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.

Design of Technological Innovations and Markets, Sahlgrenska (GIBBS), MED984

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-11-24 - 2010-11-30
Antal svar: 6
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 66%
Kontaktperson: Anna Tullsten»

Your own effort

1. 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.

6 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»1 16%
Around 20 hours/week»1 16%
Around 25 hours/week»0 0%
Around 30 hours/week»3 50%
At least 35 hours/week»1 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- It is very hard to estimate that time, we spent lot of hours doing the group works what were related to DTIM course, but were not actually graded as part of this course, so I didn´,t included those hours in, but if i would it will be at least 35 hours/week. So the average was 15 hours/week, but the week before the DTIM exam, it was at least 35 hours/week + the hours for group work.» (At most 15 hours/week)
- These are predominantly lecture hours as I considered most of the work outside the course falling into the TBE course instead.» (Around 20 hours/week)

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

6 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»0 0%
100%»6 100%

Genomsnitt: 5

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.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

6 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»1 16%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»4 66%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»1 16%

Genomsnitt: 2.83

4. 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.

5 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»5 100%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

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

6 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»4 66%
Yes, definitely»1 16%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 16%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

Teaching and course administration

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

6 svarande

Small extent»1 16%
Some extent»3 50%
Large extent»2 33%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.16

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

6 svarande

Small extent»3 50%
Some extent»1 16%
Large extent»2 33%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.83

- The Trott book is too long, doesn"t clearly explain concepts it introduces. (See for instance the Prisoner"s Dilemma where the game theory concept is introduced and then never connected back to the business world)» (Small extent)
- Trott book was horrible. Please change to a precise, concice book instead of endless lines just scratching the surface of each topic. Also please invite more guest lecturers who talk about how they succeeded with their start up. E.g. the Vehco lecturer was excellent, inspiring and gave more information than the horrible Trott book.» (Small extent)

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

6 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»1 16%
Rather well»3 50%
Very well»2 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

Study climate

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

6 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»3 50%
Very good»3 50%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- The finance part help from Anders was not very good.» (Rather good)

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

6 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»2 33%
Very well»4 66%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

11. How was the course workload?

6 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»3 50%
High»2 33%
Too high»1 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- Maybe more cases and assignments instead of in-class discussions.» (Adequate)
- it was adequate, but it wasn´,t take into consideration the IP exam what we had before and group assignments. These articles what we had to read in the beginning of the course were too long and we didn´,t have time for that, also we were all tired from the exam.» (Adequate)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

6 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»1 16%
High»3 50%
Too high»2 33%

Genomsnitt: 4.16

- There should be at least one day off from school after the exam and no assignments and hand-ins on the same week when we have had the exam!» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

6 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 16%
Adequate»5 83%
Good»0 0%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.83

- To start with the positive: the lectures from Gregory, Anders and Martin were terrific. Full of information, challenging and interesting. It seemed like an unfocussed course that whilst having some terrific content (Business Modelling, Valuation & Finance, Product Concept) at times had almost content empty lectures (Case studies on the cork industry, 3M). I just never really felt like there was a purpose behind what we were learning and sometimes I even questioned whether it was accurate. For instance we learned about Kondratiev cycles which are of practically no use to us in start-ups and not even accepted by modern economists (who are generally ready to falsely accept patterns and models in all financial data). » (Adequate)
- Improvments: More guest lecturers/people currently working in Encubator/Incubator. Other book. More cases and examples of companies in real life.» (Adequate)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Business Modelling, Valuation, Finance and as many lectures as possible with former students or entrepreneurs. We need either inspiration or solid information, some lectures had neither.»
- I think the discussion should remain, but change the format. se next comment.»
- The lectures of Martin Lackéus- it was fantastic! The lectures of Gregory Carson - also very good. Financial part from Anders and business modeling is also very important to study.»
- the finance part»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Flimsy economic theories originally intended to explain history incorrectly being used to forecast. The product development paths need to be clearer or removed. I don"t feel like I would be a better new product developer for having attended the course. More explanation of a TEVA!! Everyone I"ve spoken to was unsure of the purpose and process of performing a TEVA. I know it was a core concept but it just wasn"t introduced and then explained clearly enough. More examples and more explanations of the value in doing one are needed.»
- The discussions where low leveld.In my opinion it isnt enough just to answear what a case is about. We should hav gotten discussion question in forehand, so that the discussion could be more valid and not about if someone prefers wine with screw corks or regular corks. To get points for comments like that seem ridicolous on this level. So more structured discussion and the teacher should regulate them more.»
- This grading of performance where there are 50-60 people in the lecture is not adequate! You should not do it!»
- order of the topics and hand ins. more time to gregorys" lectures»

16. Additional comments

- Actually i really didn´,t get the main point of the lectures of Mats Lundqvist!! Too much time wasted on that, you should better give us more financial, product development and business strategy lectures, the ones that are more practical. Well the idea of TEVA, product concept are very good, but the explanations of them were poor, i would have liked more clear vision of them, more examples and more thorough explanations in the lectures. Also there should be some seminars for financial calculations and numbers.»

Lectures

Appreciate on a scale 1 (low appreciation) –, 5 (high appreciation) the combined competency and pedagogy of the following lecturers:

17. Mats Lundqvist

6 svarande

1»0 0%
2»1 16%
3»2 33%
4»2 33%
5»1 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- less discussions, more information» (4)

18. Martin Lackéus

6 svarande

1»0 0%
2»0 0%
3»0 0%
4»1 16%
5»5 83%

Genomsnitt: 4.83

- excellent guy!» (5)
- Very good! Intresting to hear about his startup and to bee able to put it in a context of our course!» (5)

19. Anders Sundelin

6 svarande

1»0 0%
2»0 0%
3»1 16%
4»3 50%
5»2 33%

Genomsnitt: 4.16

- He tried. But given the subject, long days dont helo if you are as e and do not have any knowledge about finance since before. And to try to explain calculations on a slide doesnt really make it easier.» (4)
- excellent guy!» (5)

20. Gregory Carson

6 svarande

1»0 0%
2»0 0%
3»1 16%
4»0 0%
5»5 83%

Genomsnitt: 4.66

- To many new things and a fast tempo and way to many slides that went by very fast. Also to many abreveations that did not geet explained or if explained in a very by the way manner. Ebid/abida all the time. It took almost until the exam until I understood what it was. But i did like him and his way of making us comfortable.» (3)
- excellent guy!» (5)

21. Per Hultén

6 svarande

1»1 16%
2»0 0%
3»1 16%
4»3 50%
5»1 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- an arrogant person. And the elvel of the lecture was to low. to mention different kinds of invester just wasnt enough.» (1)
- excellent guy!» (5)

Kursutvärderingssystem från