Visa resultat

Strategy Creation and Change, 2010, TEK280

Overall impression

1. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		1		2%
Fair»		5		11%
Ok»		5		11%
Good»		11		25%
Very good»		21		48%

Genomsnitt: 4.06 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The lectures were held in the very good manner but the administration and grading are very poorly managed. » (Fair)
- In general it"s similar to other courses, lacks of novelty in academic terms.» (Fair)
- The lectures were mostly good or very good» (Ok)
- The aim of the course is really atractive but finally it just deflates.» (Ok)
- Very Good course content and lectures but it would be better if we got to choose the project teams ourselves » (Ok)
- Intressant och lärorikt!» (Good)
- I enjoyed the discussion-oriented style of the course.» (Very good)
- very intreseting subject, high work load which is good. Could be more lectures connecting with the course book though. » (Very good)
- The participation in case studies, the interaction among students and teacher and the presence of different companies have made a "must-do" course. » (Very good)
- Very good content and structure of the course » (Very good)
- Interesting course which was easy to follow and I learned a lot through the cases» (Very good)

2. Would you recommend this course to other students?

Yes»		38		88%
No»		5		11%

Genomsnitt: 1.11

- But with some warnings» (Yes)
- I would recommend it but I would love the course improved.» (Yes)
- Too all my friend» (Yes)
- if someone has no strategy background, this course is very good to understand the basics» (Yes)
- yes, if the area of interests of those students corresponds to the topic of the course» (Yes)
- I would recommend students to assist to the lectures due to the content discussed during classes... But I would hesitate to recommend to register in this course due to how students are graded, which I found it quite subjective.» (Yes)
- I would recommend other students just to attend the class but not take the credit for it.» (No)
- I liked the methodology when it was mixed cases with traditional lectures, however I consider seriously bias the assesment of projects and participaion in class.» (No)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 4.06

Your own effort

3. Which master program do you study?

MPQOM»		8		18%
MPMEI»		18		41%
MPPDE»		2		4%
MPSCM»		0		0%
Other»		15		34%

Genomsnitt: 2.9

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

43 svarande

At most 5 hours/week»		0		0%
Around 10 hours/week»		7		16%
Around 15 hours/week»		14		32%
Around 20 hours/week»		12		27%
At least 25 hours/week»		10		23%

Genomsnitt: 3.58

- Very tough in the week before the deadlines but fair on average in terms of workload.» (Around 15 hours/week)
- Due to dispersed knowledge within the project team the assignments took to much time » (At least 25 hours/week)

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

43 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		1		2%
50%»		5		11%
75%»		21		48%
100%»		16		37%

Genomsnitt: 4.2

- (Often I had obligatory classes on the same time)» (25%)
- Clashes in schedule» (50%)
- I had mandatory lectures at the same time.» (50%)
- Because of the OB course - otherwise I would have had attended 100 %» (75%)
- around 85%» (75%)
- Kursen krockade med en annan valbar inom min MEI-master. Av förklarliga skäl önskbart att schemaläggningen sker på sådant vis att det fåtal valbara kurser inom I-mastrarna inte krockar med varandra i stor utsträckning.» (75%)
- Near 100% (90%)» (100%)
- I missed one case discussion but attended every other occasion.» (100%)
- missed 1 lecture» (100%)
- I just missed one lecture» (100%)

6. How engaged were you in the teamwork?

Not active at all»		0		0%
Not so active»		0		0%
Participated, but was not very engaged»		2		4%
Quite active»		13		30%
Very active»		28		65%

Genomsnitt: 4.6

- let students decide the group mates, if not different competence levels are mixed» (Participated, but was not very engaged)
- I tried my best and I believe lecturer have put a lot of effort to make the students engaged in the course.» (Quite active)
- I always like to be an active part of the group by my collegues had bigger background in management.» (Quite active)
- I really wanted to get the highest score on the group work, so I took the leader rol when it was needed.» (Very active)
- Upplever att grupparbetena fungerat väldigt dåligt. Detta beror nog inte på administrationen kring dem, utan snarare på vilka typer av studenter som man blev hopsatt med. Är medveten om att detta är ett generellt problem, men anser inte att det är rimligt att kräva att enskilda studenter ska behöva skriva hela arbeten för att söka få höga betyg. Betygsättningen vid gruppsammansättningar som sker likt i denna kurs måste även kunna kunna bedömas utifrån individuellt bidragande till slutprodukten. Kände att jag personligen bidrog med betydligt mer än vad mina medkamrater gjorde. Två bör inte ens få godkänt i kursen enligt min uppfattning baserat på bidrag/uppvisad kunskap i ämnet.» (Very active)

