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

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-05-25 - 2010-06-10
Antal svar: 52
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 80%
Kontaktperson: Daniel Ljungberg»


1. I am originally coming from*

52 svarande

Industrial engineering at Chalmers»34 65%
another programme at Chalmers»5 9%
another Swedish university»0 0%
I am an international student»12 23%
I am an exchange student»1 1%

Genomsnitt: 1.86

2. I approximately attended

52 svarande

20 % of the lectures»12 23%
40 % of the lectures»6 11%
60 % of the lectures»6 11%
80 % of the lectures»17 32%
100 % of the lectures»5 9%
I did not attend any lectures»6 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

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 papers, studied slides and the book.»
- Began with slides, combined slides information with Bryman & Bell. Also read summaries of papers.»
- I followed the readweeks. Lecture first, then book and articles. When Ive done it once myself I discuss with others»
- began with slides, read some part of the book Bryman & Bell »
- I began with slides. Looked at Bryman & Bell as well as some of the articles. Discussed the findings in the papers with my fellow students»
- Studied slides, read summaries of articleas, read summary of the book, discussed the articles with ithers»
- Began with the book and the articles, then went on with the slides and looked at the exam that was uploaded. »
- Began with slides, looked for additional explanations in Bryman & Bell and finally read partial summaries of the papers»
- began with slides, looked for additional explanations in Bryman & Bell, and read summaries of the papers, while discussing with others»
- Begin with book, then slides, then summaries, then exams.»
- began with slides, looked for additional explanations in Bryman & Bell, discussing with others as well as old exams»
- Began with slides and summary of the book. Then summary of the articles and took a look at the projects.»
- read the book summary, then read the slides»
- Started by studying the lecture notes and notes taken from the course. This was then followed up by reading the course material related articles, and finally practicing on the example exam. Issues found during the example exam were then looked at once more.»
- Began with the slides and the papers and then tried to solve the sample exam with other students to try and find the best answer. The reasoning process for answering the questions did help with defining and then clearing misunderstandings.»
- Bryman&Bell --> Articles --> Slides Some discussion also...»
- Reading papers and summary of B&B (and in B&B for things which was unclear in the summary) and combining it with information on slides and from Lazy lecturer.»
- Exactly as stated but also utilized summaries of bryman & bell.»
- read some of the slides, read summaries of articles and book, group discussion about exam questions, made my own final summary»
- Slides, articles and book»
- I started reading the slides and in parallel looked at the summaries of the papers and the book, as they were connected with the lectures.»
- Began with slides and complemented with the book»
- First read thw whole book and all articles during the course, in the exam week I made summaries of both Bryman and Bell as well as the slides.»
- read the book, read some of the articles slides»
- Slides, summary of the book, discussions, went through old exam, read ppt of the RM presentations»
- Read the slides carefully, summaries of the articles and summary of the course book.»
- read the book and all articles then read slides and tried to get an overview.»
- Began with slides, skimmed through articles and read a summary of the book.»
- I read the slides, then the papers and later finished by reading the book»
- slides and summary»
- slides + articles»
- 1st slides, 2nd summary of bryman & bell, 3rd summary of articles»
- Began reading summary of book and artickles (had read some of the articles and chapters in book before), then dug in to slides and made a summary of them. Then looked in to tricky topics in the book or artikles. Then discussed articles and old exams with friends. Whent back to relevant cource material when doing so. »
- Reading book after lectures, some of the articles. Only the last slides from the final lecture.»
- Began with the slides, discussed the content of them and compared to the course literature»
- Slides, Main chapters in Book and final discussion with classmates.»
- Then slides in parallel with the readings for each lecture. Then discuss each lecture with a partner.»
- Read slides, discussed with others, reviewed book and articles»
- began with slides, read through the summaries of articles, looked at old exams, discussed with others, made an "snake" on my door in my room»
- Read summaries of the papers, then slides, and discussing with a partner.»
- began with slides, looked at exam example and looked for additional explenations in the course book. Later discussed old exam questions with classmates --> Good you learn a lot during these discussions»
- Made a slidesummary, read parts in book, made an article summary and read a book summary, studied for individual assignment»
- I looked at slides first and when I didn"t understand something, I looked from the book. »
- slides + articles»
- During the course I read most of the chapters of the book (about 80%). Then, one week before the exam I read the slides. Things that I couldn"t understand from slides I took a look to the book again.»
- slides, book summary and paper summary»
- Went trough the slides first and then checked the summary of the book for more detail. Also the projects from other groups.»
- Slides, old exams and a little bit of B&B»
- Slides and summaries, very little from Bryman and Bell»
- I looked at the slides and tried to understand the logic of the course, this was then used for further focus when looking in articles and a summary of Bryman and Bell.»
- Read slides, summary of papers and bryman and bell. Focused on slides and summary of bryman and bell.»

