ENKÄTER

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

Visa resultat

Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.

Molecular Microscopy, TIF045

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-06-08 - 2010-07-08
Antal svar: 23
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 92%
Kontaktperson: Annika Enejder»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers

General questions

1. How was the general outline of the course?*

Lectures - projects - work shop - computer exercises - oral presentation event

23 svarande

Excellent - well-balanced composition of activities» 19 82%

Acceptable» 4 17%

Fragmented - too many different kinds of activities» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.34 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- no» (Excellent - well-balanced composition of activities)
- more practical is needed for improve this program.» (Excellent - well-balanced composition of activities)
- Handouts could have been given prior to the lectures. Would have ben easier to follow and to make notes.» (Excellent - well-balanced composition of activities)
- To have the presentation before lectures.» (Excellent - well-balanced composition of activities)
- if in the next year is written report is included it will be really a good addition in this course and the home exam is subtracted.» (Excellent - well-balanced composition of activities)
- assignments in every week from lectures» (Excellent - well-balanced composition of activities)
- incresses the computer labs» (Excellent - well-balanced composition of activities)
- I would like to add a writing paper about the project.» (Acceptable)

2. Are there microscopy-related topics lacking which should be included?*

- Maybe some information about lasers»
- No.»
- Could mention something about others courses with diffrent microscopes like "modern imaging" that deals with electronmicroscopes, STM, AFM etc.»
- no its ok»
- Maybe other than light microscopy ,such as electron microscopy if they are widely used and are of essential importance in cellular and molecular imaging.»
- no»
- It wouyld have been interesting to briefly go through electron microscopy techniques, but I think the scope of the course was light microscopy.»
- no, everything is ok»
- no»
- No»
- No»
- no its ok»
- more lab work»
- There should be more trainings.»
- There might be an AFM session with more detailed explanations or even maybe with a demonstration. I know that the group is more specialized in multi photon microscopy but since the course is a general microscopy course, an AFM session would contribute to the course in a good way.»
- UV-vis»
- No, I think it is very comprehensive. »
- Please add some intro to e-microscopy related to biology as the name of the course is Molecular microscopy»
- None that I can think of.»
- no»
- I don"t think so.»
- almost included »
- yes,s i will be sended you later»

3. Mention one highlight of the course*

- The Nikon workshop»
- The group experiment.»
- lab sessions»
- cars microscopy»
- collaboration of various experts to share their field-of-expertis knowledge with students»
- computer lab »
- The Nikon workshop was very useful and inspiring. it would have been great to get the lecture handouts, because they were very pedagogic.»
- Was mentioned every kind of microscopes,techniques. Nikon workshop as a "practical" part.»
- Project + presentation»
- CARS microscopy»
- Project»
- NO»
- project weok»
- Hands on Experience»
- The comparisons between different microscopy techniques.»
- I think that is principle of microscopy.»
- Course include Research project. »
- Niko Microscopy workshop»
- The Nikon workshop was very informative and a very good way to get to practice knowledge at an early stage in the learning procedure.»
- the Lab work»
- Nikon workshop is wonderful.»
- nikon workship»
- The new technique 3HG is very intersting.its new technology about the live Cell.»

4. Mention one weakness with the course*

- Image forming paths a little unclear»
- The course overlaps with "Modern imaging, spectroscopy and diffraction techniques" quite much in the beginning.»
- compulsary lectures. It is not really fair. Students have to be able to be away a week without problems. Keep compulsary to a minimum. guest lectures for example. In the beginning of the course I already knew most of the things described and it was not ok to keep me in class.»
- hole day lab work»
- many of the guest lecturers had only one lecture to present(2x45 min) and no follow up from the course. I think adding some home problem or exercise from those lectures could be helpful to increase the chances of learning. »
- less practical work»
- Some lecturers had too many slides (Julia and Lars). was very difficult to follow.»
- People from different fields.»
- Many teachers were not prepared enough before the lectures.»
- Attendance compulsion»
- Lacking in suggested material to read. Hard to be able to get good insight in all topics when the outline is very broad.»
- No»
- no assingnments»
- Teacher donot response to emails.»
- Lack of emphesize in certain other microscopy techniques. (such as AFM, electron microscopy...etc.)»
- various application in practice»
- practical should be increased. »
- Too many papers to study in Home exam.»
- Some lecturers brought very long powerpoint presentations, and therefore couldn"t present it all. It is better to present less material in the given time, than to rush through too much material.»
- disorder of some courses in the second half»
- I feel the course related to the nonlinear optics is not too much. »
- too much detail but less lecture time»
- you can put the written report of the project and remove the orl exam»