Goals fulfilment and examination

7. How understandable were the course goals?

I have not seen/read/heard the goals»		3		6%
The goals were badly expressed: I did not understand them»		1		2%
It was difficult to know what I could expect from the course»		2		4%
The goals gave some guidance, but could have been clearer»		15		34%
It was clear what I could expect to learn from the course»		22		51%

Genomsnitt: 4.2 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Did not read them» (I have not seen/read/heard the goals)
- more theory explanation and teaching» (The goals gave some guidance, but could have been clearer)
- This question does not really measures what it seems pretend to measure. The course goal is pretty clear but there is no linkage between the course goal and the teaching method. » (It was clear what I could expect to learn from the course)

8. What would you have preferred as examination form?

43 svarande

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

Written term papers (team)»		19		44%
Indivdual term papers»		15		34%
Short papers (team)»		10		23%
Individual short papers»		18		41%
Performance in case discussions»		16		37%
Presentations in class»		14		32%
Exercises (other than cases) in class»		7		16%
Smaller diagnostic tests»		9		20%
Large traditional written test»		4		9%
No opinion»		6

- paper and presentation» (No opinion)
- In my opinion performance in duscussions as assessment method has to be improved a lot, because at the moment it"s not fair» (Written term papers (team), Indivdual term papers, Short papers (team), Individual short papers)
- The discussion grading was a bad idea.» (Short papers (team), Individual short papers)
- I did not like the groupcases. There was no directions and you are depening on your group alot. If you are in a bad group that affects your entire grade. And I also belive it would have been much much better if there was a chanse to improve paper 1. Like a second hand in after given feedback on the paper. I did not like to be graded on the discussions aswell. Or, if this is to be done, how the evaluation is done should be communicated beforehand. » (Indivdual term papers, Individual short papers, Smaller diagnostic tests, Large traditional written test)
- I found the examination form used good. » (Written term papers (team), Indivdual term papers, Short papers (team), Performance in case discussions)
- I don"t agree with a large traditional test, but I think it was possible to do the assignments without reviewing what was told during lectures, so they may be missed by students. since I find lecture materials useful and since repeating is very important in learning, a kind of test of lecture materials can make students review them and hopefully learn them better!» ()
- I would have prefered that the individual part were not optional and much more important than the team work since there is much of free-riding when teams have to work for the larger part of the grade» (Indivdual term papers, Smaller diagnostic tests)
- written term paper only if the students get to choose the project teams, otherwise the risk for free riders are high» (Written term papers (team), Individual short papers, Performance in case discussions)
- But clearer grading criteria!!!! Very difficult to know on what terms we were graded now and also I perceived the grading as very subjective. More than 50% of the total grade was also not individual which I find bad. » (Written term papers (team), Indivdual term papers, Performance in case discussions, Presentations in class)
- I think there should have been something more individual to be graded on. It is not reasonable that 70 percent of the grade is based on group works where you cannot pick the group yourself» (Indivdual term papers, Performance in case discussions, Presentations in class, Smaller diagnostic tests)
- I consider that the ways of examinations currently used are OK, however the way these were graded were quite unfair and subjective. Feedback received during projects phases was not useful at all. It is impossible to try to guess what the teacher if expecting if you are told you are doing quite good and suddenly you get low grades... » (No opinion)
- I would say the case discussions can be a good way of assessing student"s abilities, but if the framework and objectives have been defined before. I don"t think the assessment has been fair for our course.» (Individual short papers, Presentations in class)
- Since project instructions were open and blurry, the grading was basically based if the examiner like it and not based on a standarized and objective way of grading. It doesnt consider that all the poeple can have different understanding on the project. Since all the projects are going to be different because of the blurry instructions, then they should be graded each one by a single different person who doesnt have access to the other projects, because if the same persons does the gradings it will end up comparing them and bias the grading, which I think that was the case. The case discussion was graded absurdly, taking into account the number of people in a discussion, the available time and people having similar backgrounds, leads to people who was selected randomly by Tobias to mention something that you wanted to say before you, but since you cant repeat it, you end up not saying anything or something really basic, and then they said that they based the grading on quality of the performance, in the first place quality of the performance is subjective, the people who was chosen to speak was always the same persons, at the end this can lead to think that it exists some kind of favoritism or discrimination from the course assistant (who also use to arrive late to some discussions) and teacher.» (Large traditional written test)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 4.2

