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.

Science of environmental change, MPECO, Ht10, FFR166

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-10-21 - 2010-11-08
Antal svar: 36
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 76%
Kontaktperson: Kathrine Jahnberg»

Your own effort

1. Which programme do you belong to?

35 svarande

MP Industrial Ecology»17 48%
MP Env Measurement & Assessment»9 25%
Other Masters programme»1 2%
Erasmus student or else»8 22%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Nuclear engineering» (Other Masters programme)

2. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

35 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»1 2%
Around 20 hours/week»11 31%
Around 25 hours/week»11 31%
Around 30 hours/week»11 31%
At least 35 hours/week»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3

- The hours spend varied a lot during the course. Around the hand-ins I spent rather 30 hours than 20 hours» (Around 20 hours/week)
- not enough to learn what I should. even if I have dreamt about it in the night.» (Around 30 hours/week)

3. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

35 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»2 5%
50%»3 8%
75%»13 37%
100%»17 48%

Genomsnitt: 4.28

- Alot of lectures colided...» (25%)
- Unfortunately I didn"t find Sten Karlsson"s lessons very giving.» (50%)
- Missed a few lectures» (75%)
- One course was in collision with the sustainable development course. That should not happen within the master program !» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

4. How understandable are the course goals?

35 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»4 11%
The goals are difficult to understand»3 8%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»17 48%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»11 31%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Vague» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- Each of the lecturers should present their own set of goals or they should get together to discuss them and make sure they reflect actual expectations.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

5. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

32 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»24 75%
No, the goals are set too high»8 25%

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- but not systemic, teach so many different part» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Reasonable, but I spent a lot of time trying to understand some of the physics. That part was quite heavy for a civil engineer student» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Or it might be that the basic concepts we are supposed to have a knowledge for, are too many. Reduce the course and we might have time to get the understanding» (No, the goals are set too high)
- With a background with no chemical education it is quite high goals. Mainly because there are so many topics and it is difficult to understand what is most important to learn.» (No, the goals are set too high)
- There are too many things too rapidly defined and so even harder to understand !» (No, the goals are set too high)

6. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

31 svarande

No, not at all»1 3%
To some extent»18 58%
Yes, definitely»11 35%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 2.38

- Obviously, the examinator thinks more things belong to the "basic understanding" than I do. Exact figures for example. It is impossible to learn so many things by heart as have been gone through during the lectures. Isn´,t it better that the exminator chooses some things than that the random memorizing capacity of the students chooses?» (To some extent)
- some questions were too specific (about learning numbers that were not easily found in the course, and on which the teacher did not insist a lot: energy turnover of photosyntesis, etc...)» (To some extent)
- To some extent, because I think that the scope was so big that one had to be a bit selective when studying. The risk of missing some necessary knowledge was quite high. » (To some extent)
- If it were me giving the exam, I would focus more where possible on applying the knowledge gained in the course. Reciting definitions or memorized bits of information seems to be testing for the wrong skills.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

7. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

35 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»24 68%
Large extent»10 28%
Great extent»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.34

- Some of them» (Some extent)
- Really bad that all the sides where not upploded before the lectures.» (Some extent)
- Sten saknar tyvärr pedagogiska kunskaper fullständigt och då han håller i en stor del av undervisningen blir kursen tyvärr mycket lidande av detta. Övriga föreläsare var bra.» (Some extent)
- It depends on the teacher.» (Some extent)

8. To what extent has the lecturers by Sten Karlsson been of help for your learning?

35 svarande

Small extent»10 28%
Some extent»12 34%
Large extent»13 37%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.08