5. Workload in relation to credits given - compare with other courses.*

23 svarande

Unacceptably high» 1 4%

High but tolerable» 2 8%

Reasonable and fair» 18 78%

Lower than average» 2 8%

Unacceptably low» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.91 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- for quiez» (High but tolerable)
- Reduce the number of paper study to maximum 2.» (High but tolerable)
- The main part of the workload was distributed at the end of the course (project, homeexam), which was not the best option. It would have been easier to study if handouts were given earlier. When the homeexam was handed out, all questions came, but we were not allowed to ask any. This is not optimal, when you want to learn. » (Reasonable and fair)
- Maybe give some guideline of what material to study each week.» (Reasonable and fair)
- by decreasing one or two lecutres » (Reasonable and fair)
- it is fair» (Reasonable and fair)
- give more time for information of principle.» (Reasonable and fair)
- Home assignments earlier in the course» (Lower than average)
- I had no problem at all with the workload, but I usually don"t with any of the courses I"ve taken during the master"s programme.» (Lower than average)

6. Which sources of information did you use for self-studies?*

Rangordningsfråga. Siffran anger medelposition.

1. MicroscopyU Virtual Microscope Website 1.6

2. Handouts from the lectures 2.1

3. Internet in general 3.2

4. Scientific publications 3.3

- i have used researches papapers» (?)
- i forget the name of book» (?)
- ISI web of knowledge Harvard University department of microscopy» (?)
- Handouts from lectures and Internet» (?)
- scientific articles» (?)
- Lakowitcz, Principles of Fluorescence Spectroscopy, 3rd edition.» (?)
- Lecture han outs references of other related corses that I do not remember. Courses like Nanoscience, nanoioscience for information processing, Biological Physics, Medical Physics etc» (?)
- I did not really use any books or other materials, the Virtual Microscope website seemed to contain almost as much information on the subject as I would assume most books do.» (?)
- paper relating to the lab work» (?)

7. Topics & contents covered by the course*

Matrisfråga

- no its ok»
- more practical work»
- Christian first lecture was good but could have gone deeper into optics. The lecturers should not be afraid that basic knowledge is boring. Physics people might think it is easy, but no one is hurt by some repetition. And it is worse if you don"t get a basic platform for the general understandig of microscopes.»
- Shorten the lectures at Nikon workshop and focus on hands on training.»
- No home exame shoud and a written Report should be included »
- Lab work»
- Visualizing the invisible »
- Perhaps get a bigger lecture room if there"s high interest in the course next year aswell, it was a bit tight at times.»
- By written project report of the lab»

The fundamental properties of light and optics, Christian Brackmann*
23 svarande

Highly relevant, recent and interesting» 7 30%

Useful & necessary» 11 47%

Repetition» 5 21%

Irrelevant» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.91 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Visualizing the invisible - contrast mechanisms, Annika Enejder*
23 svarande

Highly relevant, recent and interesting» 11 47%

Useful & necessary» 11 47%

Repetition» 1 4%

Irrelevant» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.56 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

The virtual microscope –,,,,,, computer exercise I, Christian Brackmann*
23 svarande

Highly relevant, recent and interesting» 9 39%

Useful & necessary» 8 34%

Repetition» 6 26%

Irrelevant» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.86 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Optics, light paths and image formation in a microscope, Fredrik Svedberg*
23 svarande

Highly relevant, recent and interesting» 6 26%

Useful & necessary» 14 60%

Repetition» 3 13%

Irrelevant» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.86 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

The virtual microscope –,,,,,, computer exercise II, Christian Brqackmann*
23 svarande

Highly relevant, recent and interesting» 6 26%

Useful & necessary» 14 60%

Repetition» 3 13%

Irrelevant» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.86 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Nikon Workshop - lectures*
23 svarande

