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.

Design of technological innovations and markets (DTIM) Chalmers, CIP011

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-11-24 - 2011-12-01
Antal svar: 26
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 53%
Kontaktperson: Anneli Hildenborg»

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.

26 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»4 15%
Around 20 hours/week»10 38%
Around 25 hours/week»2 7%
Around 30 hours/week»5 19%
At least 35 hours/week»5 19%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

- Hard to know what was actually the DTIM course and what was the other courses thus the time spent was changed.» (At most 15 hours/week)
- Very hard to estimate since part of the lectures was part of the BCL course.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- hard to tell, all the courses overlap a lot» (Around 25 hours/week)
- Impossible to say as it was rather unclear what assignments belonged to what course. CK was graded in the TBE course for example.» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

25 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»10 40%
100%»15 60%

Genomsnitt: 4.6

- missed some lecturers when were in a trip» (75%)
- I was sick during parts of the course.» (75%)
- I was away for a short while, but besides that 100 %.» (75%)
- Unfortunately away during one week.» (75%)
- I was sick a lot during the autumn, otherwise I would have attended all classes» (75%)
- Missed one lesson or two due to a collision in the schedule, hand-in too close to lessons...better planning with the hand-ins next year would be great!» (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?

25 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»6 24%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»6 24%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»13 52%

Genomsnitt: 3.04

- Well, seen but don"t remember» (I have not seen/read the goals)
- Little diffuse. The description is quite soft and fuzzy. Try to keep it more hands-on.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- Usually good and clear goals that the course built on in a good way.» (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.

21 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»21 100%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

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

25 svarande

No, not at all»2 8%
To some extent»17 68%
Yes, definitely»4 16%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»2 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.24

- There where no questions about the valuation part. And i believe that the CK question was totally irrelevant.» (No, not at all)
- I thought that the exam had a very narrow scope and did not cover all aspects of the course sadly. » (No, not at all)
- What about the financial part?! I should have been on the exam! Otherwise fine.» (To some extent)
- We were told that at least one question in finance would be included in the exam, however there was no question at all. » (To some extent)
- The examination was too close to the text book and articles that were read. It would"ve been more interesting to be given case questions where we were made to use the tools and analysis learnt from the course.» (To some extent)
- The importance of different course components were not communicated properly and were intentionally hidden and confusing. A small part of the course that was not expected to appear on the exam (CK) took up 20% of the examination at the same time as valuation that was clearly stated would appear on the exam was a no show.» (To some extent)
- The exam could have been more case based and did not include any finance at all.» (To some extent)
- It did not cover some areas which were focus areas. Finance for example.» (To some extent)
- I really dont think the exam reflected the teaching. We spent a lot of classes and a lot of time on evaluation and there was no question at all on this on the exam. I think that is really bad. When taking the course I felt that evaluation was a big and important part, and I spent a lot of time on learning that. Then there were things on the exam that was more or less just briefly mentioned on the lectures.» (To some extent)
- I think the examination assessed one part of the course. I think the questions could have been more variating and I also think it was strange that not one question concerned valuation.» (To some extent)
- Somewhat skewed focus, but not unexpected.» (To some extent)
- Weird that there was no valuation on the exam. Also weird that they wanted us to cite an article that was not gone through during the lectures at all.» (To some extent)
- where was the valuation part? and why had the CK a whole question of its own? » (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

26 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»4 15%
Large extent»16 61%
Great extent»6 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.07

- I think the outcome from the lectures could be better if the teacher talked more thoroughly about HOW to use the different models and not just say that they exist and not only show how the outcome from the models looks like. » (Large extent)
- Good lectures.» (Large extent)
- Good with discussions, however it would be good with more explaination that the exam will be based on the discussion very much.» (Large extent)
- Vert interesting lectures and many interesting guest speakers! » (Great extent)
- Flawless.» (Great extent)

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

26 svarande

Small extent»2 7%
Some extent»7 26%
Large extent»13 50%
Great extent»4 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.73

- The most useful thing has been the lecture slides, but I don"t count that as course literature.» (Small extent)
- Not the course literature (just did a quick read-through). But material handed out, lecture slides etc.» (Some extent)
- Cases were good. However I did not read much else in the book. » (Some extent)
- I think the book was very good. Could work on the valuation part until next year, simplify the slides would make a big difference!» (Great extent)
- Good book!» (Great extent)

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

26 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»5 19%
Rather well»17 65%
Very well»4 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.96