- The more he explains the less I understand. Some slides he didn´,t understand either. Why does he have them? I didn´,t dare asking things after the first time I tried.» (Small extent)
- The concepts were not very well explained. The lessons weren"t clear enough. There was not enough help for the and ins even when we asked.» (Small extent)
- the slides are not very clear: small figures with a lot of arrows, some words that are not easily related to the figure, etc... It is also difficult to take all the explainations in notes during the course, because they are not clear.» (Small extent)
- I would prefer if Sten would improve his lectures - they come across as rather confusing rather than clearifying. » (Small extent)
- The slides are well done but the explanations following are, either not enough, or it misses some informations on the slides which could enable to better understand what we are supposed to understand and to learn during the presentations. Besides, as said before, there are really too many things to learn and so in such a short time it"s difficult to going back to all the concepts and definitions and to learn/understand everything.» (Small extent)
- Please stop using the word "actually" every minute.» (Some extent)
- He has given a lot of information and it has been hard to see what is important and what is not. Better power point slides is recommended (for example it is not very pedagogic to have questions in slides without any answers, if you miss out on a lecture you have no chance to know the answer)» (Some extent)
- but his english expression make lots of trouble for us, as we always need to take too much time to guess what he really want us to do in his hand in.» (Large extent)
- Lectures could at times feel like a series of new concepts introduced without a very strong focus on the connections between them, or a summary which would help explain in a general sense how the concepts add up to enhance our understanding of the system being studied.» (Large extent)

9. To what extent has the lecturers by Evert Ljungström (atm chem) been of help for your learning?

35 svarande

Small extent»2 5%
Some extent»9 25%
Large extent»15 42%
Great extent»9 25%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

- I learned before.» (Small extent)
- I already had the knowledge of his lectures since earlier.» (Small extent)
- Hard to say since I knew most of it before. He was fun to listen to anyway.» (Some extent)
- Most of the lectures were great and the readings matched well to complement. For the very basic introductory chemistry, I might suggest skipping the use of lecture time and instead make a handout that goes over the basic definitions for students to read outside class. This way, we can see more environmental chemistry in the freed up lecture time, maybe in relation to other atmospheric processes to give us a broader picture.» (Some extent)
- The reactions in the atmosphere was a bit confusing I think. The rest ok.» (Some extent)
- Enthusiastic lecturer and good info.» (Large extent)
- Good lectures but Evert can use the board and write on it even more since no lectur notes are handed out and it"s better to get things written down than just to listen to a speach. » (Large extent)
- Since, I am a former chemisty student Everts lectures were not difficult to follow. I think he did a very good job of explaining chemisty to students who have not studied chemisty before. For next year the first two lectures should not be recomended for former chemistry or biotechnology students, because they already know what he is speaking about. » (Great extent)

10. To what extent has the lecturers by Rod Stevens (fresh water) been of help for your learning?

35 svarande

Small extent»6 17%
Some extent»15 42%
Large extent»13 37%
Great extent»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- I don´,t even now what he talked about since the material from the lecture I missed, isn´,t on the web» (Small extent)
- one of it PPT in the website is in the swedish» (Small extent)
- Since we see the hydrosphere elsewhere in the course, a stronger focus on water quality and scarcity issues, maybe with case studies for different regions of the world would be nice. Details on wastewater treatment (basic overview of how they work) and more about how water for household use is treated/what phsyical or chemical processes govern final water quality would also be interesting.» (Some extent)
- Sometimes it is hard to know what we have to learn, and the teacher speaks very fast. The content of the slides is sometimes poor.» (Some extent)
- The powerpoint could be better» (Large extent)
- Also a bit hard to grasp what is important and whats not sometimes, but otherwise good.» (Large extent)

11. To what extent has the lecturers by Kjell Wallin (bioresources) been of help for your learning?

34 svarande

Small extent»1 2%
Some extent»13 38%
Large extent»15 44%
Great extent»5 14%

Genomsnitt: 2.7

- But I don´,t see why population and evulotion has to be a part of the course when the course is alredy so big» (Some extent)
- The lectures were very interesting but at the end we didn"t know what we had to learn !» (Large extent)
- Clear and interesting lectures» (Large extent)
- I really liked this course because it was clear and well explained. The presentations were nice even if sometimes it could be good to have more explations on the slides to make the course review easier.» (Great extent)

12. To what extent has the lecturers by Thomas Backhaus (ecotox) been of help for your learning?

34 svarande

Small extent»5 14%
Some extent»13 38%
Large extent»13 38%
Great extent»3 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.41

