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.

Idea evaluation and feasibility studies CSE GIBBS Chalmers, TEK215

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-03-14 - 2011-03-21
Antal svar: 20
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 32%
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.

20 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»4 20%
Around 20 hours/week»6 30%
Around 25 hours/week»2 10%
Around 30 hours/week»6 30%
At least 35 hours/week»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

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

20 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»2 10%
75%»10 50%
100%»8 40%

Genomsnitt: 4.3

- Probably a bit more but something like 60 %. Had to go away for different reasons » (50%)
- I came to most of the workshop, but most of the time, I left before the end since my team members wasn"t there, there were no point for me to stay.» (75%)
- Good mix of different people with their own way of teaching. Interesting to listen to.» (100%)

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?

20 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»2 10%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»6 30%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»12 60%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- I"ve seen the goals, and they are re-introduced to us more or less every lecture. Looking like them again now, and realize that the course more or less matches the learning outcomes exactly. Not every course does that ,)» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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.

18 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»2 11%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»15 83%
No, the goals are set too high»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 1.94

- There were a lot of repetition from the fall with Business Creation Lab» (No, the goals are set too low)

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

19 svarande

No, not at all»1 5%
To some extent»13 68%
Yes, definitely»5 26%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.21

- The exams was just to check if the textbook has been read carefully, it doesn"t represent our ability to use tools and methods learn during the course» (No, not at all)
- The last question on the exam did not, according to me, check the learning outcomes but rather check whether we"ve read all the articles. In my opinion, I would like to have all the questions more like testing if you"ve understood what the course is all about in practice, rather than explaining the different opinions of article authors.» (To some extent)
- Exam could be based on evaluations of the ideas only and the additional report of individual reflections on the course literature and methods used could be added, for "forcing" a person better combining the methods into one usable system! » (To some extent)
- Thought the exam was to easy.» (To some extent)
- The exam as such was a bit far off, the cases on the other hand were very good» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

20 svarande

Small extent»5 25%
Some extent»8 40%
Large extent»7 35%
Great extent»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.1

- Lectures did not help much this time. Additional value to the course literature was less than usual. Many slides and approach to the lectures were tolerable, but better combination of cases and lectures would be expected. For instance if one lecture would be on monday and followup lecture on thursday and time in between would be used for group works - much greater value could be extracted. Again some meetings with consultants could be involved in order to enable to enhance the learning process on the way.» (Small extent)
- usually more» (Some extent)
- Great thinking of the course but the lectures has not been very good. Should have focused more on discussions in small groups, maybe should the discussion be graded too. I think the course should focus more on the cases, giving direct feedback and discussion in the case group. And then having discussions in class with about 15 people where you get graded.» (Some extent)
- I"d say the teaching during lectures helped to some extent, and that the project work helped to a great extent. » (Large extent)

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

20 svarande

Small extent»1 5%
Some extent»6 30%
Large extent»10 50%
Great extent»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

- Literature is well written. Only comment would be that cases presented in the book give good overview of the business development, but it is hard to tie them directly to the topic of the evaluation. What were the actual thoughts in the evaluation of presented cases and what were the mistakes of these cases. Staying in the evaluation topic would have enhanced more directly the thinking model around packaging approach. » (Large extent)

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

20 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»10 50%
Very well»10 50%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- But there was some issues when uploading the case(s) to the portal at some times. I guess it"s not your fault but rather a technical issue.» (Rather well)
- Would have expected to have reading material (two mandatory articles) in ping pong too. As the articles were not deeply discussed in the lecture it was a bit annoying to have a question about them in the exam, even when they were not in ping pong. » (Very well)


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

9. Mats Lundqvist

19 svarande

0 0%
0 0%
7 36%
5 26%
7 36%

Genomsnitt: 4

- Knows what he talks about, but ot fussy» (3)
- You can do better» (3)
- Always good to follow, understandable, with proper pedagogical approach!» (5)

10. Boo Edgar

19 svarande

2 10%
0 0%
10 52%
6 31%
1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.21

- Often interesting and fun to listen too but difficult to understand a lot of the time. » (3)
- Knows what he talks about, but ot fussy» (3)
- Deep and interesting issues always shown through humor prism lose the message in between. Boo has a lot to offer, and I would rather listen to the real deal than to jokes here and there! I am expecting more from Boo, as his profile promises more than he delivers. Master studies is not a place where I expect the lecturer to entertain me. His contribution to the course is significant though. » (3)
- Who else knows what "gurkmeja" is in English? Sometimes the drifted away to explain some for the course not-so-relevant stories, but I appreciate that. You must have some fun during a 4 hour lecture...» (5)

11. David Andersson

17 svarande

0 0%
1 5%
1 5%
9 52%
6 35%

Genomsnitt: 4.17

- Have not seen him perform» (?)

12. Erik Hansson

14 svarande

0 0%
1 7%
5 35%
4 28%
4 28%

Genomsnitt: 3.78

- Don"t remember this guy.» (?)
- Thomson Innovation links with video course was very useful and the structured way to approach the patent search was value adding. Could use more of his knowledge in idea evaluation as patentability was usually big issue - analysis of claims is still a bit weak side! » (5)

13. Henric Rhedin

15 svarande

0 0%
1 6%
4 26%
7 46%
3 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- Don"t remember this guy.» (?)