4. How did you work in the project groups?

- Worked with online tools to communicate with my team members on the other side of the world.»
- Each project we had a lot of brainstorming in the beginning (i.e. learning phase). Then we divided up different parts to write if possible.»
- 3 people from Sweden, it went good. We allocated the time in a good manner»
- I worked hard.»
- We worked together most of the time. Some tasks we divided among the group members.»
- Most of the time we worked together as a group. We did not find it necessary to divide the work for these projects.»
- well»
- Hard and with great passion»
- Very good, thank you.»
- Good (did you pretest this question?) »
- In pair, quite intesivley»
- discuss together, then devided the work»
- The work was split among the group members such that the different members got to test all aspects of the work.»
- There was a fairly even split of the work that had to be done. The main purpose was that all group members worked with all aspects of the project.»
- Hmm. Wonder what Magnus would say about this "survey"-question... We divided the work amongst us and scheduled meetings when we needed to.»
- Good»
- Hmm as I recently attended a Research method class can sense a bit of ambiguity in this questions... it could probably be interpreted in several ways. By my interpretation of this question I would say: we worked 3 people together with a "good enough" approach.»
- we met and worked together, divided tasks between us meanwhile discussing problems as they came along, »
- We made the important decisions (defining research questions, deciding how to carry out the research etc) together on the meetings and then divided the parts that each of us should write. It worked well. »
- The proces was as follows: - Discuss the projects and make sure everyone understood what to do and how to proceed - Divide the work that was possible to divide before bringing it all togehter and making sure that all was relevant.»
- All three were present in all meetings.»
- looked at relevant slides and chapters in the book and search on the net»
- we used the Bryman and Bell book, as well as complementary papers and articles.»
- We worked hard and extensivelym, the proijects took very long time to accomplish»
- We organized together and then focused on different parts of the project.»
- I worked with two people, attend to all meetings, we divide some work (interviews) and meet to discuss and write the report»
- well»
- it was okay, timely»
- Time efficient»
- Worked very intense during a few days together in school. Focus was on speed rather than quality this time as there were a lot of other things comming up outside the cource.»
- Great team, good teamwork. Finished well in time and was satisfied given the very few guidelines.»
- we did most of the work together, however some parts of the projects were written individually and then put together and gone through together and discussed.»
- Was ok and very applicable to the topic"s course.»
- Very well, we allocate every week one one or two days to work on the projects. In addition we have to fulfill individual task before each meeting, this help us to distribute the load along the term »
- Scheduled the meetings, during which was done the major part of the work, some additional assignements and preparations was assigned for home work. Project work went very smoothly. »
- We hade meetings and did some things at home, but mostly together at school»
- Very good... »
- We divvided our project in sub tasks»
- very hard»
- It was quite good in terms of group dynamics. But the task especially project 3 was quite difficult.Because we didn"t know what to put inside so we were just guessing.»
- We used to gather together at least twice a week to work on the projects. I think that this was the best way to learn! Because, you"re applying what you are reading.»
- We scheduled some meetings, split the tasks, then brought together all the information and disscussed for conclusions, layout presentation of the results.»
- In a group, we conducted the projects efficiently.»
- Work was very intense. We started early with project two and this took far more time then realized with hampered project three. The time spent on these projects made it hard to focus on studing on the exam.»
- how? hmm 2 people and me. We started quite late with the two last projects.»

Questions on the course

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

52 svarande

Irrelevant»0 0%
Not important»0 0%
Maybe useful»9 17%
Useful»33 63%
Very important»10 19%

Genomsnitt: 4.01 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

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

52 svarande

Nothing at all»0 0%
A little»2 3%
Medium amount»15 28%
Much»29 55%
Very much»6 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.75 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

7. How demanding was the course?*

52 svarande

Not at all demanding»1 1%
Slightly demanding»5 9%
Quite demanding»18 34%
Demanding»15 28%
Very demanding»13 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.65 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

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

52 svarande

Not at all»2 3%
Slightly interesting»11 21%
Quite interesting»24 46%
Interesting»14 26%
Fascinating»1 1%

Genomsnitt: 3.01 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

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

- Better.»
- Better»
- It was (honestly) more boring than I thought it could be. The book may be one of the dullest and uninteresting books I have read during my entire Chalmers period. David Lay in Linear Algebra is even more interesting.»
- Same as I expected»
- It was definitely better. I feel that I have learned to setup studies supported by know methodology theory»
- Don"t know what I expected»
- Better than I expected as I think it will become useful in the future. At least it has changed the way I think when I approach problems. »
- Same same»
- Better»
- Better»
- Better.»
- better, so interesting and useful»
- It was actually along the lines of my expectations. The first lecture set the boundries really well, and there was a red thread through it all.»
- Better. There were more examples included than I have expected and the KJ-Shiba project was certainly more complex and interesting than I had expected.»
- Better»
- Worse»
- Better in the end when all parts came together. I didnt attend the classes.»
- did not have any expectations»
- a lot better»
- It was better than Economics of Innovation.»
- I expected more on problem solving, but the course quite what I expected»
- Projects were good, lectures felt very basic.»
- yes!»
- Better!!»
- It was better than I thought but quite boriung topic»
- I did not have any expectations.»
- It was better, I think will help me in the future»
- no»
- same as expected»
- Better»
- Better than expected, course material was boring but content fun to practice, especially during lazy lecturer and KJ Shiba.»
- Not as difficult as magnus had said it was going to be.»
- Was not better or worse.»
- It was better, but I think the projects description are a bit blurry. It would be very helpful if it can be more specific specially on the 3rd one.»
- It was same as I expected»
- The same»
- Better »
- Perhaps not the right word to use for me, I would describe it more useful for the future than I would have expected»
- It was ok but so many detailed issue and the book is really big and boring.»
- better»
- It was more useful than what I expected, because I started relating it with real projects.»
- the course is ok»
- Better»
- Yes, it was very practical, I liked that.»