Highly relevant, recent and interesting» 13 56%

Useful & necessary» 7 30%

Repetition» 2 8%

Irrelevant» 1 4%

Genomsnitt: 1.6 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Nikon Workshop - demonstration & hands-on training Göran Ingels & Michael Johansson, Fredrik Svedberg*
23 svarande

Highly relevant, recent and interesting» 15 65%

Useful & necessary» 6 26%

Repetition» 1 4%

Irrelevant» 1 4%

Genomsnitt: 1.47 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Microspectroscopy: Raman, FTIR and TERS, Lars Hälldahl*
23 svarande

Highly relevant, recent and interesting» 10 43%

Useful & necessary» 12 52%

Repetition» 1 4%

Irrelevant» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.6 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Fluorescence microscopy: Sample preparation and labeling, Julia F-Rodrigues*
23 svarande

Highly relevant, recent and interesting» 11 47%

Useful & necessary» 12 52%

Repetition» 0 0%

Irrelevant» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.52 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Advanced fluorescence microscopy: Live cell imaging, Maria Smedj*
23 svarande

Highly relevant, recent and interesting» 12 52%

Useful & necessary» 10 43%

Repetition» 1 4%

Irrelevant» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.52 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Image acquisition in microscopy, Fredrik Svedberg*
23 svarande

Highly relevant, recent and interesting» 5 21%

Useful & necessary» 17 73%

Repetition» 1 4%

Irrelevant» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.82 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Multi-photon microscopy - contrast mechanisms II, Annika Enejder*
23 svarande

Highly relevant, recent and interesting» 20 86%

Useful & necessary» 3 13%

Repetition» 0 0%

Irrelevant» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.13 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Frontline research project*
23 svarande

Highly relevant, recent and interesting» 17 73%

Useful & necessary» 6 26%

Repetition» 0 0%

Irrelevant» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.26 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 1.68

Detailed questions

8. Pedagogics & presentation*

Matrisfråga

- no comments»
- no»
- Unfortunately, Fredriks first lecture was a bit confusing (i think the was stressed by time), but he wen"t through some very useful information. A slower paste and going through the lecture slides more carefulle would have been better. Lecture handouts would have made it easier aswell. The virtual microscope II would have been easier then. Julia and Lars had too many slides which made the lectures stressful. Maria did not give any lecture handouts...»
- over all good»

The fundamental properties of light and optics, Christian Brackmann*
23 svarande

Inspiring» 4 17%

Easy to follow» 11 47%

Acceptable» 6 26%

Uninspiring» 2 8%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.26 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Visualizing the invisible - contrast mechanisms, Annika Enejder*
23 svarande

Inspiring» 8 34%

Easy to follow» 12 52%

Acceptable» 2 8%

Uninspiring» 1 4%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.82 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

The virtual microscope –,,,,,, computer exercise I, Christian Brackmann*
23 svarande

Inspiring» 4 17%

Easy to follow» 12 52%

Acceptable» 6 26%

Uninspiring» 1 4%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.17 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Optics, light paths and image formation in a microscope, Fredrik Svedberg*
23 svarande

Inspiring» 3 13%

Easy to follow» 5 21%

Acceptable» 8 34%

Uninspiring» 6 26%

Incomprehensible» 1 4%

Genomsnitt: 2.86 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

The virtual microscope –,,,,,, computer exercise II, Christian Brqackmann*
23 svarande

Inspiring» 3 13%

Easy to follow» 11 47%

Acceptable» 9 39%

Uninspiring» 0 0%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.26 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Nikon Workshop - lectures*
23 svarande

Inspiring» 9 39%

Easy to follow» 10 43%

Acceptable» 3 13%

Uninspiring» 0 0%

Incomprehensible» 1 4%

Genomsnitt: 1.86 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Nikon Workshop - demonstration & hands-on training Göran Ingels & Michael Johansson, Fredrik Svedberg*
23 svarande

Inspiring» 9 39%

Easy to follow» 9 39%

Acceptable» 5 21%

Uninspiring» 0 0%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.82 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Microspectroscopy: Raman, FTIR and TERS, Lars Hälldahl*
23 svarande

Inspiring» 5 21%

Easy to follow» 6 26%

Acceptable» 8 34%

Uninspiring» 3 13%

Incomprehensible» 1 4%

Genomsnitt: 2.52 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Fluorescence microscopy: Sample preparation and labeling, Julia F-Rodrigues*
23 svarande

