Visa resultat

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

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

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

3. How understandable are the course goals?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

16. Additional comments

Lectures

17. Mats Lundqvist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:)