10. Comments on the lecturer

- N/A»
- Fun»
- Havent attented that many lectures. »
- none»
- Great»
- Interesting and relevant for the course.»
- Good»
- Sometimes not very enthusiastic about the subject»
- Should be more structured during lectures.»
- They were hard to attend since my other course, organizational behavior were at the same time on Tuesdays. It felt like they were not very well prepard sometimes since you sade thinks like: "What"s that? Why did I write that? " »
- Sometimes not too inspring. Maybe it was the subject though...»
- good»
- Good retorical skills, and clear knowledge what he was presenting. »
- I liked the lecturer"s focus on practical examples and practical considerations of the methods being presented.»
- Didn"t seem interested in subject»
- Attended the first and last lecture. They were very rewarding.»
- he catches my attention but can be hard to follow since what he is saying doesn"t always match what is said on the slides»
- Good Lecturer. Explains concepts in detailed manner»
- Sometimes it is difficult to understand what does he mean, he should draw more connections between the concepts, but actually in the end everything made sense more or less.»
- Good examples and clarifications»
- Good»
- hectic period so I couldn"t go to many lectures but the ones I went to were good, however, sometinges hard to undersrtand»
- Good. »
- lot opf things said during lecture felt very "of course I already knew this" which made it boriung to attend. Had one mandatory course which had lectures at rthe same time as RDM which made it hard to attend.»
- Good, interesting, fun.»
- The lecturer is very good and always give helpful examples»
- good! funny, inspired»
- Not applicable»
- Nice relaxed style and pleasant to listen to even though the content was less than fun...»
- I didn"t understand half the time what he wanted to say. I felt that there could have been easier ways to deliver the message. But Magnus is funny.»
- Good, sometimes very repetitive but is part of the methodology to remenber afterwards.»
- Magnus dominate all the topics, but some times spend so many time explaining some details and at the end he has to rush and some important topic are not fully covered »
- Has creative approach towards project assignements development, provides with necessary feedback when its needed. »
- Good lecturer»
- Good»
- "Where ever else have you" »
- very happy and interested when discussing something off stage, on stage carried away ahich leads to fast slides»
- Lectures help a lot.»
- a bit unstructured during lectures but interesting to listen to»
- Quite good! The topic although useful, is kind of boring but I think Magnus really did the best he could to make it interesting, and I really appreciate it.»
- I like that it is also explaining why the topic of the lecture is important and positions it within the frame of the course. I like the style. Quite lively compare to the standard in Chalmers.»
- A bit too many slides, hard to keep focus»

11. Comments on the lecture slides

- Cover a lot. »
- Good lecture slides as always with Magnus Holmén. Good for studying. »
- possible to understand when I read after the lecture even if I didnt attend the class»
- none»
- Great»
- Useful!»
- Good»
- Very detailed and very very many of them»
- Too unstructured.»
- Easy to use during studies for the exam»
- Too many!»
- useful but not so lear, I mean the structure»
- Very informative, and worked really well for exam studies.»
- Aesthetic considerations aside, I found the slides informative and useful. There were quite a lot of references to items discussed in class or not at all that might affect understanding of the slides.»
- Are a bit messy at some points»
- Very messy, and a lot of repeated slides.»
- Works fine. Enough to pass the course with only them. Nothing to complain.»
- include a lot of information which was good when revising for the exam, however too messy and informative to follow in class»
- Could be improved»
- Very informative, some things are difficult to understand if you have missed the lecture.»
- Too many slides but still relevant, maybe it shorten the amount of slides »
- Very messy sometimes.»
- Good ones»
- It is a lot of information in the slides, I like it!! They are alo easy to understand and follow. »
- Very useful when studying for the exame»
- Too much information to listen to, but good with a lot when studying at home.»
- Too many slides to read»
- comprehensive»
- way to many and bad strucutre»
- Informative dense»
- Good if you had went to the lectures, otherwise hard to understant. Good that material outside the lectures was put in though.»
- Too many. But also some with very good info.»
- The slide package are very long, some times repetitive and confuse in stead to guide for studing. The content is OK but the organization and quantity is to much.»
- Very good slides since included relevant information for the preparation for the exam»
- Good lecture slides»
- Very large amount of slides, and some of them very repetitive...»
- Better compared to EOI-course and good to summarize the course content with the snake model during the first lecture. »
- could be more structured-they are many. Like the tables!»
- Slides enhance in terms of focusing the important issues»
- more informative and proof read slides!»
- Very good sllides, but I think there were TOO many.»
- the slides are bit messy in logic and very long each of the slides»
- Ok. They really need to be complemented by notes in class in order to be useful.»
- Good but many»

12. Comments on the guest lecturers

Martin Wallin, Daniel Ljungberg

- N/A»
- Didn not attend.»
- none»
- Did not attend those lectures»
- Interesting!»
- N/A»
- Wallin was interesting to hear, Daniel I was not there»
- Martin was very good.»
- Did not attend»
- Only attended Daniel"s lecture. He needs to be more confident in what he is talking about. If he doesn"t believe in it"s importance, why should we?»
- good»
- Both were interesting, one more than the other, but the information was relevant for the course and it worked well.»
- Both lectures were interesting. Martin"s presentation was particularly interesting in terms of application of some of the concepts discussed on real-life situation.»
- Hard to find how these relate to the main flow. A lot of stuff that were irrelevant for the rest of the course. »
- Didnt attend»
- Good»
- Both were ok.»
- Not present.»
- his lecture was good, he covered everything lke a short summary»
- don"t know»
- Liked Wallin"s lecture!»
- did not attend»
- Did not attend»
- Daniel was ok, Martin talks very fast was quite difficult to follow him the entire lecture»
- N/A»
- did not attend»
- Not applicable»
- Wallin: very inspiering as lecturer and interesting personal and honest material. Could have made the lecture a bit shorter though. Daniel: a bit too relaxed, nice to listen to but did not take him so seriously. Did not learn much. »
- Only attended Daniel. He was excusing himself for having such a boring class but I thought it was ok.»
- Martin Wallin, very good! Hands on! Daniel Ljungberg"s lecture was not good. I got the impression that he was unprepared alternatively very nervous. »
- I was not there»
- Not present on Wallins lecture Ljungbergs lecture somewhat long having in mind that the main point was GIGO, but still interesting examples. »
- Not that good actually for Daniel but for Martin was pretty good and interesting.»
- martin wallin- did not attend daniel ljungberg - i think the material presented could have been understood just as well by readings»
- Very good both.»
- martin is quite good i think. but daniel"s lecture was short and apathetic»
- Nothing special to say.»
- Did not attend»