Teaching and course administration

9. To what extent did the lectures contribute to your learning?

Not at all»		1		2%
Small extent»		2		4%
Some extent»		14		32%
Large extent»		20		46%
I really learnt a lot»		6		13%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.65 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- There were some lectures that was really interesting and instructive, but others not very much. » (Small extent)
- coulden"t attend that many...» (Some extent)
- new cases» (Large extent)
- Very good teacher. Enthusiastic and good at engaging the class and pedagogical. » (I really learnt a lot)
- Tobias is very competent and it is always interesting to listen to managers at companies since they have the "real fact" and have a lot of practical experience» (I really learnt a lot)
- Lectures were quite good and interesting.» (I really learnt a lot)

10. To what extent did the case discussions contribute to your learning?

Not at all»		0		0%
Very little»		5		11%
Some extent»		8		18%
Large extent»		11		25%
I really learnt a lot»		19		44%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 4.02 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- To long without brakes» (Very little)
- There were no feedback to what the students thought were the right answer to what the lecturer was asking. Students may have given their own opinion but it is not necessarily right, and the voice of the experience was never heard. Strong lack of feedback.» (Very little)
- too useless comments» (Some extent)
- Being able to hear different perspectives from students was very interesting. I would recommend the lecturer to keep the case discussions.» (I really learnt a lot)
- The best part of the course!» (I really learnt a lot)
- I learnt a lot and I considered I was active and contributing to the discussion... however I was very surprised when I got a quite low grade. Perhaps if having being told before that my performance was not as good as I thought it was I would had been even more active. I still don"t know what I was missing in order to have improved my grade.» (I really learnt a lot)

11. What did you think of the fact that cases played a major role in the course?

Very bad»		1		2%
Bad»		4		9%
Ok»		1		2%
Good»		14		32%
Very good»		23		53%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 4.25 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Very bad in terms of the absurd grading, but good for learning, however this cant be done in such large groups.» (Very bad)
- Cases are of so much importance, but without feedback or the experience of the lecturer or someone with hands-on knowledge on the field its a bit futile» (Bad)
- it is hard to appropriately grade a person based on a single discussion lectures of 2 hours together with another 20 students» (Bad)
- Discussion weren"t much useful, mainly just a summary of the case» (Bad)
- The questions that should be answered before each session is irrelevant since the discussion is somewhat fixed. Either should the discussion fit the questions or the questions should be removed.» (Good)
- But it is not the case that judged the grades» (Good)
- Upplevde att casediskussionerna var mycket svåra att bidra till. Inför samtliga case studerade jag texten noga och skrev ner utförliga svar på samtliga indsuteringsfrågor. Under casediskussionerna var upplägget helt annorlunda från instuderingsfrågorna och andra i klassen försökte bara säga saker först för att få högre betyg, oavsett om det vid tillfället passade bra eller inte. Man kom lite ur fas kan man kanske säga... Önskvärt med mindre grupper för att kunna få bättre "diskussioner", utan att personer häver ur sig saker för att ha talat mest.» (Good)
- It was great to have someone from the company in the case to explain the situation afterward to deepen our understandings.» (Very good)
- I found quite interesting every case, but again I am not satisfied at all with the way projects where graded. If you want to give freedom to students and not give that much specifications, you must be open as well to receive new ideas which would be perhaps not what you were expecting.» (Very good)

12. How well did the course administration work?

Very badly»		3		7%
Rather badly»		5		11%
Ok»		11		26%
Rather well»		14		33%
Very well»		9		21%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.5 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The course assistant was difficult to reach, he never attend to emails or phone calls.» (Very badly)
- Lack of hands-in after each lesson, lack of feed-backs on individual performance» (Rather badly)
- Poor and Slow communication overall. The communication through team leaders does not make sense » (Rather badly)
- Slides where lately/or never updated» (Rather badly)
- The presentations/lectures/guestlectures could have been uploaded much faster. They could have helped alot when writing the papers. This time you really had to stress alot in the end because they were not uploaded until very late.» (Ok)
- I think there should be more time between the first paper and the second one» (Ok)
- I don"t have comments on that,.» (Very well)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.85