14. Karen Williams Middleton

15 svarande

1 6%
1 6%
2 13%
5 33%
6 40%

Genomsnitt: 3.93

- Common group norms are good to have, but it could have been presented in a more interesting way. I got the impression that it was something that we needed because we needed it. Especially having to hand them in.» (3)
- Did not see much of her performance - only once in the course intro, but it was good!» (5)

15. Morgan Skarin

18 svarande

0 0%
0 0%
6 33%
6 33%
6 33%

Genomsnitt: 4

- To much old stuff» (3)
- Funny and talks really engaging with a lot of energy. Easy to listen to.» (5)

16. Sverker Alänge

19 svarande

0 0%
2 10%
6 31%
9 47%
2 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.57

Study climate

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

20 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»2 10%
Rather good»8 40%
Very good»10 50%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- Class did not participate much» (Rather good)

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

20 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»5 25%
Very well»15 75%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.75

- I got many difficulties for many reasons. It wasn"t that nice this time» (Rather well)

19. How was the course workload?

20 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»5 25%
Adequate»7 35%
High»7 35%
Too high»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- We did the case really fast, and they wasn"t really interesting.» (Low)
- High. Like it should be. » (High)
- Mainly due to the last week (a.k.a. presentation week). Partly, because we had another presentation in the other course on the friday as well, and a hand-in in the sunday and another presentation on the tuesday. So, partly not your fault (i.e. the other course"s fault as well) but having to presentations/hand-ins so tight could be "improved" so to so to speak.» (High)

20. How was the total workload this study period?

20 svarande

Too low»2 10%
Low»1 5%
Adequate»7 35%
High»8 40%
Too high»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- See Q.19» (High)
- Just because I"ve been doing a lot of other stuff.» (High)

Summarizing questions

21. What is your general impression of the course?

20 svarande

Poor»3 15%
Fair»3 15%
Adequate»0 0%
Good»11 55%
Excellent»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- My background and expectation did not fit with the course. I was expected something much more concrete, and business development oriented. I probably misunderstood the course. However, I really do not understand who this course can be beneficial in any case, except if you wish to work as an "idea evaluator". All the course is based on writing a report, the course is well presented and lead, but to my mind there were sometime too many workshop that give a feeling of inefficiency. Moreover, as a Foreign student, it was really difficult o be deeply involved in the cases: 1 - In both Cases description was at 75% in swedish 2 - In both cases we where asked to focus on Swedish market 3 - One of the Idea provider didn"t speak english at all. So, even with many will, it is really difficult to feel concern.» (Poor)
- The distribution of the examination between the exam and the projects where very much too skewed in relation to workload between them. The exam questions where also too many or too extensive in relation to the time given for finishing the exam.» (Good)
- Practical - I like it!» (Good)
- The cases have been very appreciated.» (Good)
- I love the focus on learning by doing and repetition to make the ideas stick. » (Excellent)

22. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Projects»
- The idea evaluation projects (with real cases). »
- the real cases with the real companies, for real.»
- Interesting cases and real life interaction with idea providers. Clear and easy to follow assignment descriptions from Mats. The topics and the content are good and useful. »
- Workshops! Interactive learning! Teamwork workshop was great and very important to have that early!»
- the case works»
- The idea with idea evaluations (the cases) is good. Good idea to mix lecturing with workshops (but most of them felt unnecessary to do.»
- Cases, but remove the forst one. The articles we got to read is great!»
- The projects and hands-on experience»
- Case projects should defninitly be preserved since most learing outcomes from them.»
- writing reports»

23. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Workshops»
- Some of the sections in the course literature/lectures. The section on framing the claim should be more structured and clear for example. »
- The fish case was rather boring and felt less relevant, but at the same time I understand why we had it, to practice for the real ones. Next year: have a less fishy practice case.»
- Maybe more lectures from CIP or professionals dealing with evaluation on hardcore level braking down all the issues would be even more powerful approach. Give us more tools, frameworks to try out - scenario planning is interesting! Patent searchers are also pretty straight forward. We did not break down the backcasting as much. Approach to market potential is still a bit uncertain. Something should be done with the exam - I know so much more than my physical ability to write about it during 4 hours. »
- To have workshops for 4 hours is a bit too long some time. Friday afternoon makes it even harder to stay focused. If possible to split up at least one 4 hour block into 2 * 2 hour, it would be great. Skip online broadcasting with Trondheim or make sure the technology works out better next year. It disturb the flow of the lessons.»
- Concentrate the course and add more new things »
- Change time for classes. Cannot have classes Thursday and Friday afternoon. Change the incentives for performing well on all the cases. »
- Change the structure of the lectures.»
- Some of Boo"s and Mats lectures are just too visionary and abstract. They could probably make their points more concrete and easy-to-understand. When looking back at their power point slides they doesn"t tell me anything.»
- Boo Edgar. »
- more to read»
- Workshop time could be reduced or used more efficiently. The Exams form.»

24. Additional comments

- Great course overall! Perhaps a little rough around the edges but this is trivial for the most part. »
- Good job! Thank you for the interesting course!»
- Difficulties to understand the differences between backcasting, scenario analysis and scenario planning. Boo is funny, but sometimes his talks gets a bit too far from the subject and just waste time...(lessons could be shorter). Would be nice to get some expertise in brainstorming techniques and forcing everyone to write on the whiteboard. Many teammates fear/does not dare to "break the ice" and be constructive on (or even touch) the whiteboard. Great compendium! I bought it and will save it for the future! Thanks for a great course and modern learning techniques!»

Kursutvärderingssystem från