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.

Technical Change and the Environment, ENM015, MPECO, Ht10

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-12-07 - 2010-12-23
Antal svar: 47
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 69%
Kontaktperson: Kathrine Jahnberg»

Your background

There are many students in each category and an individual student cannot be identified.

1. What program do you follow?

46 svarande

Industrial Ecology»16 34%
Other Chalmers Master Program»18 39%
Erasmus student»9 19%
Other»3 6%

Genomsnitt: 1.97

- Complex adaptive systems (did I just lose my anonymity?)» (Other Chalmers Master Program)
- Sustainable energy systems» (Other Chalmers Master Program)
- Environmental Measurements and Assessments » (Other Chalmers Master Program)
- Nordic Masters in Innovative Sustainable Energy (on exchange from KTH)» (Other)

General impression

2. What is your general impression of the course?

46 svarande

Poor»1 2%
Fair»1 2%
Adequate»6 13%
Very good»29 63%
Excellent»9 19%

Genomsnitt: 3.95

- jag tror kunskaperna från denna kurs behöver "tid att mogna" innan man kanske inser vikten av denna kurs.» (Adequate)
- Interesting and fun!» (Very good)
- But I didn"t get the point. It is a pity» (Very good)
- Nice teacher who tells good stories» (Very good)
- The contens are extremely interesting and Björn is a very good teacher.» (Excellent)
- Very helpful in expanding the concepts» (Excellent)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course goals were stated 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?

46 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»5 10%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»13 28%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»28 60%

Genomsnitt: 3.39

- They are irrelevant, very seldom have they said anything about a course, much better to ask an odler student what the course is about.» (I have not seen/read the goals)

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

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

43 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 2%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»40 93%
No, the goals are set too high»2 4%

Genomsnitt: 2.02

- The economic concepts and other thinks related to social science are sometimes a bit difficult to understand when it is the first time that one hears about them. Otherwise no problem» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- there are some economic concepts which I didn"t learned before.» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

Examination includes exam, midterm exam and Assignment E.

44 svarande

No, not at all»1 2%
To some extent»8 18%
Yes, definitely»32 72%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»3 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- I didn"t think that I got the chance to show that I read the literature.» (To some extent)
- a little more time for the exam would be nice» (Yes, definitely)
- It was, and is still, difficult to know what I was suppose to write in the home exam. What counts? So many terms from the course as possible, interesting new thougths, clear language..etc? » (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)

Teaching and course administration

6. How do you value the quality and relevance of the lecture(s) given by...?


- Björn rocks!»
- Björn is a very good lecturer who enjoys teaching. Sometimes the lectures are a bit slow though.»
- Björns slides could be a bit "messy" sometimes with a lot of colors and arrows and frames.»
- I can"t remember»
- The same slides are repeted over and over. No clear argument given. Poor examples. In the exame many things were never discussed or explained in class before.»

Björn Sandén
46 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»5 10%
Very good»18 39%
Excellent»23 50%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 4.39

Martin Edlund
46 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»7 24%
Very good»18 62%
Excellent»4 13%
No opinion»17

Genomsnitt: 3.89

Hans Hellsmark
46 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 8%
Adequate»7 28%
Very good»12 48%
Excellent»4 16%
No opinion»21

Genomsnitt: 3.72

7. How do you value the quality and relevance of the different assignments?


- A didn"t really give me any insights, people were just discussing the expected arguments. C was mindblowing when the costForSubsidy vs year graph appeared on the screen, in aftermath it is of course understandable, but I had not expected the curve to increase until the turning point and then decrease so rapidly. E was fairly good I suppose.»
- Good discussions about the assignments»
- It could be more clear in the description of Assignment E that you should use consepts from the course.»

Assignment A
46 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 4%
Adequate»14 30%
Very good»22 47%
Excellent»8 17%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.78

Assignment C
45 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 2%
Adequate»16 36%
Very good»20 45%
Excellent»7 15%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 3.75

Assignment E
45 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 4%
Adequate»7 16%
Very good»21 50%
Excellent»12 28%
No opinion»3

Genomsnitt: 4.02

8. How do you grade the relevance and quality of Discussion A?

Don"t forget to select the group you attended named after the discussion leader (Duncan, Helene or Ulrika).