Lecturers

13. What is your general impression of the set of lecturers that were engaged in the course

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		1		2%
Adequate»		3		7%
Good»		20		50%
Very good»		16		40%
No opinion»		2

Genomsnitt: 4.27 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The level of the lectures was very good in general.» (Good)
- Extremly good lecturers. I am so happy with all of them. ALl seemed interested and happy to be there. » (Very good)
- Lectures and case discussions where very very good, however I must say that the quality of the lectures and what I learnt in the lectures and case discussions, is inversely proportional to the grades I received.» (No opinion)

14. How would you rate the lecturers/case discussants in the course?

- I think that the professor assistant however should be able to answer the questions he is asked by the guests about the business cases, as he is the person who is supposed to evaluate student performances on that (he said he did not read the Singapore Airlines case during the market startegy lecture)»
- No comments on that either.»
- I should say that Björn Frössevi had a good lecture, however the candy tossing seems demeaning for academic purposes, its distracting.»

Tobias Fredberg (main lecturer)
43 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Weak»		1		2%
Ok»		1		2%
Good»		7		16%
Very good»		34		79%

Genomsnitt: 4.72

Fredrik Dahlsten (market strategy)
42 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Weak»		1		2%
Ok»		4		9%
Good»		24		57%
Very good»		13		30%

Genomsnitt: 4.16

Björn Frössevi (business model development)
38 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Weak»		0		0%
Ok»		3		7%
Good»		19		50%
Very good»		16		42%

Genomsnitt: 4.34

P-O Nyquist and Magnus Finnström (Cardo/Crawford case)
40 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Weak»		0		0%
Ok»		6		15%
Good»		17		42%
Very good»		17		42%

Genomsnitt: 4.27

Peter Lundin (Ericsson case)
39 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Weak»		1		2%
Ok»		4		10%
Good»		15		38%
Very good»		19		48%

Genomsnitt: 4.33

Aleksander Rosinski (Schibsted case))
42 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Weak»		1		2%
Ok»		8		19%
Good»		22		52%
Very good»		11		26%

Genomsnitt: 4.02

15. What did you think of the course counselling sessions (with Christopher)?

Poor»		9		23%
Not so good»		5		12%
Ok»		12		30%
Helpful»		9		23%
Very helpful»		4		10%
No opinion»		4

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- feedback was confusing. Long stories ending in sometimes the confusing words: forget what I just said. We didn"t really knew what was good and bad in the end. The e-mail was much clearer. The e-mail stated different and more clearer improvement points. » (Poor)
- Although we were told we were on the right track and that we were doing a great job, we bot a very quite low grade at the end... ???» (Poor)
- very poor. Almost nothing new was obtained, I think he hadn"t even read our case before our meeting. » (Poor)
- Christopher counselling wasn"t helpful at all, it looks like he didnt have any idea of what was going on, based on what he said and feedback received by email was completely different.» (Poor)
- It was not very clear,» (Not so good)
- No real helpful criticism for the second case. Spelling mistakes were mostly discussed for the completed case not how to continue with the second. Could have been more effective if not every page were discussed but instead the improvement areas.» (Not so good)
- More constructive feedback should have been given, in what way could we have made something different, I missed examples. I also missed an opportunity for supervision for the other case. » (Not so good)
- Should have been more meetings, and one for paper 1. It felt like the information given in the counselling session was to late, good but late. » (Ok)
- We had the feedback before the grade and it was a little bit confusing because it wasn"t the same. Therefore, in the second project we found us lost.» (Ok)
- Upplever att feedbacken kunde varit mer konkret och påläst. Hade även varit positivt om Christopher kände till case 2 för att kunna rådgöra.» (Ok)
- The session was helpful, the only think is that we didn"t have enough time to discuss many aspects of our work. And we postponed our questions till the end, but in the end run out of time, which didn"t allow us to discuss some critical areas we were aiming to discuss. I understand, that we are many groups that want to receive feedback, but it would be good if we could allocate a little more time than we had. This would be also helpful for Christopher, since he did a great job analyzing our work, and made good points, but we even didn"t have a chance to discuss all of them.» (Helpful)
- Feedback gave us the idea on what to focus on for the next assignment.» (Very helpful)
- couldn"t attend...» (No opinion)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 4.27