- But I don´,t see why ecotoxicology has to be a part of the course» (Some extent)
- Feelt a bit outside the rest of the course. Hard to see why this part was imoportant.» (Some extent)
- The lectures were very interesting but at the end we didn"t know what we had to learn !» (Large extent)
- Logic of the presentation was easy to follow and made for a great overview of the basics.» (Large extent)

13. To what extent has the lecturers by Stefan Wirsenius (soils, acidification) been of help for your learning?

35 svarande

Small extent»1 2%
Some extent»11 31%
Large extent»17 48%
Great extent»6 17%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- good structured lectures» (Large extent)
- Why does the course only include soil acidification and not lake acidification aswell? I think the course should also cover eutrophication in lakes and the baltic sea (östersjön).» (Great extent)

14. To what extent has the three hand-ins been of help for your learning?

35 svarande

Small extent»6 17%
Some extent»17 48%
Large extent»9 25%
Great extent»3 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- To difficult. It took more time than I get understanding. I would rather have spent the time learning some exergy values by heart. The system with bonus points was very unclear. We didn´,t even know how many points one certain part of a han-in could get.» (Small extent)
- The hand ins were not well explained. We had troubles to understand questions. Teachers didn"t help very much. So, it required a lot of work on our own to do it. It helped for the learning but not easily.» (Small extent)
- the questions were a bit difficult to understand, the guidance was lacked, no similar exercise was solved in the class» (Some extent)
- The correction was not made clearly. It was difficult to follow Sten"s explanations, and no correction was distributed (or only numbers that are useless by themselves without any explanations). On the other hand trying to do them helps to understand the lectures.» (Some extent)
- The two first was terribly written, it was very hard to understand what was expected of us. And this made the work very time consuming. The last hand in however, was well explained and useful.» (Some extent)
- Before the first hand-in, it would be useful for Sten to go through an exercise or two in class to show something of the expected reasoning and methods that should go into the assignments. It was difficult to gauge the level of detail and precision expected, compared to the level of hand-waving and estimation. » (Some extent)
- It was difficult to do these hand-ins.» (Some extent)
- the instructions were not clear- confusing- and a lot of time had to be spend on finding out what was meant by the questions , and we also got it wrong! -Please rewrite it for next year. » (Large extent)

15. To what extent was the presentation of a paper a valuable moment?

35 svarande

Small extent»5 14%
Some extent»16 45%
Large extent»7 20%
Great extent»7 20%

Genomsnitt: 2.45

- We had absolutely no feedback on our presentation !!!!!!» (Small extent)
- it could have been good to do this with the articles that formed the course literature instead of additional texts that were not compulsory course literature.» (Some extent)
- It would have been great it the teacher had made some constructive feedback about the presentations. They were not all "great" and nothing was said by the teacher about what we did. It is not easy for the students to say to each others "you should not read your notes, it"s boring when you don"t look at us"» (Some extent)
- Good to get a connection and understanding to what is discussed in the subject right now.» (Some extent)
- most of us have done that before...» (Some extent)
- Maybe the groups were too big for this. The instructor should also have a few questions prepared to ask each group just in case the students don"t have anything to ask.» (Some extent)
- It is always good to present something.» (Large extent)
- Good to have oral presentations, especially in small groups.» (Great extent)

16. To what extent was the demonstations etc by Sten Karlsson of help for your learning?

33 svarande

Small extent»11 33%
Some extent»13 39%
Large extent»9 27%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.93

- The hand-ins was too difficult. » (Small extent)
- was in davids group» (Small extent)
- It was difficult to understand, and the teacher had difficulties to understand our questions.» (Small extent)
- Didnt have Sten» (Small extent)
- n/a since I was in the other group.» (Small extent)
- Not enough detailed» (Some extent)

17. To what extent extent was the demonstations etc by David Bryngelsson of help for your learning?

25 svarande

Small extent»6 24%
Some extent»10 40%
Large extent»7 28%
Great extent»2 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.2

- I was in Stens group» (?)
- He wasn"t in my group» (?)
- I was in Sten class» (?)
- I dont know» (Small extent)
- i was not in his group.» (Small extent)
- The hand-ins was too difficult. » (Some extent)
- Good explainations of the handins» (Large extent)

18. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

34 svarande

Small extent»3 8%
Some extent»11 32%
Large extent»15 44%
Great extent»5 14%

Genomsnitt: 2.64

- I didn´,t have any time to read it.» (Small extent)
- It is too big to be useful.» (Small extent)
- The slides mainly» (Some extent)
- Really great book. But kjell did not specify which part of the chapters he used, and we can not read 5 chapters for 2 lectures.» (Large extent)
- I personally managed to read most of the parts of J&J that were expected, and I think the book was a decent introduction to many of the topics, but I know many students who hardly used the book. Given how expensive it is, I wonder if there might be some other solution to still give a good complement to the lectures, but both encourage the students to actually read it and save the students some money.» (Large extent)
- the book is very good.» (Great extent)

19. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

35 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»2 5%
Rather well»24 68%
Very well»9 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- Put up the presentations in time.» (Rather badly)
- I was trying to use the "new" student portal the entire study period and had many problems with it. After exam week, I discovered the "old" student portal and have had much more luck with that. If the problems of excessive downtime aren"t fixed on the student portal by next year, it would be helpful to new students to make sure they know of the other option (the "old" student portal) or post course materials to some other server on campus which the students can access if needed.» (Rather badly)
- Some lecture notes didn´,t appear on the web. I don´,t know why. There was also wrong notes from Rod. We had to remember that it soon was time for a new "hand-in" and that we were wupposed to read a paper. » (Rather well)
- time delay in uploading slides, could not prepare for the lesson» (Rather well)

Study climate

20. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

35 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»2 5%
Rather good»18 51%
Very good»13 37%
I did not seek help»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- We could ask questions very easily but some time the answers weren"t satisfying» (Rather poor)
- The lecturers was mostly there, but they couldn´,t help. Most help wanted with the hand-ins. David hadn´,t always read it through and Sten and David hadn´,r agreeded on what the questions was all about. Kjell didn´,t answer mail.» (Rather good)
- Sten and David where available but the others where not.» (Rather good)
- Sten was good when we asked questions.» (Very good)
- Sten"s offer for us to drop by anytime to ask questions was very generous.» (Very good)

21. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

35 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»4 11%
Rather well»16 45%
Very well»15 42%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

- the lingual barrier took more time to overcome than the time spent on the actual tasks» (Rather poorly)
- Hard to cooperate with students who barely speak english. I did a very large part of the hand-ins myself. » (Rather poorly)
- I tend to prefer individually prepared and submitted assignments. Group work tends to penalize those who work hard and take pride in their work, either by making them do everything while having to share the credit, or by making them put their name on an assignment that doesn"t come up to their personal standards.» (Rather poorly)

22. How was the course workload?

34 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»7 20%
High»17 50%
Too high»10 29%

Genomsnitt: 4.08

- For the hand-ins, hand-written submissions would be significantly less work, while still offering the same learning value. Each time, a very large portion of the time spent on the assignment was in writing equations in word or formatting in latex. » (High)
- The "hand-in" was horrible. The time spent on that could have been used to a lot of other things. For example understanding what the course was all about.» (Too high)
- to many and to diificult handins» (Too high)
- too much things to learn» (Too high)

23. How was the total workload this study period?

34 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»2 5%
Adequate»7 20%
High»18 52%
Too high»7 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.88

- i"m used to a little more...» (Low)
- I was forced to have 3 courses.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

24. What is your general impression of the course?

36 svarande

Poor»3 8%
Fair»7 19%
Adequate»8 22%
Good»16 44%
Excellent»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.19

- Could have been very good since it is interesting. Just too much and an examinator that doésn´,t really want us to learn.» (Fair)
- Sten"s and Evert"s parts of the course, the main parts, felt pretty unifrom. The other lectures though, which came in "packages" of two, made the course sprawl in my opninion. This, since there was not time to geet deeper into the subject due to just two lectures. My impression is that it clearly became to much different information to take in from a lot of different sources and directions. I think that negatively affected my capability of comprehending the course material.» (Fair)
- It could be much more interesting I guess if there were less to learn because eventually when there are too many things to learn then one does not learn anything well.» (Fair)
- a bit confusing impression. » (Adequate)
- I liked the subject very much, it was interresting, but sometimes it was difficult to understand what was the purpose of a slide, and what the teacher wanted us to understand.» (Good)
- The main problem I see with the course is that there just isn"t enough time to cover all the desired topics at the desired level of detail.» (Good)
- Good to repeat all this things» (Excellent)

25. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- hand ins are good, but need more guidance and exercises in the class»
- hand-in,oral presentation»
- That the hand-ins are optional.»
- sten"s part, but do some improvement»
- the knowledge of the total environment change»
- evert ljungström, he is an excellent teacher.»
- Everts part»
- Different teachers, different points of view»
- The course structure is good which contains many aspects of foundation of environmental science.»
- the group exercise»
- The hand-ins!»
- The subject is very interesting. I was great to deal with different skills.»
- Hand-ins BUT REVISED and made clearer»
- Hand-ins»
- buying the blue book»
- Most of the reading material complemented the lectures well.»
- The different teachers»

26. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- way too many teachers, becomes unorganized and hard to follow »
- Take away the ecotoxicological part. I don´,t see why it has to be part of a course that is to big.Take away the population part as well. Not necessary to have. The small things I remeber after the course, I could as well find in some book when I need it. Take away the hand-in (takes too much time) and the bonus-point system (very unclear) and have normally "räkneövningar" instead. Not compulsary.»
- lecture orders. »
- the availability of the lectures on the studentportal»
- the fresh water which is in swedish»
- If a practice exam is given, the the answers should also presented. So you could know what kind of answers that are expected from us. To the exam you did not know what was expected of you, how deep the knowledge and the answeres should be for fulfilling the given points.»
- The handouts took a lot more time than they were supposed to take. »
- i really don"t see the relevance of the ecotoxicology part, or at least it was not clearly connected to the other parts.»
- The course contains too many subjects and is too wide. Take away the ecotox and bioresources and spend more time to explain the other things. Sten need to show less diagrams and spend more time on those that are important. Sten said many times that understanding was important but in the end it turned out that we had to learn numbers and diagrams by heart which NOT is understanding, that is detailed knowledge that we can look up when we need it.»
- Too many informations for the examination. It will be better to split it.»
- presentaion of literature seems have little help to this course.»
- there are too many aspects taught in this course»
- A litel more strukture in som of the lectures. Remember to always show the principal points clearly so we get somthing to remember them about. Allso, make sure that someone who is not a professor has red the handins before they are given out. They are sometimes allmost imposible to understand. You shodd not have to gess what they are about.»
- The bonus-gradring system. One should not get bonus points for accomplishing the paper presentation becouse this is compulsary. And in the end could one get 14 points, but only use 12. So maybe the maximum should be 12?»
- The scientific concepts, the learning outcomes, the explanations have to be defined clearer and in a scientific way»
- it is to many things in the course, no red thread, to many things that you have to memorize in the head exampel diffrent diagrams»
- the way the exercises are corrected.»
- A clearer description of how much we should know. And for the handins, recommended reading to solve them, like refering to the exergy-material for figures for the tasks. It is not good to give all the figures of a task because then students dont get to think for themselves what figures they need, but in this course you definitly need to get guidance where to look to find the info!»
- The hand-outs should be made smaller making them less time-requiring. »
- correction of the hand ins»
- Shifting somewhat in one direction (either fewer topics in slightly more detail or the same number of topics in slightly less detail) would make the course better in terms of retaining a good portion of the information.»
- The problem statements should be changed and one should be more guided. Some numerical values should also be given sometimes because I do not think that the aim of these hand-ins is to spend half an hour or more to look for a numerical value !»

27. Additional comments

- The course is to big for its aim. Basic understanding comes when you have time to think about things.»
- No»
- Sten has been helpful in answering questions.»
- The exercises are too difficult to deal with.»
- Nothing»
- Try to explain the concepts of understanding the connections between the different parts from the beginning. Like: First we look at fluxes models and then we look at different fluxes and so on. I"m sure that that was done, but you could stress it. »
- none»

Kursutvärderingssystem från