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.

Technological Change and Industrial Transformation - Autumn 2010, IDY040

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-12-20 - 2011-01-20
Antal svar: 38
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 58%
Kontaktperson: Eugenia Perez Vico»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Industriell ekonomi 300 hp

1. I am a student originally coming from,

38 svarande

the School of Technology Management and Economics» 18 47%

another school at Chalmers» 8 21%

another Swedish University» 0 0%

I am an international student within the MEI-program» 7 18%

I am an exchange student (e.g. Erasmus)» 5 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.28

2. Of the lectures, I have attended,

38 svarande

20%» 0 0%

40%» 0 0%

60%» 4 10%

80%» 11 28%

100%» 23 60%

Genomsnitt: 4.5

3. Overall, the course was

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Very poor
5= Very good

38 svarande

1, Very poor» 0 0%

2» 0 0%

3» 4 10%

4» 14 36%

5, Very good» 20 52%

Genomsnitt: 4.42

4. How much did you learn from the course?

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Nothing at all
5= Very much

38 svarande

1, Nothing at all» 0 0%

2» 1 2%

3» 5 13%

3» 15 39%

5, Very much» 17 44%

Genomsnitt: 4.26

5. The structure of the course was

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Difficult to follow
5= Easy to follow

38 svarande

1, Difficult to follow» 0 0%

2» 0 0%

3» 10 26%

3» 9 23%

5, Easy to follow» 19 50%

Genomsnitt: 4.23

- svårt att välja ämne att skriva om så tidigt.» (3)

6. The pace of the course was

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Too slow
5= Too fast

38 svarande

1, Too slow» 0 0%

2» 1 2%

3» 25 65%

3» 12 31%

5, Too fast» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- Still too much to read» (3)
- Like the early exam => project work setup. Should be good to coordinate it with the CNB course as well though. Because the CNB exam coinciding with the intesive phases of the project work was a bit inconvenient.» (3)
- Suitable pace» (3)

7. The administration of the course was

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Very poor
5= Very good

38 svarande

1, Very poor» 0 0%

2» 5 13%

3» 7 18%

3» 13 34%

5, Very good» 13 34%

Genomsnitt: 3.89

- the course webpage should provide the group registeration. So we know which groups were available for persons who didn"t have any group.» (2)

8. Did the course meet your expectations?

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Not at all
5= Very much

38 svarande

1, Not at all» 0 0%

2» 2 5%

3» 6 15%

3» 20 52%

5, Very much» 10 26%

Genomsnitt: 4

- Very interesting course and good lectures» (5, Very much)

9. How demanding was the course?

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Not demanding at all
5= Very demanding

38 svarande

1, Not demanding at all» 0 0%

2» 1 2%

3» 10 26%

3» 22 57%

5, Very demanding» 5 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.81

- Reading all the articles and writing the scientific paper takes time but it is possible if up to date with the lectures» (3)
- The paper was demanding» (5, Very demanding)

10. How difficult was the course

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Not difficult at all
5= Very difficult

38 svarande

1, Not difficult at all» 0 0%

2» 2 5%

3» 15 39%

3» 18 47%

5, Very difficult» 3 7%

Genomsnitt: 3.57

- The article was rather demanding, and the timing together with the other MEI course projects took focus away from it. » (3)
- I would say that it was a different course for me. My background is Chemical Engineering so the course was a bit difficult because I lack knowledge in the field. However, I found the course very interesting.» (3)

11. Did the examination form mirror the course content?

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Not at all
5= Very much

38 svarande

1, Not at all» 0 0%

2» 0 0%

3» 8 21%

3» 17 44%

5, Very much» 13 34%

Genomsnitt: 4.13

12. Did the examination form give opportunities for reflection and learning?

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Not at all
5= Very much

38 svarande

1, Not at all» 0 0%

2» 5 13%

3» 7 18%

3» 17 44%

5, Very much» 9 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.78

13. Overall the lecturer Staffan Jacobsson was

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Not good
5= Very good

38 svarande

1, Not good» 0 0%

2» 1 2%

3» 4 10%

4» 6 15%

5, Very good» 27 71%

Genomsnitt: 4.55

- SLOW» (2)
- Really interesting, but not to funny to listen too. Perhaps some improvement could be done here?» (4)
- .» (5, Very good)

14. How did you perceive your lecturer"s (Staffan Jacobsson"s) competence on this topic?

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Very poor
5= Very good

38 svarande

1, Very poor» 0 0%

2» 0 0%

3» 2 5%

4» 5 13%

5, Very good» 31 81%

Genomsnitt: 4.76

- Probably the most knowledgeable on renewable energy systems from Sweden and Germany =) » (5, Very good)
- Only thing i disliked was the focus on CO2 problems which likely are a false flag hoax. They were treated as truth.» (5, Very good)
- Very good lectures!» (5, Very good)