Study climate

16. To what extent did you feel that you could approach the lecturers to ask questions?

Not at all»		0		0%
It felt very awkward»		2		4%
It was ok»		8		18%
It felt comfortable»		22		51%
I could easily approach the lecturers»		11		25%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.97 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I tried to get an answer from Christopher and Tobias about the grading of case discussions without success.» (It felt very awkward)
- Perfect in class Hardly by email» (It was ok)
- Lecturers were always there and had an open attitude to receive questions» (It felt comfortable)
- It was a good environment for asking questions.» (I could easily approach the lecturers)

17. How well did the cooperation between you and your fellow students work in your teams?

Very poorly»		1		2%
Rather poorly»		10		23%
Ok»		6		13%
Rather well»		13		30%
Very well»		13		30%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.62

- We didn"t manage to work as a group quite well. But we are all guilty.» (Rather poorly)
- see earlier comments» (Rather poorly)
- We had one person in the group that wasn"t contributing at all, I think because of not enough understanding... and two that tried but had no earlier experience of group work and fairly poor english. » (Rather poorly)
- better in project 2 than project 1. » (Rather well)

18. What did you think in general of the work in your teams?

Very bad»		2		4%
Bad»		5		11%
Ok»		18		41%
Good»		12		27%
Very good»		6		13%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.34

- too different levels of competences» (Bad)
- Since there was not requirement of having strategy skills from before, our skills in this topic varied a lot. Some of the group members had never heard about Porter etc. This makes it a bit unfair since some groups consited of people only from Inudstrial Engineering on Chalmers where strategy has been studied a lot and their overall knowledge then was a lot higher than for our group"s knowledge.» (Bad)
- The fact that we had 2 swedish people in our team imply that we had to follow their way of working. It is useful because we are in sweden, but no way to try other working techniques. Sometimes, work was not efficient at all : spending an all night to work for the paper .... » (Ok)
- rather ok I would say, thanks to one or two members that did remarkable work to get the best grades. (not including me on that)» (Ok)
- Could have been much better I think, more structured and focused..» (Ok)
- the diversity of the backgrounds and hence mindsets of team members was sometimes frustrating, but the most irritating issue was that related to the form in which the group project had to be handed in, since we could not agree on the many elements due to different academic backgrounds» (Ok)
- We had a nice time when we where working but some problems finding times that everyone could meet.» (Ok)
- Was great to work with nice people from different backgrounds, and good that we had a mix of Erasmus/Master and all from different countries. And I think we did a good job, since for the majority of the group this was the first project in Chalmers, but all can figure out things quickly and communicate without any problems. » (Very good)

19. What would you suggest as the fairest way to form teams?

1.		Place stud. of diff. backgrounds together		1.6
2.		Randomly place students in teams		1.9

- third alternative absolutely not allowed» (?)
- Cultural diversity is very good, I think however that at the beginning of the course some information about the background studies should be asked. This is because the course is open even to people who have non-business knowledge (very good aspect) but sometimes working on the business frameworks could turn very inefficient.» (?)
- Randomly is great» (?)
- I think since the erasmus students may come from very irrelevant backgrounds, its good to spread them in all groups so that each group don"t have too many of them! (more than what is constructive I mean!) at the same time, if you let students decide, Chalmers students from same programs will find each others and erasmus students will be left alone... which is not good as well.» (?)
- We just had bad luck.» (?)
- The last point I would not even put up there, because in real life that option is not possible. The students should learn to cope with other people with people they don"t know and people with different backgrounds.» (?)
- Its important to learn how to work with people from different backgrounds and this will probably (if you put some time into the project work)result in a better project.» (?)
- the random pick is good only if the number of team members is >4, since otherwise there could be problems of adverse selection in case of fewer people in one group. the last one is good when classmates already know each other, otherwise choice is just like randomly assigning students to random groups. people with different backgrounds normally yield higher results in team works, but when the topic is very narrow they pronanly are not as effective» (?)
- Let the students pick one friend, and then you put those friends together with a group of two other friends, and thus create a team.» (?)
- As previous stated, I think the student should have the possibility to pick at least one other student for the work since it is the major part of the grade. Also in order to better coordinate with other classes» (?)
- For us swedish students is very bad for our learning to get in the same teams as many of the exchanges students since we hade been doing teem work for alomst five years and they have never done it. We also have to spend a lot of time explaining concepts and frameworks we worked with for years and they have never herad of. This leads to that we had "higher quality" in the third grade than now in the fifth grade...» (?)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.97

For next year...

20. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

21. What should definitely be changed to next year?

22. Additional comments