Inspiring» 10 43%

Easy to follow» 6 26%

Acceptable» 7 30%

Uninspiring» 0 0%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.86 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Advanced fluorescence microscopy: Live cell imaging, Maria Smedj*
23 svarande

Inspiring» 8 34%

Easy to follow» 6 26%

Acceptable» 9 39%

Uninspiring» 0 0%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.04 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Image acquisition in microscopy, Fredrik Svedberg*
23 svarande

Inspiring» 3 13%

Easy to follow» 9 39%

Acceptable» 11 47%

Uninspiring» 0 0%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.34 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Multi-photon microscopy - contrast mechanisms II, Annika Enejder*
23 svarande

Inspiring» 10 43%

Easy to follow» 10 43%

Acceptable» 3 13%

Uninspiring» 0 0%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.69 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Frontline research project*
23 svarande

Inspiring» 13 56%

Easy to follow» 6 26%

Acceptable» 4 17%

Uninspiring» 0 0%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.6 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

9. Slides & instruction material*

Matrisfråga

- Access to all lecture slides in studentportal not by email.»
- not improve»
- All lecturers should give out their lecture slides much earlier. Julia and Lrs should have fewer slides. julias was pedagogic though, Lars handouts were not very pedagogic but interesting anyway. You could not see all the text in Annikas slides when they were handed out. Fredriks fist and Marias lectures were not handed out. The workshop lectures were very good, and it would have been awesome to have them handed out.»
- good»
- Frontline research project»
- Fredriks lecture on Optics and light paths didn"t include any slides at all, it might be a good thing to have some next year.»
- there were no hand outs in the nikon workshop»

The fundamental properties of light and optics, Christian Brackmann*
23 svarande

Easy to follow» 17 73%

Acceptable» 6 26%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.26 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Visualizing the invisible - contrast mechanisms, Annika Enejder*
23 svarande

Easy to follow» 20 86%

Acceptable» 3 13%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.13 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

The virtual microscope –,,,,,,,,, computer exercise I, Christian Brackmann*
23 svarande

Easy to follow» 16 69%

Acceptable» 7 30%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.3 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Optics, light paths and image formation in a microscope, Fredrik Svedberg*
23 svarande

Easy to follow» 8 34%

Acceptable» 13 56%

Incomprehensible» 2 8%

Genomsnitt: 1.73 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

The virtual microscope –,,,,,,,,, computer exercise II, Christian Brqackmann*
23 svarande

Easy to follow» 15 65%

Acceptable» 8 34%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.34 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Nikon Workshop - lectures*
23 svarande

Easy to follow» 11 47%

Acceptable» 11 47%

Incomprehensible» 1 4%

Genomsnitt: 1.56 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Nikon Workshop - demonstration & hands-on training Göran Ingels & Michael Johansson, Fredrik Svedberg*
23 svarande

Easy to follow» 9 39%

Acceptable» 13 56%

Incomprehensible» 1 4%

Genomsnitt: 1.65 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Microspectroscopy: Raman, FTIR and TERS, Lars Hälldahl*
23 svarande

Easy to follow» 10 43%

Acceptable» 12 52%

Incomprehensible» 1 4%

Genomsnitt: 1.6 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Fluorescence microscopy: Sample preparation and labeling, Julia F-Rodrigues*
23 svarande

Easy to follow» 15 65%

Acceptable» 8 34%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.34 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Advanced fluorescence microscopy: Live cell imaging, Maria Smedj*
23 svarande

Easy to follow» 15 65%

Acceptable» 7 30%

Incomprehensible» 1 4%

Genomsnitt: 1.39 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Image acquisition in microscopy, Fredrik Svedberg*
23 svarande

Easy to follow» 13 56%

Acceptable» 9 39%

Incomprehensible» 1 4%

Genomsnitt: 1.47 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Multi-photon microscopy - contrast mechanisms II, Annika Enejder*
23 svarande

Easy to follow» 18 78%

Acceptable» 5 21%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.21 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Frontline research project*
23 svarande

Easy to follow» 17 73%

Acceptable» 6 26%

Incomprehensible» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.26 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