- Reading instructions could have been clearer.» (Rather badly)
- Could be clearer and better communicated between both members of faculty and faculty and students» (Rather well)
- Sometimes we didn"t get information about the reading we should do until it was to late to do it. We have a lot of other things to do so when there is reading for a lecture it should not be too long and we should be informed in good time.» (Rather well)
- I think it could be a better system for pages to read before lectures, sometimes we shall read and sometimes not, so I have missed the reading sometimes. » (Rather well)
- Bad updates on ping pong!» (Rather well)

Study climate

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

26 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»6 23%
Very good»19 73%
I did not seek help»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- Quick response from Mats through e-mail.» (Very good)
- Good hour on sunday before exam with gregory» (Very good)

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

26 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»4 15%
Very well»22 84%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.84

- I have a great team!» (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

26 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»14 53%
High»11 42%
Too high»1 3%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- Well, if we include the assignments, high workload. If we exclude them, low workload.» (High)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

26 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»5 19%
High»16 61%
Too high»5 19%

Genomsnitt: 4

- Quite high but I think it is okey» (High)
- Most intense period ever. Stressed out. Studied about 80h/week, and felt that was barely enough.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

26 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»7 26%
Good»15 57%
Excellent»4 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.88

- The Valuation part sadly brought the overall impression of the course» (Adequate)
- Awesome help from Gregory through skype during the Sunday before the exam, thanks!» (Good)
- Included many different areas, yet they were combined in an interesting way helping to get an overall picture of the dynamics of innovative business» (Good)
- Sometimes the content during the lectures felt rather general. Maybe some dept would be nice. Also, make sure that we read the reading material before the lecture since that would improve our discussions a lot.» (Good)
- Would have been better if the classes had reflected the exam better.» (Good)
- Really interesting.» (Good)
- A very interesting course that gave me an insight into the world of technological innovation. I definitely think that this course will be valuable in the future.» (Excellent)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Don"t know anything specific that stands out from the rest.»
- Everything»
- CK and more lessons about the user-interaction»
- I think what is in the course is very good. More focus on the financials and learning how to classify expenditures in the balance sheet»
- The assignments»
- Anders Sundelin doing his thing in business model lecture as well as the valuation lectures.»
- not sure»
- The lectures, the lecturers and the overall structure.»
- Anders Sundelin and the business model workshop »
- The best things was to discuss all the company examples, the business model part and the evaluation part.»
- I think it"s good over all. Mats is inspiring and interesting to listen to, good examples. Anders had also good lectures and the exercise was good. However, I still think the term business model is vague. The valuation part is essential but can be improved.»
- The course outline.»
- I liked the book very much, keep it! :)»

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- CK-momentet»
- As mentioned above, it would be nice with some more dept in the lectures as well as that maybe we do an example of the models in class, just so we understand HOW to use the models.»
- Re-think the CK-session and I think it"ll be very good. Some introductory courses then a try-out session, before applying to the BCL-project. »
- The exam. Making sure that it covers more aspects of the course.»
- The exam to include: case questions and valuation»
- The structure of the valuation lectures could be more focused on practical learning. The deceiving nature of the exam is annoying. I can understand the withholding of information to not make it too easy, but the intentional actions taken to cause confusion and, in the end, surprise you immensely on the exam is just plainly unnecessary.»
- Gregory and the structure of his lectures.»
- More emphasis on the Valuation, less emphasis on the CK modeling»
- CK. No need for it in my opinion. »
- More structure to the valuation part. Maybe an introductory lecture explaining general finance before the reasoning lectures can start.»
- Administration. ONE person needs to be in charge and know what"s going on with all classes and content. Now there"s slight mayhem.»
- Many of the students lacked basic finance knowledge. This resulted in very much confusion and stress (both for the students and for Gregory) during the valuation exercises. I would have preferred to have a few optional lectures with basic economics. Everybody would probably have attended.»
- Dont make a part of the course look big by having many lectures on it and then dont test it on the exam.»
- I think Mats can sometimes be too nice and if we haven"t read a section he"ll summarize it for us, so then there is no point of reading in the first place. I also think Mats lectures were very general so if I"d read the pages I didn"t learn much more on the lectures Redo the valuation part, start simple, that will build the fundamental knowledge so it is possible to continue learning.»
- Maybe the outline of the CK-method. It shouldn"t be emphasized in the extent it was, considering all the other important material that was covered in this course.»
- Valuation»
- All the articles was more of a burden than helping my learning process...»