46 svarande


Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 2%
Adequate»15 37%
Very good»19 47%
Excellent»5 12%
No opinion»6

Genomsnitt: 3.7

Fördelat på olika grupper:

Duncan: (26 st)
Poor0 0%
Fair0 0%
Adequate9 45%
Very good10 50%
Excellent1 5%
No opinion6

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- the discussion tended to go around in circles» (Adequate)
- Duncan expressed his own opinion a bit too much. » (Adequate)
- Didn"t attend.» (No opinion)

Helene: (15 st)
Poor0 0%
Fair1 6%
Adequate4 26%
Very good6 40%
Excellent4 26%
No opinion0

Genomsnitt: 3.86

- see above» (Fair)
- Both Helene and Ulrika were great leaders of the assignments by guiding us into interesting discussions and highlighting the right things.» (Excellent)
- Nice with the different positions, so we could get a visual view of how the others are thinking» (Excellent)

Ulrika: (5 st)
Poor0 0%
Fair0 0%
Adequate2 40%
Very good3 60%
Excellent0 0%
No opinion0

Genomsnitt: 3.6

9. How do you grade the relevance and quality of Discussion B?

Don"t forget to select the group you attended named after the discussion leader (Duncan, Helene or Ulrika).

46 svarande


Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»12 29%
Very good»23 56%
Excellent»6 14%
No opinion»5

Genomsnitt: 3.85

Fördelat på olika grupper:

Duncan: (21 st)
Poor0 0%
Fair0 0%
Adequate3 18%
Very good10 62%
Excellent3 18%
No opinion5

Genomsnitt: 4

- This was probably the most rewarding discussion, you learnt a lot in an effective way. Articles and texts are generally filled with words who block the information hidden in the text. It"s a good idea that people try to decode the information and then explains to each other» (Very good)
- The best discussion/seminar I have ever attended in Chalmers. It was interesting that we all represented so different views and Duncan was a great discussion leader.» (Excellent)

Helene: (15 st)
Poor0 0%
Fair0 0%
Adequate4 26%
Very good9 60%
Excellent2 13%
No opinion0

Genomsnitt: 3.86

- It could have been better if the students really had discussed as if they had the same opinion as the auther of the article. As it was now, most of the students just presented the article. There was no real debate or discussion. But it could have been very good. The articles was interesting and the idea is good.» (Adequate)

Ulrika: (10 st)
Poor0 0%
Fair0 0%
Adequate5 50%
Very good4 40%
Excellent1 10%
No opinion0

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- The guide of the discussion was not very clear, it was a bit talking in all directions.» (Adequate)
- The articles were quite odd, but it might have been your plan.» (Very good)

10. How do you grade the relevance and quality of Discussion C?

Do not forget to select the group you attended named after the discussion leader (Duncan or Ulrika).

46 svarande


Poor»2 4%
Fair»5 11%
Adequate»21 50%
Very good»14 33%
Excellent»0 0%
No opinion»4

Genomsnitt: 3.11

Fördelat på olika grupper:

Duncan: (27 st)
Poor0 0%
Fair2 8%
Adequate12 50%
Very good10 41%
Excellent0 0%
No opinion3

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- It was a fast discussion, maybe too fast.» (Fair)
- Could have been better with a seminar similar to those after assigment A, B and E.» (Adequate)
- Not so much discussion, more getting the answers which was good.» (Adequate)
- see above» (Very good)

Ulrika: (19 st)
Poor2 11%
Fair3 16%
Adequate9 50%
Very good4 22%
Excellent0 0%
No opinion4

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- Ulrika had not done the exercise herself, she was just trying to explain Duncan"s slides and did not understand fully the difficulties, has she had not done the calculations... I think it was not optimum to do it just before the midterm exam, we were more focussed on what will happen next, and wanted to be over with the discussion as fast as possible.» (Poor)
- She explained the results well, but there was no discussion.» (Adequate)
- It wasn"t any discussion. The real solution was just explained briefly. Then we went directly to the midterm exam.» (Adequate)
- People didn"t seem to realize that they not should express their own opinions. It didn"t become a good discussion. » (Adequate)

11. How do you grade the relevance and quality of Movie/Discussion D?

46 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 2%
Adequate»9 23%
Very good»23 60%
Excellent»5 13%
No opinion»8

Genomsnitt: 3.84

- This movie mainly gave me some historical knowledge which was nice, but I think that the course concepts are better learnt in assignment E.» (Adequate)
- fits in very well in the course» (Very good)
- Really nice with a movie session and the film and discussion were good and relevant.» (Excellent)
- » (Excellent)

12. How do you grade the relevance and quality of Discussion E?

Don"t forget to select the group you attended named after the discussion leader (Duncan, Helene or Ulrika).