10. Time spent*

Matrisfråga

- yes improve»
- more practical lab work »
- Frontline research project»
- during nikon workshop the group were to big»

The fundamental properties of light and optics, Christian Brackmann*
23 svarande

Add another lecture (2x45min)» 2 8%

Increase by using the lecture more efficiently» 3 13%

Fine as is» 17 73%

Reduce - the contents can be passed on in a more compact way» 1 4%

Remove» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.73 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Visualizing the invisible - contrast mechanisms, Annika Enejder*
23 svarande

Add another lecture (2x45min)» 4 17%

Increase by using the lecture more efficiently» 3 13%

Fine as is» 16 69%

Reduce - the contents can be passed on in a more compact way» 0 0%

Remove» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.52 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

The virtual microscope –,,,,,,,, computer exercise I, Christian Brackmann*
23 svarande

Add another lecture (2x45min)» 0 0%

Increase by using the lecture more efficiently» 5 21%

Fine as is» 18 78%

Reduce - the contents can be passed on in a more compact way» 0 0%

Remove» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.78 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Optics, light paths and image formation in a microscope, Fredrik Svedberg*
23 svarande

Add another lecture (2x45min)» 3 13%

Increase by using the lecture more efficiently» 4 17%

Fine as is» 16 69%

Reduce - the contents can be passed on in a more compact way» 0 0%

Remove» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.56 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

The virtual microscope –,,,,,,,, computer exercise II, Christian Brqackmann*
23 svarande

Add another lecture (2x45min)» 1 4%

Increase by using the lecture more efficiently» 4 17%

Fine as is» 18 78%

Reduce - the contents can be passed on in a more compact way» 0 0%

Remove» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.73 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Nikon Workshop - lectures*
23 svarande

Add another lecture (2x45min)» 0 0%

Increase by using the lecture more efficiently» 2 8%

Fine as is» 19 82%

Reduce - the contents can be passed on in a more compact way» 1 4%

Remove» 1 4%

Genomsnitt: 3.04 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Nikon Workshop - demonstration & hands-on training Göran Ingels & Michael Johansson, Fredrik Svedberg*
23 svarande

Add another lecture (2x45min)» 2 8%

Increase by using the lecture more efficiently» 3 13%

Fine as is» 17 73%

Reduce - the contents can be passed on in a more compact way» 1 4%

Remove» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.73 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Microspectroscopy: Raman, FTIR and TERS, Lars Hälldahl*
23 svarande

Add another lecture (2x45min)» 0 0%

Increase by using the lecture more efficiently» 3 13%

Fine as is» 16 69%

Reduce - the contents can be passed on in a more compact way» 4 17%

Remove» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.04 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Fluorescence microscopy: Sample preparation and labeling, Julia F-Rodrigues*
23 svarande

Add another lecture (2x45min)» 1 4%

Increase by using the lecture more efficiently» 3 13%

Fine as is» 18 78%

Reduce - the contents can be passed on in a more compact way» 1 4%

Remove» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.82 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Advanced fluorescence microscopy: Live cell imaging, Maria Smedj*
23 svarande

Add another lecture (2x45min)» 1 4%

Increase by using the lecture more efficiently» 2 8%

Fine as is» 19 82%

Reduce - the contents can be passed on in a more compact way» 1 4%

Remove» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.86 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Image acquisition in microscopy, Fredrik Svedberg*
23 svarande

Add another lecture (2x45min)» 1 4%

Increase by using the lecture more efficiently» 4 17%

Fine as is» 18 78%

Reduce - the contents can be passed on in a more compact way» 0 0%

Remove» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.73 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Multi-photon microscopy - contrast mechanisms II, Annika Enejder*
23 svarande

Add another lecture (2x45min)» 2 8%

Increase by using the lecture more efficiently» 6 26%

Fine as is» 15 65%

Reduce - the contents can be passed on in a more compact way» 0 0%

Remove» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.56 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Frontline research project*
23 svarande

Add another lecture (2x45min)» 3 13%

Increase by using the lecture more efficiently» 5 21%

Fine as is» 15 65%

Reduce - the contents can be passed on in a more compact way» 0 0%

Remove» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.52 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.08