15. How did the lecturer (Staffan Jacobsson) present the information?

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Very badly
5= Very well

38 svarande

1, Very badly» 0 0%

2» 0 0%

3» 6 15%

4» 12 31%

5, Very well» 20 52%

Genomsnitt: 4.36

- Sometimes the pace was a bit slow.» (3)
- SLOOOOWLY» (3)
- Were basically only "re-telling" the contents of the pre-reading-paper(s). Little value added.» (3)
- Good pace and good "red line". Connected to "real life" with a lot of clear examples connecting theory to examples.» (5, Very well)
- I had the feeling that he really knew what he wanted to transmit to the students and he did it. » (5, Very well)

16. How was the lecturer"s (Staffan Jacobsson"s) commitment and interest?

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Not good
5= Very good

38 svarande

1, Not good» 0 0%

2» 1 2%

3» 2 5%

4» 5 13%

5, Very good» 30 78%

Genomsnitt: 4.68

- inspiration??» (2)
- Passionate about the subject, a lot of valuable anecdotes that create better understanding of the theoretical information.» (5, Very good)

17. How did you perceive your lecturer"s (Eugenia Perez Vico"s) competence on this topic?

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Very poor
5= Very good

37 svarande

1, Very poor» 0 0%

2» 1 2%

3» 8 21%

4» 17 45%

5, Very good» 11 29%

Genomsnitt: 4.02

- did not meet her» (?)
- Do not know. Never say her.» (2)
- Ok, but could be better. » (4)

18. How did the lecturer (Eugenia Perez Vico) present the information?

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Very badly
5= Very well

37 svarande

1, Very badly» 0 0%

2» 0 0%

3» 9 24%

4» 19 51%

5, Very well» 9 24%

Genomsnitt: 4

- did not meet her» (?)
- Very good slides and easy to follow» (5, Very well)

19. How was the lecturer"s (Eugenia Perez Vico"s) commitment and interest?

Please grade from 1-5 where:
1= Not good
5= Very good

37 svarande

1, Not Good» 0 0%

2» 1 2%

3» 7 18%

4» 18 48%

5, Very good» 11 29%

Genomsnitt: 4.05

- did not meet her» (?)
- Again, never saw her.» (2)

20. Overall, the supervision of writing the scientific paper was

Please indicate who supervised you and grade from 1-5 where:
1= Not good
5= Very good

38 svarande

Totalt:

1» 1 2%

2» 1 2%

3» 1 2%

4» 14 36%

5» 21 55%

Genomsnitt: 4.39

Fördelat på olika grupper:

Staffan Jacobsson: (14 st)

1 1 7%

2 0 0%

3 0 0%

4 4 28%

5 9 64%

Genomsnitt: 4.42

- Committed and very good methods for helping us finding out what we wanted and needed to do, rather than directing and prescribing. Best supervision I ever received at Chalmers. Kudos, Staffan!» (5)
- Great feedback and good sessions of supervision» (5)
- The best supervisor I have ever had. He showed interest and energy which triggered us to do a good job.» (5)
- He was very inspiring and motivating » (5)

Kersti Karltorp: (1 st)

1 0 0%

2 0 0%

3 0 0%

4 0 0%

5 1 100%

Genomsnitt: 5

Duncan Kushnir: (3 st)

1 0 0%

2 0 0%

3 0 0%

4 1 33%

5 2 66%

Genomsnitt: 4.66

Hans Hellsmark: (1 st)

1 0 0%

2 0 0%

3 0 0%

4 1 100%

5 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 4

Christian Sandström: (7 st)

1 0 0%

2 1 14%

3 1 14%

4 2 28%

5 3 42%

Genomsnitt: 4

- not so much feedback, only 2 occations not enough» (2)

Daniel Ljungberg: (1 st)

1 0 0%

2 0 0%

3 0 0%

4 1 100%

5 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 4

Eugenia Perez Vico: (4 st)

1 0 0%

2 0 0%

3 0 0%

4 0 0%

5 4 100%

Genomsnitt: 5

- Eugenia was the best supervisor we have ever had. She was very well prepared for out meetings and she gave great feed back. She was very engaged and motivated us with her enthusiasm. » (5)
- Eugenia was great! The best supervisor in a very long time!» (5)

Magnus Holmén: (7 st)

1 0 0%

2 0 0%

3 0 0%

4 5 71%

5 2 28%

Genomsnitt: 4.28

- Took a while before we got on the same page, but after that Magnus supervision was Great! I really like the challenge! » (4)
- One of the best supervisors I have had.» (5)

21. Reflections on the type of supervision for writing an academic paper?

- Very good.»
- The format was quite good. We got to dig deeper into the topic we liked.»
- väldigt bra feedback. Det är ovanligt att vi får någon överhuvudtaget så ett varmt tack för det.»
- not so much feedback, only 2 occations not enough»
- For the supervision to be useful the tutor really needs in some way to have competence within the area of study. In our case the tutor was lacking in this area, but it worked out anyway. However, the process would have been a lot smoother otherwise.»
- very good»
- I think we took on a little bit too challenging project, and perhaps it was a poor choice of selecting Magnus as our Supervisor because I think we"d been better of with more communication and a "bollplank" »
- Good supervision.»
- Very good feedback, discussion»
- As mentioned above, very good supporting supervision rather than directing and prescribing.»
- Very good structure.»
- Good feedback»
- Quite straightforward»
- I liked the "workshop" he had with us to come up with a title and content.»

