Visa resultat

Technical Change and the Environment, ENM015, MPECO, Ht10

Your background

1. What program do you follow?

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?

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

3. How understandable are the course goals?

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?

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?

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?

46 svarande

Totalt:

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)

Poor		0		0%
Fair		0		0%
Adequate		9		45%
Very good		10		50%
Excellent		1		5%
No opinion		6

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)

Poor		0		0%
Fair		1		6%
Adequate		4		26%
Very good		6		40%
Excellent		4		26%
No opinion		0

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)

Poor		0		0%
Fair		0		0%
Adequate		2		40%
Very good		3		60%
Excellent		0		0%
No opinion		0

Genomsnitt: 3.6

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

46 svarande

Totalt:

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)

Poor		0		0%
Fair		0		0%
Adequate		3		18%
Very good		10		62%
Excellent		3		18%
No opinion		5

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)

Poor		0		0%
Fair		0		0%
Adequate		4		26%
Very good		9		60%
Excellent		2		13%
No opinion		0

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)

Poor		0		0%
Fair		0		0%
Adequate		5		50%
Very good		4		40%
Excellent		1		10%
No opinion		0

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?

46 svarande

Totalt:

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)

Poor		0		0%
Fair		2		8%
Adequate		12		50%
Very good		10		41%
Excellent		0		0%
No opinion		3

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)

Poor		2		11%
Fair		3		16%
Adequate		9		50%
Very good		4		22%
Excellent		0		0%
No opinion		4

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?

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?

46 svarande

Totalt:

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)

Poor		0		0%
Fair		0		0%
Adequate		3		20%
Very good		12		80%
Excellent		0		0%
No opinion		5

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)

Poor		0		0%
Fair		0		0%
Adequate		3		16%
Very good		14		77%
Excellent		1		5%
No opinion		0

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)

Poor		0		0%
Fair		1		12%
Adequate		3		37%
Very good		3		37%
Excellent		1		12%
No opinion		0

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

21. What should definitely be changed to next year?

22. Additional comments