46 svarande


Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 2%
Adequate»9 21%
Very good»29 70%
Excellent»2 4%
No opinion»5

Genomsnitt: 3.78

Fördelat på olika grupper:

Duncan: (20 st)
Poor0 0%
Fair0 0%
Adequate3 20%
Very good12 80%
Excellent0 0%
No opinion5

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- see above, the project in itself was of course good, but sitting around listening to the others didn"t give very much. This is very common.» (Very good)
- Didn"t do that assignment.» (No opinion)

Helene: (18 st)
Poor0 0%
Fair0 0%
Adequate3 16%
Very good14 77%
Excellent1 5%
No opinion0

Genomsnitt: 3.88

- We did not have time for that long discussion after the presentations, but good and interesting presentations as a whole.» (Adequate)
- Interesting to hear about so many different technologies. Link with course is good, could be accentuated a little more maybe.» (Very good)

Ulrika: (8 st)
Poor0 0%
Fair1 12%
Adequate3 37%
Very good3 37%
Excellent1 12%
No opinion0

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- It was maybe a bit long to listen to all the different stories, but still interesting.» (Adequate)

13. How do you value the quality and relevance of the different books?


- The material was interesting to read but it was to much to read. Specially as I am reading 3 courses. We will see but I feel that I am quiet prepered for the exam with only read the lectures and the first part of ponting.»
- maybe alltogether to much»
- Maybe overall too much reading. »
- The ponting book is really nice, I"ve only read a couple of chapters but they contain a lot of easily accessible info. In general the quota insights/timeSpent is much higherfor lectures and assignments than for reading texts. It almost never pays off to read texts, so I tend to avoid it. You would learn a lot more from taking extra courses and attending more lectures instead of reading.»
- The book of Grübler is expensive, difficult to read and we do not use all of it. It would have been better to print a compendium with the article instead of having to print them ourself: they are long and it is not possible to read them on a computer easily. The Ponting book is very good, well writen and interresting.»
- Have mostly read Ponting which was very interesting. An eye-opener in many ways.»
- I hav not read all the articles, but the ones I have read was also "very good"»
- Maybe too much to read! I would prefer to skip the book Grubler - I read almost all of it but I can"t say I learnt much from it. However, the other book and the articles were good. »
- The books could not be lent or bought for nearly 3 weeks, this has to be better! It was impossible to follow the lecture in the books due to this fact.»
- The Grüblers book is a bit difficult to read and sometimes one gets a bit bored, but I think I do not invent something new.»
- Grübler is too expensive»
- It was too much too read. I don"t learn from reading so it was difficult to get all the knowledge needed. »

Ponting: A (new) green history of the world
46 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 2%
Adequate»3 6%
Very good»22 48%
Excellent»19 42%
No opinion/ have not read»1

Genomsnitt: 4.31

Grübler: Technology and global change
46 svarande

Poor»3 9%
Fair»4 12%
Adequate»7 21%
Very good»16 48%
Excellent»3 9%
No opinion/ have not read»13

Genomsnitt: 3.36

Collection of articles
45 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 4%
Adequate»12 29%
Very good»18 43%
Excellent»9 21%
No opinion/ have not read»4

Genomsnitt: 3.82

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

46 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»1 2%
Rather well»16 34%
Very well»29 63%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- The student portal.... All else was good» (Rather badly)
- Nothing to complain on.» (Rather well)
- ...but the home exam hand-in function was activated at bit late.» (Very well)
- Specially appreciate uploading three different copies of slides and missing papers.» (Very well)

Your own effort

15. How was the course workload?

45 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»2 4%
Adequate»27 60%
High»14 31%
Too high»2 4%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- since I didn"t read. But you learnt a lot, and I think that is a better measure than "course load".» (Low)
- To much to read, but that just me.» (High)
- Very much reading. Perhaps a bit too much.» (High)
- A lot of readings !!! But the assignments were ok, not too much, not too little. » (High)
- There was a lot assignments and a lot of things to read. Especially, some articles/book were really about the same things, and not straigt to the point. The take home exam was very long.» (Too high)

16. 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.