13. Comments on the course book and compulsory articles?

- Good material. The book has a theoretical base that is heavy but useful.»
- Course book, please change for next year. It took me ages to get through the first chapter. Then I started to look for the summary of it. »
- How hard is it to conclude something. Bryman and Bell sucks when it comes to concluding what is best vs. worst»
- Haven"t read the book... Most articles were good.»
- Thought it was interesting. Some things were very basic, but I think it sometimes is necessary in order to truly identify the pitfalls of the methods. »
- So so»
- The book is well-written but very chatty and long. The articles were quite alright»
- Boring articles but good and easy to read book.»
- the book was good»
- The course book is good as an encyclopedia, impossible to read through. The articles was good, not too many and not too few.»
- the content of the book is too much. article is useful»
- Both were very good, especially the articles. Good references to bare in mind for the future.»
- Course book: extremely wordy, summary definitely enough.»
- Only read very few parts. Rewarding as complementary reading but usless to read straight throuh.»
- the content of the book is extensive and cover all important aspects, however it is written in a way that makes me wonder if the author just wants it to seem complicated. I didn"t actually read the book, only the summary of it.»
- Load could be reduced»
- To be honest the book is really boring to read, simple things are explained with difficult word and very long.»
- The coursebook was quite good but also too heavy in content so it is good to give some more tips on what to study and not.»
- It was difficult to understand how some articles were related to the course. The book was ok, not more, very much text and very little said often.»
- book is not hard to read»
- Read a summery of the book so content of book was relevant but I do not know how the book was. Compulsory articles were interesting and gave me good insights»
- The book is kind of messy. The articles were good.»
- the book was kind of good, the feministic approach was not equally good. The articles where hard to relate to the course»
- Book, easy to read, articles felt to abstract and academic to be useful in my future work.»
- Some articles were very demandind and the porpouse was not very clear»
- didnt have book, artickeles ok»
- The book was very informative, but it could have been somewhat more crisp and to the point. The articles were of a varying character, some of them were really good e.g. Popper and Hammersley whereas others were not as useful e.g. Brown»
- Too long american style book... Could have cut out some chapters dealing with specific methods. Learnded enough from the lectures and lazy lecturer on that part. Examplifying artickes were too boring, ex the one dealing with culture. »
- Some articles were really good, some were BS. The book had some good points but had far too much text which was many times superflous. But sadly it is often like that with american course literature since they get paid per word. I read the summary of the book that class of 2008 had done which is fantastic! I believe that is what everyone did.»
- Good.»
- I did not like the book sometimes si too boring and make many unproductive explanations.»
- The book was a good guidance to follow the lectures. Some articles where not as useful.»
- Course book contained a lot of common sence in complicated terms. Although practical examples in the chapters was quite interesting.»
- I think the course book could be more concentrated, there were a lot of pages saying not so much. Atricles wwere good!»
- I did not have time to read the book... and the articles some of them seem a little irrelevant of the course.»
- Bryman & bell good as a reference work and with the checklists. One book that I will proably keep in the future and use eventhough it contains typically a lot of fluffy extra content typical for US published course books. »
- Some of the articles were interesting-specially if you relate them in the way Magnus did in the lectures, eg KJ-Shiba etc. Gives a wider perspective. The book was a lot of text and the first chapter seemed impossible. Also the book feels old when it comes to the online sections. I think it is naive to have sources for these which are 9 years old.»
- Too big and too much to read»
- heavy book, more of a dictionary. articles were ok»
- The book was kind of fuzzy and not that good. I think the articles were better than the book.»
- The book I only read the summar, went to it whenever I needed further explanations. I think is clear and easy reading.»
- Only read the summaries, they were good. The book is probably valuable to have for the master thesis to look up things.»