Examination

11. Was the home exam a good examination form?*

23 svarande

Excellent - it widened my knowledge and I learned new things» 10 43%

Good - helped me summarizing the knowledge I already had» 12 52%

Acceptable» 1 4%

Replace with a scheduled, formal exam» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.6 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- no comments» (Excellent - it widened my knowledge and I learned new things)
- I specially have liked the summarising table. But there were too many papers to read in the last part.» (Excellent - it widened my knowledge and I learned new things)
- its very good technique and very nice. every new change is good for subject.» (Excellent - it widened my knowledge and I learned new things)
- It"s a good way of examination. Could remove write answers in file obligation» (Good - helped me summarizing the knowledge I already had)
- Tyhe homeexam would have been better if we would have had acess to the lecture handouts earlier. We could have studied more intensely at start and asked questions earlier. But I think the homeexam was very useful in learning, because it covered the most important parts.» (Good - helped me summarizing the knowledge I already had)
- I think an extended homeexam covering the contents of each week, could be handed out in the beginning of the course. So people see what they should learn more easily e.t.c.» (Good - helped me summarizing the knowledge I already had)
- Its ok but i again say that there must be a written report instead of Home exame» (Good - helped me summarizing the knowledge I already had)
- good» (Good - helped me summarizing the knowledge I already had)
- It should be given at the start of the course.» (Acceptable)

12. Did the home exam match the contents of the course?*

23 svarande

Well» 18 78%

Acceptable» 5 21%

Several questions not treated by the lectures» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.21 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- good» (Well)
- yes its good and related to course» (Acceptable)
- yes its ok but should need more compressive » (Acceptable)

13. Which sources of information did you use when working with the home exam?*

Rangordningsfråga. Siffran anger medelposition.

1. Handouts from the lectures 1.6

2. MicroscopyU Virtual Microscope Website 2

3. Internet in general 3.1

4. Scientific publications 3.6

- no comments» (?)
- its ok» (?)
- microscopy website» (?)
- I never felt like using a book for the home exam.» (?)

14. How much time did you spend on the home exam (hours)?*

- 20»
- 16»
- more than I first expected.»
- one hour»
- 26 hrs»
- 20hr»
- I don"t know, but alot. Maybe 40h - 60h.»
- I prepare it during one week, maybe 2-3h per day»
- ~20»
- 24»
- 20-30 h»
- i think a lot of time....»
- one week»
- 50 hours»
- I worked on it for 10 days.»
- one week»
- (4 days)96hours»
- 26 hours»
- Not very long to be honest, I considered it rather easy.»
- 6-8»
- 20 hours»
- about 12 hours»
- My self i spend five days on Home exam»

15. Was the presentations a good way of reporting the project activities?*

23 svarande

Excellent - learned a lot» 17 73%

Acceptable» 6 26%

Replace with written report» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.26 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- yes the presentation is a good with the written it will be i think excellent...» (Excellent - learned a lot)
- very impressive» (Excellent - learned a lot)
- I learned a lot, by doing everything all together in the group. We had a very good gatherings for the presentation which not only improved our knowledge but felt very close to each other as a good friends.» (Excellent - learned a lot)
- yes its good for me» (Acceptable)
- Maybe a very short written report (1 pg)on how the laboratory work was done. A few presentations were difficult to follow and it would have been easier to get a better insight on how the work was done.» (Acceptable)
- No comment as I missed the presentation due to illness.» (Acceptable)

16. How much time did you spend preparing the presentation (hours)?*

- 7»
- 6»
- Hard to remember»
- daily 2-3 hours»
- 1 hrs»
- 8 hr»
- We spent maybe 20 h on meetings (+ prepatory work) for just the presentation, but also some time on preparing for the lab. Due to inefficient work and lack of own initiative of my collegues, I did most of the work on the presentations. Thus, we needed many meetings to get all of them working and interested in what we had done during the lab. We had good fun though. »
- 4h»
- 5»
- 20»
- 7 h»
- i have spent about a week on my presentation preparation..»
- one week»
- 60 hours»
- A day.»
- two weeks.»
- (3days) 48 hours»
- 30 hours»
- Not sure, roughly 8-10 hours perhaps, including data collection and making of the actual presentation.»
- 5»
- 8 hours»
- during 4 days, about 24 hours»
- about 14hours»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 1.36

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 1.93
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.27

* obligatoriska frågor

Kursutvärderingssystem från