching but then she needs to start writing more extensive. In the end the note you have are inconclusive and too poor to contribute to anything. If she needs to use the blackboard - at least give out the main notes of powerpoint slides later on. Every other classes are based on powerpoints - so that is what students are used to and hence that is how we have learnt to learn...»
- To many company presentations with to little substance. These presentations didn"t offer as an in depth view as I would"ve liked.
It was really unclear how most of the lectures were related to the goals and what I was supposed to learn from them.
The project would"ve been better if it was clear from the beginning which evaluation/analysis method/model we were supposed to use.
Studying for the exam I felt that I wasn"t sure of what to study and it felt like the best strategy was just to skim the book and articles so as to be able to find stuff fast in them and then just hope for the best. This as a result of no clear skill/method being taught during the course.»
- Boring articles & textbook»
- Att det inte fanns några mål med diskussions seminarierna. Jag var placerad hos samma lärare alla gångerna och vi fick bara diskutera fritt. Kändes helt meningslöst. Det vore bättre om man hade frågot man skulle diskutera kring, gärna tentaliknande frågor. Inför projektet vore det bra om det fanns klara mål med vad man skulle få fram. Hur mycket handledning man fick verkade bero på vilken lärare man hade. »
- Wolff.»
- Some of the persons holdning the seminars wern"t that good. »
- .»
- too many theoretical articles to read»
- Same as above»
- project work and administration»
DCPM: (0 st)
- I am disappointed with the teachers and their ability to connect the different parts in the course. I also think they presented a too "environmental" perspective and left the business/management perspective too often. The worst with the course was the participation of some students in workshops and discussions, it shouldn"t be OK to be quite during those.
I have not recieved the exam yet, but it was too long and I really had to stress the answers to be able to finialize. And I do think that I had a good knowledge of the articles in advance so that is not the issue. The questions were also too wide, as example "how has globalization affected companies and governments?" or something, this is a question that could be a research topic for 50 years and still not be ansered.»
- To read the articles, but at the end were really good and useful to link with kolk"s book »
Erasmus: (0 st)
- articles required very much time, I didn"t find time to read the book»
- length of the exam.»
- all the other lectures maybe not so interesting and not clearly related to the topic of the course»
- the contents»
- The exam had too many questions. Nobody can stay totally focused for 5 h. I suggest either a shorter exam or home examination. »
SMIL: (0 st)
- the hand outs»
V: (0 st)
- The visit to the Ekocentrum»
E, M, K, I: (0 st)
- somr of the lectures. »
- self regulation»
- many lectures... too low level»
- .»
- seminar.»
- ...»
- Sometimes there is a tendency for the lecture to feel more propaganda like than science based. Especially having movies with know factual errors»
- Too short lectures and balance between guest lectures and "normal" lectures. 45 mins is rarely enough to explain a concept.»
MPSES, EMA, Geo: (0 st)
- -group work: too many people not interested in the course and not interested in pursuing learning
-it was difficult to take noted during lectures
»
- The teachers were often unstructured and were not good in handling technical problems (computers, projectors). Some of the guest lectures were boring and was more marketing about the company than information for the course. »
- the lectures. The guest lectures gave nothing important for the course. There were only a couple of people doing PR for their companies. The lectures given by teachers from the course were messy and hard to understand and it was hard to see a difference between them. »
- the lectures, except for some guest lecturers »
- the too short lectures»
- lack of effort how companies are actually managing environment in their production means application of systems »
17. To the staff planning next years the course, I would like to suggest…,.*Totalt:Fördelat på olika grupper: Industrial Ecology: (0 st)
- Don"t give such detailed description on how the report should look like! It makes it boring and you don"t have to think yourself. It is better if we are allowed to choose and develop our own structure, since that is half the learning by writing a report.»
- Redo the course from scratch. Reduce the amount or length of questions in the exam. Increase the size of the project so that you actually get to learn something from it and in that case, skip the exam. Try to find more relevant literature, some of the old articles from 1995 did not have any bearing in todays world. The book should be changed, it is not feasible to buy a book of 200 pages for 600 kr on a tight budget, find a cheaper better book, since the book wasn"t that informative either.»