14. How was Project 1 (KJ-Shiba), in terms of learning and demand?

- N/A»
- Project 1 was really good and helpful, it should be kept to next year. I learned a new approach to formulate problems. »
- Good»
- Good and useful. Hard to realize how it works without participating»
- It was great!»
- It took really long time to conduct. However, I liked the practical side of it and I think it may come useful in the future.»
- Good»
- Good»
- Sweet»
- I think it was bad that you could not solve another time for us that could not attend the exercise, I don´,t think that the hand-in was as good as the exercise. I could not attend due to compusolary lecture in the Organizational Behavior course»
- It was a good and funny way to learn! More such things please! It was demanding as it took quite a long time and we got hungry...»
- after the project, i can use KJ-method fluently»
- Semi-hard to learn and to conduct, but used properly a powerful tool»
- The project was not very demanding, but a useful learning experience. It was quite a challenge to describe objective situations as opposed to making more sweeping statements.»
- I had done KJ-shiba in a previous course, but the repetition was good. »
- I did a hand-in, don"t know»
- Medium learning, low demand. Value of KJ shiba was revealed later to me when I studied for the exam.»
- Good and interesting»
- Nice learning »
- It was good experience of how to identify problems and put them on a post-it (it is not so easy at all as it may look at first place), also achieve consensus among group was a challenge.»
- Not so demanding, quite interesting and easy to learn»
- I did the additional paper, and it was interesting to see how KJ Shiba was connected to other parts of the course. I did the exercise in the TQM course and liked it!»
- very interesting, good one»
- Very very good and useful! I learnt alot! »
- could not attend, made extra project instead. That project was very hard.»
- Pretty god, but a bit unmotivated when people got tired.»
- It was really helpful to do the project and really learn how it works in reality.»
- Fun»
- learning: good demand: low»
- Good learning and illustration of the importance of falsifiable formulations»
- Learned a lot and much more fun than expected. Nice with some new methods»
- Could have gotten more guidence to get more understanding. We did alot of things wrong so we didn"t get so much out of it but i think it is good.»
- Useful, although it would have been beneficial with a break in the middle»
- Was very interesting.»
- Very good. I really understood the dynamic of the KJ Shiba and the time is just perfect. »
- Was good, that not too much preparation required and the learning process happened during the exercise. 100% remembered all methodology of the exercise.»
- It was good because it was practical.. but not so easy to do without a supervisor..»
- Excellent, I think is a good practice. It was not that much demanding.»
- Good, not to demanding but still a valuable experience. Interesting to see how goal oriented some people are forgetting that it is the method we were supposed to practice and learn and that the results are less important. Our group rushed in the beginning leading to we had to redo step 1 during the following steps and confusion occured also. »
- I had made it before and I really liked it that time. The individual assignment took a lot of time, much more than what KJ-Shiba took. On the other hand, the individual assignment was nice to do since it was up to just me and since you could take your own time (easter holiday)»
- Quite good, I learned a lot.»
- fun project! »
- Personally I found it very interesting, the dynamic we got in you team was great and really useful.»
- the Project was quite interesting i think»
- Very good»
- It created some understanding and applicability.»
- Did not attend.»

15. How was Project 2 (Lazy lecturer), in terms of learning and demand?

- A good exercise, moderately demanding.»
- Good to listen to the other presentations. It was a good way to learn about different techniques, however, my topic was a bit tricky, since there were not that much information on it, which resulted in some annoyment. »
- It was good that everbody had different topic»
- vague of the purpose.»
- I learned a lot, a lot of effort was required»
- Provided a good understanding for the different methods and was not to demanding in terms of workload. »
- So so»
- Very good»
- Also a good way to learn about the methods»
- Good learning regarding the subject that you studied, right level of demand»
- It was fairly good. Would have been better if we"d got the result sooner...»
- deep understand of the different method»
- Fun and interesting addition to the normal lectures. Some sort of a sumamry of the pros and cons at the end had been nice however since not all papers and presentations were of equal clarity and quality.»
- Project 2 was relatively demanding in terms of work. While some concepts learned there were quite new, most of the benefits consisted of clarifying certain concepts and finding practical issues that would not have come out during a literature review.»
- Not very demanding but interesting and fun. »
- Presentations were good. Our subject seemed very unclear and not very useful.»
- Quiet good to attend the seminar and listen to the others. low demand.»
- Very good. I learned a lot both from my own and the others" projects»
- Yea»
- This was also a good experience and a good challenge, especially when it comes to making others understand the method.»
- Not so demanding, a fair level of demand. It was quite interesting and learnable»
- It took a lot of time to do all things (we had focus groups). From a learning perspective I learnt a lot about focus groups but not much about the other methods. 4 hours with presentations a quite a lot.»
- nja, we chose a boring subject, hence learning wasn"t too great.»
- Very demanding. I took alot of time to finish project2. »
- Felt that it was not a equal effort needed to accomplish the tasks, some were very time consuming compared to other. My project, focus group, took extremely lot of time to accomplish»
- Good way to learn from each other, good presentations with some innovative presentation skills.»
- The focus of this project should be more practical, many people got lost in theory.»
- Interesting and not to demanding»
- learning: medium demand: medium»
- I established a satisfactory level of understanding of the method my group studied, but the other groups methods were more like a blur. Demand was medium.»
- learned a lot and would suggest it to be kept in preasent form next year»
- Very good way of learning. Interresting.»
- In was quite demanding, »
- Very demanding but quite interesting.»
- It was good learning.»
- Was also good as all groups was creative and different, so was quite easy remember the methods while preparation to the exam. Was ok demand.»
- Good in terms of learning, also interesting presentations»
- I think is was good also. It was a little demanding because the method (bibliometrics) was totally new for the team members, however was interesting.»
- Learned a lot about a single method but less about the others. See q.16 for more detailed answer»
- Took a lot of time. We did focus groups, which I would say was the most time consuming of the methods given from what I saw. »
- I don"t like this project cause we didn"t get the interesting topic and doesn"t seem to help in any other way in the exam.»
- good that we could choose topic, interesting»
- I think it was a great way to learn, not only when doing it but also when listening to others" presentations. It was demanding but totally worth it. I would only recommend that the deadline was earlier so we were forced to start working on project 3 earlier.»
- Good learning outcome. Not really demanding»
- Well the project in itself gave some insights on the method, however the demand of large data amounts created less time for focusing on the method in it self.»
- Demand was ok but learning were not so good.»

