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.

New venture formation (CSE, GIBBS Chalmers), CIP036

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-01-21 - 2011-01-31
Antal svar: 10
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 45%
Kontaktperson: Anna Tullsten»

Your own effort

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

10 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»3 30%
100%»7 70%

Genomsnitt: 4.7

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.

2. How understandable are the course goals?

10 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»5 50%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»3 30%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»2 20%

Genomsnitt: 2.2

- I never remember the goals.» (I have not seen/read the goals)

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

9 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»5 55%
Yes, definitely»4 44%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.44

- Two lectures and examination afterwards represented 60% of the course. Convenient yes, but what do I learn from it? Not much.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

10 svarande

Small extent»2 20%
Some extent»4 40%
Large extent»4 40%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.2

- It has not been neccessary to read the information sent out to pass the course.» (Some extent)

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

10 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»7 70%
Very well»3 30%

Genomsnitt: 3.3

- Erik has communicated very well over Ping-pong an e-mail.» (Very well)

Study climate

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

10 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»1 10%
Rather good»4 40%
Very good»3 30%
I did not seek help»2 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- E-mail worked fine.» (I did not seek help)

7. How was the course workload?

10 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»2 20%
Adequate»4 40%
High»4 40%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

Lectures

8. Course introduction/Intellectual Assets and appropriation (Erik Hansson)

10 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»1 10%
Good»8 80%
Excellent»1 10%

Genomsnitt: 4

9. Title clearance and background foreground analysis/collaboration and external technology development (Andrew Telles)

10 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»2 20%
Good»5 50%
Excellent»3 30%

Genomsnitt: 4.1

10. Becoming an employer (Maria Winckler, MAQS)

8 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»1 12%
Adequate»3 37%
Good»4 50%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.37

- did not attend» (?)

11. Disclosure Sensitivity Analysis (Lars Andersson)

9 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»1 11%
Good»6 66%
Excellent»2 22%

Genomsnitt: 4.11

12. Product Development Workshop (Pascal Le Masson, MINES ParisTech)

9 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»3 33%
Adequate»3 33%
Good»3 33%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Didn"t feel the fit with the course» (Fair)
- Not very relevant» (Fair)

13. Branding and concept development (Toni-Matti Karjalainen, Aalto University)

9 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»4 44%
Good»5 55%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

- Unclear message» (Adequate)

14. Conceptual implementations of business models (Andrew Telles)

10 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»5 50%
Good»5 50%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

15. Legal Due Diligence (Emma Olnäs Fors, Mannheimer Swartling)

9 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 22%
Adequate»3 33%
Good»3 33%
Excellent»1 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- Really boring and little information in a lot of time» (Fair)

16. Business due diligence (Erik Hedenryd, Volvo technology transfer)

8 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»5 62%
Good»3 37%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.37

17. Tessera tech (Erik Hansson)

9 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»5 55%
Good»2 22%
Excellent»2 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

18. The firm as a nexus of contracts (Lars Andersson)

10 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»3 30%
Good»5 50%
Excellent»2 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.9

Summarizing questions

19. What is your general impression of the course?

10 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»3 30%
Good»7 70%
Excellent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.7

- Repetition of the fall. Otherwise clear.» (Adequate)

20. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The way Lars handled the handins i.e the handins need to be done within the same day.»
- The cases.»

21. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Some things were a bit too much repetition frm the autumn in the first year where we studied shareholders agreements and degunk.»
- The 3h x 2 examination. Not useful for learning.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från