- maybe it would be better to demand more from the project and not having an exam instead.»
- that the course is removed from the list of mandatory courses for students reading industrial ecology. Maybe make it alternative mandatory with some other course at least. »
- -MORE LECTURES WITH HENRIKKE / ANNA
-LECTURES BASED ON OTHER THINGS THAN JUST THE LITTERATURE
-USE MEDIAS SUCH AS POWERPOINT, WORD DOCUMENTS ETC AND NOT THE BLACKBOARD
-LESS GUEST LECTURES (OR BETTER ONES)»
- Less company presentations since they mostly felt like PR-events rather than technical information.
One additional discussion seminar.
A clearer, more coherent line of reasoning in the lectures.
Smaller group discussions on the films instead of whole class.
Clearer directions for the project.»
- Keep showing the films.»
- De invändningar som förra årets studenter hade verkar vara de samma som iår. Ta åt er av kritiken. Den är till för att göra kursen bättre. Jag läste ingenting i kompenierna under tentan och jag hade ändå mycket ont om tid. Skrev konstant i fem timmar. Halva klassen satt kvar när det var 15 minuter kvar. »
- One-page introduction on the compendium on what you expect the students to analyze in the papers.
More time to discusss the reports.»
- ?»
- The administartion of the course was terrible. Information came out late and the course syllabus did not include what could be expected.»
- a bit less guest lectures and more practical knowledge»
- invite different stackholders like Researchers and international NGEOs representaters for Lectures.»
- Improve the administration and most of the company visits were about human rights and not about pollution damage and such... I would like to have a bigger focus on companies that are bad for the environment(really bad) and perhaps compare them with a good company. I would also like to have a more realistic project work. Perhaps we should onley investigate 5-6 companies, do intervjus, compare their work on "paper" to their real work, then it would be a more efficient project work. Or take an existing company and develop a new environmental strategy and environmental management system that is an improvement of the old one. »
DCPM: (0 st)
- More lectures that connects the different guest-lectures. And maybe to think about your own lectures and how to make them easier to follow, especially Henrikkes lectures.»
- Keep in the same track. And continue with the same commitment for understand the environment and business»
Erasmus: (0 st)
- Find a way to incorporate better the book in the course, or forget about it (moreover it"s expensive!)
Keep the project, the number of people working on it was good, but please, help us more in the beginning so that we know what to work with, what to look for (we spent pretty much time looking for information on the internet)»
- not to change the course structure.»
- Be less focus on rules and more open to discussions. In addition, change the guest lectures: only keep the one on green marketing, communication in the building industry and SKF. »
- the course slides»
- I suggest either a shorter exam or home examination. »
SMIL: (0 st)
- to form the handouts in a unified way»
V: (0 st)
- Have more strict control during the final presentations, some presentations were too long and boring.»
E, M, K, I: (0 st)
- much better administration. Get it right from the beginning, it was sometimes embarrassing. »
- more solutions on how to manage environmental "part" of a company»
- get rid of the seminars, they were not useful, there were no meaningful discussion in them anyway»
- All teachers must learn to master powerpoint instead of using unclear handwriting on the board.»
- it will be better more example questions could be handed out that help to grab the gist and understand deeper about the textbook.»
- To use the time better during lectures. Not only having 45 minutes lecture, but running at least 2*45 minutes about the same theme.»
- reduce number of exam question so that it is possible to write the exam in four hours»
- Moderate the seminars more, perhaps as a large group discussion where everyone has to say something. »
MPSES, EMA, Geo: (0 st)
- that other methods be used to initiate discussion within the literature seminars...splitting into groups is good but maybe have each student prepare a discussion question for the seminar, that he/she may need to present to the entire class.»
- Prepare technical arrangements well in advance. Learn how such such stuf works. Become more structured. »
- The most important for you, is to respect the rules that Chalmers have put up. For example it is important that one gets brakes so one can get some air and rest ones head for a while.»
- organize better the lectures»
- more lectures, not only guest lectures»
- more emphasis on various solutions adopted by the companies that are a threat for the environment along with going deeper to report»
* obligatoriska frågor
Kursutvärderingssystem från 
|