16. How was Project 2, in terms of listening to the other groups presenting different methods?

- N/A»
- See above»
- good»
- GOod»
- Too many presentations at the same time»
- Became a little bit boring in the end.»
- So so»
- Better than just hearing the lecturer talk about all the methods»
- Very good.»
- Good learing to hear the group that tried hard to teach us the subject»
- This was really interesting. It was fun to listen to what the other groups did and now when I think of think aloud protocols I only think of Gustav peeling an orange...»
- get more knowledge»
- As mentioned above, different clarity and quality.»
- Other groups had good presentations. Some had themes that were better suited to presentations than others, and this made quite a difference in the way they were perceived.»
- Good»
- Good! »
- Very good. Pros and cons with the methods should always be added on the slides.»
- Interesting and somewhat inspirational (since you could see how others worked and how they structured their work)»
- good»
- It was good that students did it to each other, because they know what others may understand and what needs more explanation, while lectures may sometimes not notice everything.»
- It was interesting and a good part of the course I believe»
- From a learning perspective I learnt a lot about focus groups (my subject) but not much about the other methods. 4 hours with presentations a quite a lot.»
- it was good to learn from other students but I expected to take the presentations before exam»
- good, lots of interesing presentations»
- The lazy lecture presentation was good and useful. I learnt a lot from the presentations. »
- it was very fun»
- Good»
- It"s difficult to listen all people, specially when the present a topic already presented by someone else.»
- good»
- boring, didnt make me study these parts for the exam.»
- Interesting, but hard to separate the different methods and hard to grasp under what circumstances each method is most suitable to use.»
- reallt good approach. Did not need the evaluation of eachother though»
- Good»
- Good and interesting to see all the other groups" work»
- Interesting.»
- I think every team put lot of effort to their presentations and this enhance the attention of the audience and the understanding of the topics.»
- Was the most exciting event of the course»
- Vary good»
- Good... I think it"s fine to listen no more than 1 presentation regarding the same topic.»
- very interesting but maybe it would have been better with some kind of literature seminar discussing diffrent methods and when they are suitable. Now we really learned a lot about a single method but less about the others that we would have otherwise I belive. »
- Very very good. good learning and fun. »
- Quite nice and their slides are very useful.»
- it was good, better presentations than what usually is the case»
- I think that the fact that every 10 min there was someone else presenting and talking about a different topic made really easy to keep you interested on the lecture. Actually when studying for the exam, I didn"t need to spend that much time studying this part because I remembered most of the topics.»
- Really interesting, I really like he concept of student preparing a lecture!!!»
- Too long and often I didn"t get how to actually perform a certain method.»
- Well it was interesting because it gave a large amount of information in a short time. I like the learning method.»
- People had really tried to make their presentations interesting. It was fun to listen but sometimes difficult to understand the message.»

17. How was Project 3 (Green innovation research), in terms of learning and demand?

- Also good exercise, time consuming to do interviews, but looking back, valuable.»
- Was a bit confusing int he beggining. Who and what to interview but as knowledge increased it all became clearer.»
- Good learning possibilities»
- there were a little bit time constraint because we had to manage two project at the same time.»
- Great, but the task was somewhat unclear»
- Provided good understandning of the issues when setting up a research design and methods. »
- So so»
- Very good»
- Also very good way to learn.»
- Quite demanding and I quess it was good from the design perspective»
- It was a bit fuzzy on what we were suppose to do. Still don"t know if we did what we were expected to do.»
- master the whole innovation research steps»
- Good to provide actual experience in doing this sort of work. Should be kept in the course without a doubt!»
- Project 3 was quite demanding in terms of the necessary work. While developing and conducting interviews was a useful experience, it was only the structured interviews that were new for me. I had done semi-structured interviews before.»
- Great for learning but also demanding»
- Ok, good if you haven"t done interviews before otherwise quite easy but time-consuming.»
- Quite rewarding. We need more of this kind of projects but with a smaller scope. We need to learn to set up the research design. We need more small projects to set up research designs.»
- Looking back I learned a lot, but I could have appreciated having actual tutoring on the project. There were a lot of unclear issues.»
- good»
- It was very fuzzy at the beginning, but finally we figured out something, the learning was good, especially the experience of conducting interviews the way that you could get something useful out of it in the end.»
- It was really demanding, but also provided a great way to learn.»
- It was very demanding, but you got a good hold of how to apply methods. »
- Lots of learning, more demanding than we thought from the beginning.»
- I learned a lot during the project 3. It also took alot of time. It was actually funny!»
- high in demand but high in learning as well.»
- Demanding when trying to do all interviews.»
- I really learn how to do research»
- boring»
- good!»
- Good learning, Medium demand»
- Too fuzy task. Hard to know how to tackle it, get to a conclusion regarding the subject, make a standard case with extended method part or just do the planning/method. Would like it to be the last alternative»
- Didn"t understand the point really. Too focused on the interview part. No guidence=bad.»
- Good, but demanding. It would have been good with some tutoring to be able to get a hint if you were going in the right direction. Then it would have been good to have a word limitation or something like that, since we did not know how much that was enough. »
- Good case to apply the concepts, very demanding as well.»
- Lerning from the project was very good, but it was very demanding.»
- Both components was ok»
- Good learning, but realy demanding.. difficult to have in the end of the course»
- The instructions were not so clear at the beginning, but I think the project achieve the comprehension and learning in the topic. It was more demanding that the others because of the interviews.»
- rather demanding, we had to use more or less everything that we learnt in the course and that was a good experience. However easy to fall into the research subject and thinking less on how we did stuff and why things went right and wrong. Good with the practical experience of how hard it is to set up good surveys. »
- Tough to have that one when you have worked so hard with project 2.»
- Much work but at the same time we learned a lot.»
- time consuming, hard to understand the pm and what to actually accomplish»
- It was quite demanding but a very good way to learn.»
- the instruction was not very obvious what exactly are expected for the report»
- quite demanding and the learning outcome has huge potential but is limited by the timing »
- It was a very extensive project, if this depended on lack of understanding of what was wanted from the teacher or if that law in the nature of the project I still can"t answer.»
- Good way of learning to construct questionnaires and conduct interviews.»