45 svarande

At most 10 hours/week»2 4%
Around 15 hours/week»14 31%
Around 20 hours/week»21 46%
Around 25 hours/week»7 15%
At least 30 hours/week»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

17. How large percentage of the lectures did you attend?

46 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»2 4%
50%»6 13%
75%»19 41%
100%»19 41%

Genomsnitt: 4.19

- though I wanted to attend more but somehow I was busy with other courses and reading» (25%)
- Had other courses and they often collided.» (50%)
- A really bad cold» (75%)
- Tried to attend as many as I could because the quality of the lectures were high.» (75%)
- Lots of scheduled lectures in both courses at the same time (the other one was Power Market Management).» (75%)
- Almost 100%, they were really good.» (100%)
- more than 90% actually » (100%)

Study climate within the course

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

45 svarande

Very poor»1 2%
Rather poor»2 4%
Rather good»11 24%
Very good»21 46%
I did not seek help»10 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.82

- My problem» (Very poor)

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

45 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»2 4%
Rather well»8 17%
Very well»35 77%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

- I hope the teacher can give me a group. I think I can do well» (Rather poorly)

Summarizing questions about the course

20. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Björn Sandén»
- hand in A and C and E»
- the movie»
- Assignement E»
- The discussions»
- Björn»
- The examination way with home-exam.»
- Ponting book, assignment E»
- I think that the course is relevant and have good assignments. The assignment leads to good udnerstanding and long lasting konwledge.»
- The movie was very intresting and should be kept. »
- more movies»
- Björn, Ulrika and Helene. The assignments and home exam.»
- basically, all is well.»
- The general organization is optimal in my opinion, and the fact that the exam essai is one week before the other courses exam is an EXCELLENT idea, since we get a lot more time to work on it !»
- The discussions were fun, interesting and contributed to the learning. »
- Guest lecturers, lectures by Björn.»
- I would preserve especially the discussion the last one (E) and the guest lectures.»
- This course opened my mind. Especially with Ponting and Sandén. Keep on doing that.»
- movie»
- Everything except the economic lectures.»
- Most of the course is realy good! The homeexam was fun, and intresting, so keep that. »
- The movie, discussions and interactive atmosphere in the class.»
- movie, lecture sheets were good, martin edlunds lecture was good»
- Björn Sandén is one of my most inspiring lecturers i have had! Good with guest lectures that give real life examples in the field.»
- First lectures and discussion.»
- The lectures. »
- Duncan and Björn! »
- The text books, the teacher»

21. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- I would like to see a exam question answer. Its hard to know what kind of answer gives how much points.»
- perhaps there could be some feedback for exercise E before hand in and could be one literature seminar where we can discuss the articles in the course before the exam»
- Nothing»
- More focus on the future and more calculations. »
- Grübler book»
- the exam questions....a little hard to image what will be in the future....»
- Less articles.»
- Try to put the lectures in the same buildings so that one does not have to move around chalmers every time to search for the classroom. I also think you could add more assignments, that was a good way to learn.»
- nothing»
- I think the assignment E is not very useful.»
- A bit less reading perhaps.»
- Nothing in particular»
- The literature. Too many articles and grübler. At the and I didn"t really have the time to understand everything.»
- delivery of books.»
- Assignment E should be graded with, 3, 4, 5. Not only 3 or 5. »
- There was a bit of repetition in the lectures but i guess it might have been necessary.»
- Better state what is required of us students with assignment E.»
- The thing with the oral exam was very unclear. Is it possible to explain that better or take it away or talk to everybody? Not knowing wether you are supposed to have an oral exam or not until the day before and not knowing what it is all about, is not so nice.»
- The exame and the assignment E should be explained much better. None examples were given. The correction are poor and can not be discussed. More clear instruction are needed. The final grade is too much subjective.»
- Less to read.»
- Some questions of assignment C, or express better the relevance during the lessons. »

22. Additional comments

- Very interesting course with good lectures and assignments. :)»
- Very good course. Björn Sandén is a very inspiring professor.»
- Thanks, it was a great course. Good to get away from "only-statistics" type of courses, but maybe it"s to far away. (= more numbers please)»
- The course was very good for me because it treat different arguments compared from what i"m used to study in my home university. For that reason i"ve found it very interesting.»
- Merry Christmas !»
- Awesome course enjoyed alot and learned to related alot of concepts with reality.»
- A very interesting course.»
- The exame and the assignment E should be explained much better. None examples were given. The correction are poor and can not be discussed. More clear instruction are needed. The final grade is too much subjective.»
- I liked this course. The lectures are very good. There is alot of reeding but it is worth it for those that have time. A slite decrease in the amount of reading whould hovever be most aprusiated.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från