16. Additional comments

- Please make more clear what belongs to what course and where and how it is graded.»
- I was a bit dissapointed in the exam. It was not very analytical. It felt like we were back at high school level trying to find "the right answer" that was mentioned in the book instead of actually analysing scenarios and questions. To use the discussion questions in the book feels too easy for master level studies. Also, why was there no questions regarding valuation on the exam.»
- I don"t like to get questions on the exam that is to much connected to a lecture. If you have missed one lecture you may miss a lot of points on the exam because of that, even if you have read all the course material and know it very well. It is unfair to punish those who miss a lecture. the lectures shoukld only be there to help the student.»


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

17. Mats Lundqvist

26 svarande

1:»0 0%
2:»0 0%
3:»1 3%
4:»9 34%
5:»16 61%

Genomsnitt: 4.57

- Most lectures feels general Could be more specific so we learn more details. Emphasize more on that the class should prepare through reading the book to each class.» (4:)
- Really good!» (4:)
- Enthusiastic and definitely knows what he"s talking about. That gave us motivation us well.» (5:)
- Knows the subject really well, is able to give examples and real experience practice.» (5:)
- Excellent!» (5:)
- Always interesting thoughts and inspiring lecturing.» (5:)

18. David Andersson

22 svarande

1:»0 0%
2:»1 4%
3:»2 9%
4:»10 45%
5:»9 40%

Genomsnitt: 4.22

- Didnt attend his lecture» (?)
- Don"t remember.» (?)
- Wasn"t there.» (?)
- Very nice guy, but purpose of lecture was not entirely clear.» (4:)
- Awesome, David is inspiring!» (5:)
- Inspiring lecture and inspiring personality. A true role-model!» (5:)
- Interesting and hands-on. Did describe reality without twisting it "into a good story".» (5:)

19. Anders Sundelin

26 svarande

1:»0 0%
2:»0 0%
3:»1 3%
4:»11 42%
5:»14 53%

Genomsnitt: 4.5

- Very good!» (4:)
- Great lecturer involving the class, keep up the good work!» (5:)
- Interesting lectures about business models, it gave me a new perspective.» (5:)
- Competent. Clear instructions and good composition of slides and lecturing. » (5:)

20. Gregory Carson

26 svarande

1:»0 0%
2:»4 15%
3:»6 23%
4:»10 38%
5:»6 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.69

- Could have been more pedagogical when constructing his presentation slides. Had a good intent with what we as student should learn! Felt very caring about our learning process.» (3:)
- Unfortunately unstructured. Very competent in his field, but didn"t quite manage to give lectures in a pedagogical way. Unclear instructions regarding assignments.» (3:)
- Could have been more pedagogic when introducing the valuation part!» (4:)
- I think that he could be even more clear so that the class really get the financing. I think he was good but he can improve and I had a hard time sometimes to follow, due to new financial words.» (4:)
- Knows everything about finance and is really nice to talk to. A bit too unstructured.» (4:)
- Pedagogical teacher and very enthusiastic! Great interaction with the class, "give me a call if you need any help", "let"s have some bonding", "let"s talk about career opportunities".» (5:)
- The one and only Greg. Great lecturer, great peronality and great patience.» (5:)

21. Per Hultén

23 svarande

1:»1 4%
2:»1 4%
3:»2 8%
4:»10 43%
5:»9 39%

Genomsnitt: 4.08

- Wasn"t there.» (?)
- However, his lecture wasn"t very hard so it was quite easy to be good, I think.» (5:)
- Inspiring lecturer, new insights» (5:)
- Well adapted to the listeners and their (our) previous experiences and knowledge. Interesting material.» (5:)

22. Jonas Mårtensson

22 svarande

1:»0 0%
2:»0 0%
3:»5 22%
4:»10 45%
5:»7 31%

Genomsnitt: 4.09

- Didnt attend» (?)
- Don"t remember.» (?)
- Couldn"t attend. » (?)
- Good and interesting talk, but too little lecturing to really evaluate.» (4:)

23. Clémence Carreel

25 svarande

1:»0 0%
2:»2 8%
3:»4 16%
4:»15 60%
5:»4 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.84

- Don"t remember.» (?)
- A bit unstructured, but very competent in the area.» (3:)
- A little bit hard with the French dialect time to time, but not very distractive. Her lecture was good, but we shoul have had more background on the CK concept before she stepped in.» (3:)
- CK was interesting. Great :)» (5:)

Kursutvärderingssystem från