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

- N/A»
- N/A»
- Don"t know yet, hopefully not to difficult but demanding»
- I dont know. Havent done it yet!»
- to earlie to say anything about»
- no comments.»
- medium»
- This questionnaire was taken before the exam, so no comments can be given.»
- I have completed the survey before the exam.»
- Have not done it yet... tomorrow. Hopefully not too difficult or demanding. »
- Haven"t done it yet, my guess is that multiple choice will be very hard by looking at the questions uploaded on website.»
- Havent done it yet...»
- very difficult»
- It was very demanding, especially q 1.»
- The first part was difficult, even though you had good knowledge about every question, the formulation of answers and some of the answers were strange so I believe that it is not a fair way of evalutating knowledge »
- Question 1 was wierd. I had a hard time to understand it. I liked question 2-3 more, they were more straighforward, easy to understand. I think instead of mulitple choice it would be better to be given x numbers of different topics to explain in, lets say max 50 words. "ex. explain what face validity is?"»
- difficult,»
- I found it very difficult and demanding, thought I knew quite a lot (when I did the exam you gave us) but buh hu, that wasn"t the case.»
- Difficult. »
- It was hard, did not like to make slides»
- Difficult, unmotivating to have the question about problems, did not seem like the most important aspect of the course and still was 10 % of the grade.»
- The exam was quite difficult, specially the multiple option part, was kind of confusing, I will call it "multiple confusion"»
- hard»
- seemed very random, how to correct? different answers from each person. might be hard. i think the exam was very difficult»
- The exam was of medium to high difficulty. The hardest thing was actually to tease out what the questions really asked for.»
- first free-text q was hard and difficult to grasp!»
- I thing multiple choice is crap because it doesn"t say how much one knows about the subject. The first 25p Q and second one where fine as exam questions but the third was BS. No one I talked to afterwards had understood it either. Felt like he wanted us to fail on that one. Did not summarize our learnings from the course at all.»
- Different, with the construction of the slides and the very broad question, more difficult than I thought it would be. »
- Very difficult and demanding, the first case looked complicated and difficult to define a unique method to apply.»
- The multiple option questions are very tricky and the open questions are very demanding.»
- Multiple choise is quit difficult, also not so easy to know how much you should write on the big questions..»
- It was difficult, the option multiple questions were very confusion, in fact, I think in most of them no question since the beginning was identified. The first open question was very broad, and hard to explain only in slides.»
- The mega questions are difficult to answer in a good way since it is balance between answering the question and at the same time show that you know the subject. »
- Interesting with slides. The questions in the beginning was very hard. Also the 25p exercise was hard to know what to pu in it. Did I write enough or not?»
- Very very difficult!!!!!!!!!!!!!»
- good level, some of the multiple choice questions had fuzzy alternatives, more about interpretation than facts»
- It was quite difficult! I felt frustrated when I realized that I knew the answers but I didn"t have time enough to first analyze and then write everything down.»
- i think it was very tricky»
- Quite difficult. Sometimes did not really know what kind of knowledge we were askedto prove. I really like multiple choice exams( I think they are fair) but honestly I do not think they re a good option for this course. Some were ambiguous!!»
- Did exam in January. Only 3 questions made it hard to show the knowledge.»
- The exam was very difficult and demanding. It was hard to understand the questions and all students i spoke with after said the same thing. "it was very hard and I don"t know how I performed".»
- Very demanding. The questions are so big that its hard to know where to begin. I did not understand the last question. Try to make exam questions clearer.»

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

- Online student. Good communication with teacher and assistants.»
- Good, everything out on the student portal.»
- good»
- Worked well. We got answers to all questions we asked when working with the projects.»
- Very good!»
- Good»
- Good»
- Good, easy to reach Magnus for advice.»
- good.»
- good»
- All of that worked well, what could have been better had been the information regarding when different classes started and so on, but other than that I think it worked well.»
- Good. Study materials were on hand when needed. Teacher interaction was helped by the rather informal setting of the discussions and the practical nature of the examples.»
- Good. We met Magnus several times when working in the projects outside lectures. »
- ok»
- Very good.»
- good»
- It was ok, maybe too less participants in the lectures.»
- It was good»
- I do not know.»
- ok»
- very good. »
- worked well»
- Supervision in project 3 was not really useful.»
- It works really well»
- ok»
- it was ok, good that magnus came down to elipsen and talked to us and asked how the course was going. »
- Good»
- worked good»
- Overall good.»
- Good. But I think that it was too many slides. (they were useful when studying to the exam though). Maybe another set-up would have been good, for instance to make a clear distinction between qualitative and quantitive research, and keep to one of the ideas going through some methods and how to analyse the data, and then move on to the other. And then connect them to each other when talking about the different research desings mentioned in the course.»
- Fine»
- It was very good. Teacher interaction was good and the student portal management was enough.»
- Was perfect since was a lot of opportunity to receive necessary feedback.»
- Good»
- It was good.»
- The lectures were at the same time as a compulsory course which made it hard to participate. from the student portal I remember-happy x-mas! It has been updated well. »
- It was ok. There was a dynamic between students and teacher.»
- ok»
- It was perfect. I have no complain about it.»
- Correct. »
- ok»