22. Reflections on the usefulness of writing an academic paper?

- Good exercise which gave us deeper understanding in what we liked.»
- very useful.»
- det ger inte så mkt när man få såpass lite handledning och tillfälle för reflektion över det man kommit fram till jag tror de flesta redan vet mer eller mindre hur man skriver ett scientific paper, fokus kanske bore ligga mer på ett problem än att skriva en rapport»
- To come up with good research questions and a relevant purpose you really need to start out early, you will also maximize your learning as you will be more confident in what you actually should do.»
- good»
- It is very usefull to try to write a scientific papper because it helps you undersand better scientific pappers that one reads.»
- Very good way of learning, both fun and challenging.»
- very useful, but the date for handin was not good, we had an exam 2 days before it was to be handed in»
- good to get an opportunity to think more deeply on some certain topic»
- The course telling us how to write scientific paper should be earlier, probably the first or second week. So we can start earlier.»
- Very good experience. Felt more like a learning process than the usual pain in the XXX feeling many previous reports have brought along with them.»
- Realy good to be able to practise to write a academic paper.»
- It was a good and interesting task»
- Good introduction for master"s thesis»
- I found it totally usefull both for applying concepts learnt during the lectures and for improving our writing skills. Definately, the scientific paper has to be part of the course.»

23. For the course as a whole, too little or too much attention was paid to:

- Nothing special»
- N/A»
- I liked the focus on the cyclical model of technological change and the different implications for example an industry or technology as a whole. But I got the feeling that implications on strategy on the sole firm/organization was a bit left out.»
- no idea»
- It was a bit to fluffy and not too concrete, would have wanted a closer relationship to how it actually is out there. »
- -»
- Too much attention on alternative energy per se. The examples were very good, just dislike the tone of it and the focus on CO2.»
- nothing»

24. If there are overlaps with other courses, please point these out and evaluate whether or not the overlaps were negative.

- Some overlaps with Economics of Innovation. Should be less overlap.»
- It overlapped a bit into the Economocis of Innovation course, but overal nothing negative. Gave us better understanding.»
- MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR overlaps with R&D Strategy and Organization course!! syncronize!!»
- I found every overlap positive, just good repetition. No need to mention them.»
- "creating new business" the overlaps are positive.»
- Technical change and the environment. The overlapss were positive, some concepts are used in both courses. Both courses are complementary»
- There were a few overlaps with the Creating New Business-course: Industry life cycle articles by Abernathy/Utterback. Nothing major.»
- Lots of overlap with the EOI course in the MEI programe. »
- Positive overlaps with EOI»
- det var inte tillräckligt med tid för att skriva scientific paper eftersom arbetsbelastningen från den andra kursen CNB var väldigt hög.»
- As mentioned above, Should coordinate with CNB so that the CNB exam is put earlier as well. Now it was exam+project => exam+project. Better Exam+Exam then Project+Project.»
- Some overlaps with Economic of Innovation given by Magnus Holmén»
- This is a good point that there is some overlapping part with the creating new business and economics of innovation because that really helped me understand more easily and clearly.»
- The overlaps that I identified was with the Economics of Innovation course. But not too much, repetition is sometimes good. »

25. Comments on the course literature:

- The articles were very good.»
- Good.»
- good»
- Very good selection of literature. Probably the most interesting articles Ive read yet on this program.»
- just so so»
- Too many readings about first mover advantages.»
- Overall very good and interesting. The papers with the authors, Jacobsson/Lauber/Carlsson seemed a bit overlapping which was confusing.»
- Abit too much Bergek and Jacobsson articles, one or two of them could be removed. »
- Good articles.»
- Good»
- Artiklarna var mycket intressanta och det kändes som att de var väl valda.»
- Generally interesting articles. Could remove a few which basically says the same though.»
- Good papers»
- The course literatures are very relevant to the lectures and exams.»
- I think it is long but necessary, I would not remove any of the articles. It is possible to read them during the course!»

26. What other comments or recommendations would you make for a future course?

- Noting.»
- must sync with R&D Strat and Org. too much overlap »
- To be honest I learned the most studying for the exam and not writing the paper. Therefore, I think the paper should be like a project going on besides the lectures. Then, at the end of the course, having a bigger exam on the articles, that would have been great.Therefore, I think the article could have been maybe 40% of the points and the exam 60%. That would have maximized my learning. »
- none»
- Write a good draft for the article early (even if it "s really of, it"s better than nothing to start with). It is the revisions that really brings out the quality. (even if you end up disregarding most of the original stuff). »
- more guest lecturers»
- I dont like to take the exam before paper. I think for writing the paper, we need to study a lot. And as a result, that can make good for the exam. »
- The time pressure the last week of the term was difficult due to the reason that final exam and project in Creating New business was at similar time as hand in of the report. Allthough we spent very much time on the report, I feel like we would have needed a bit more time.»
- Keep most of it as it is, it is a really good course»
- There should be more new technological cases included in the course.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från