20. How was the administration of the course?

- Good.»
- Very good. Schedule and what was required to do was easy to understand.»
- Good»
- good»
- It worked fine. Good use of the studyportal!»
- Good»
- Good»
- Good!»
- good»
- good»
- Also worked well with the use of the student portal in terms of handouts and similar. As mentioned, the schedule was more or less the only issue»
- Okay. There were minor issues regarding the understanding of course start times, but not very serious.»
- Good»
- Good, except project 3 pm was very unclear and contradictory»
- Very good.»
- Good.»
- good»
- Good, we got answers to all of our questions.»
- Really good»
- Good.»
- ok»
- Good!»
- worked well»
- Good»
- Good»
- ok»
- good»
- Good»
- good»
- Also fine.»
- good»
- Ok.»
- The course PM was very convenient»
- Good»
- Good.»
- worked out well»
- Since I did not think about it-it must have been great!»
- ok.»
- ok»
- It was perfect. I have no complain about it.»
- ok»
- Correct»
- ok»

21. A course on research methods needs to deal with

a) hands-on issues concerning how to conduct research studies (e.g. how to construct questions in surveys), b) structural issues regarding how to proceed in a research study (e.g. "the Snake), and c) general research principles (e.g. falsification). Looking back at the course, what would you have liked to see more of, and consequently what would you have liked to see less of, in terms of these three issues? Why?

- I think a) is the most important and useful in my current career focus. Also b) can be useful for structure before getting used to research methods.»
- All parts are important.»
- All the name dropping words in the beginning feels unneccesary, ontology, positivism, constructionism... the snake was interesting, but I feel that there should have been one single lecture about it, instead of having 4 different lectures that took in a small aspect of the snake. Would have been more comprehensive if it was gathered in one lecture. (Instead of now having to go through every lecture, but the info down yourself on the snake in one single file)»
- I would preferred if the projects was decomposed into smaller projects addressing one method at a time.»
- I think it was a good mix between the three of them.»
- I would like to have learn more about how to design a research study according to a problem, as in project 3. I think this part was really central, however, for me it was also really diffcult, which is why I would have preferred if more time was spent on it.»
- Liked it as it was»
- Nothing much...it covered most of it»
- Structural issues about how to proceed in a research study. This is the hardest to learn.»
- hands-on issues concerning how to conduct research studies can introduce more, more exercise»
- I think the mix of a b and c were good. Didn"t feel like anything specific took over since they all flow together.»
- I think the course dealt fairly well with all these issues. I cannot say that I felt any information was lacking or any was superfluous.»
- More conduction and less of general research principles. The conduction is more hands-on and feels like the part you are going to remember and use the most. »
- some of the methods seemed unnecessary. The snake was everywhere, one/two lessons would have been enough. Otherwise I think we need both a,b,c. »
- more of B. It is the most critical aspects of the course that we will benefit the most from when doing reasearch in our professional careers. HOW TO INVESTIGATE SOMETHING AND GET GOOD VALIDITY.»
- more on mathematical stuff like sampling. »
- b, because we probably need to do some research in our Master Thesis" as well, so practical advice can be more useful than the others (there was actually some practical advice during the lectures).»
- I think each area recieved enough emphasis, e.g. the snake was emphisised a lot which I think was really good»
- I would like to see more examples, real examples, on how to apply the snake. I did not feel obvious all the time.»
- More clear examples how to construct different research. but magnus you are good!»
- More about the general research principles. »
- would like to have more case examples presented of how to do things to be able to use the knowledge»
- Less of of the philosophical stuff.»
- It will be interesting to have more about structural issues when doing research.»
- project 3»
- dont know, wasnt at some many sessions»
- I would suggest that the projects in the class going forward are more focused on solving cases similar to those outlined in question 1 at the exam as I believe that this would provide students with more valuable experiences which we could use in our future careers.»
- would like to see more of general reserch principles. »
- the hands-on part. That"s what"ll be useful for the final paper.»
- If the concept of falsification should take more room in the course, then one suggestion would be to have a literature seminar around it. That would have been very useful fore us I believe. Hands-on issues about how to conduct a research would be good. Or to actually be forced to formulate a research question for a potential master"s thesis and then setup a research design for it, and during that project get tutoring.»
- See more about B) the snake,, it was not clear how to apply in cases like in the exam. »
- I think it was quite balance the distribution of these three topics, I would not change the load regarding how was this period.»
- More of c), mainly practically, maybe some exersize on that. »
- I"d like to see more the a) point, and less the c)»
- More of a)& b) How to conduct research and get valid results and know how to ensure that the results become valid. practice that »
- a+b) I thought it was hard in the exam to know which way you should go and how to actually present you findings. That part of the snake, I would like to know more about. Also how to approach the problemyes we know the steps, but do we know what to choose in different situations. I says in the book or the slides that -this design is used for this type of situation. I would have liked examples in reality-not just in theory. »
- Falsification examples.»
- some more real examples to get away from all the theoretical stuff for a bit»
- Personally, I think that the balance is good as it is right now...»
- A)definately, we have plenty of theory in all the courses, we need to learn how to actually implement things so that we can be more confident when we look for a job.»
- more a and c, less b»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.61

Other comments

22. Additional comments or suggestions

- N/A»
- Nope»
- The slides have to be more structured.»
- totally it is a useful course »
- Well structured and good course, really glad I took it.»
- Very good class!»
- Maybe put the exam earlier and project 3 hand-in later»
- No.»
- nope»
- Scrap the book to next year. Use the existing summary and extend it if necessary. Don"t waste time reading silly anecdotes about how you can upload things through a modem and print it somewhere else. (this is seriously in the book!)»
- A better administration of the slides I think will help more to students to follow the lectures and study. Thanks.»
- Me and several of my classmates all agree that this kind of course should be given already during the bachelor studies, prefaerably before the bachelor thesis work It would also interseting to see how diffrent groups solved and presented the same way. Provide more insights. »
- The relation to the masters thesis feels important. »

Thank you for your time.


Magnus Holmén

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.61
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.65

* obligatoriska frågor

Kursutvärderingssystem från