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 Chalmers, TEK215

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-03-09 - 2012-03-16
Antal svar: 19
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 42%
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.

19 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»2 10%
Around 20 hours/week»5 26%
Around 25 hours/week»5 26%
Around 30 hours/week»5 26%
At least 35 hours/week»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Lectures, assignments and reading. More time spent at the end.» (Around 25 hours/week)
- the cases were very intense.» (Around 25 hours/week)
- Required much more effort than usual.» (Around 30 hours/week)
- the cases took to much time and the time wasnt reflected in the grades enough.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

19 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»1 5%
50%»3 15%
75%»8 42%
100%»7 36%

Genomsnitt: 4.1

- Many of the lectures had scheduled far, far more time than needed. It was possible to attend the first half hour and learn the important things. I believe it would be better to have (at most) 2 hour lectures leaving the ability for groups to work on their cases afterwards rather than forcing it during the workshops.» (75%)
- was abroad for 2 weeks, otherwise would have attended 100%» (75%)
- Almost.» (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?

19 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»5 26%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»12 63%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- the term "feasibility studies" shows up in the learning outcomes, as it does in the course title. however, the term was not mentioned in class or literature as far as i remember which makes me wonder why it is there?» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- Really good that the lecturers showed them often» (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»16 88%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.88

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

18 svarande

No, not at all»2 11%
To some extent»11 61%
Yes, definitely»4 22%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.22

- Tentan upplevdes av mig som väldigt bred. Det ställdes mycket frågor på bakgrundslitteraturen samt att en CK kom igen kändes lite löjligt. Jag upplevde att jag hade bra koll på boken, artiklarna samt gått på alla föreläsningar med tyckte att tentan var otydlig och svår att veta vad ni egentligen ville ha svar på. Det är bra med generella frågor men kanske inte helt öppet. Diskuterar gärna mina åsikter om så vill,. //Andreas Gerward» (No, not at all)
- to open questions.» (To some extent)
- How relevant is a C-K question on the exam?» (To some extent)
- The exam was not good! There was no point of sudeing for it and why whas there only questions on the articles that was background reading?» (To some extent)
- The exam was disappointing. I felt that it didn"t assess my knowledge from the course. It was not based on the literature. Matters like CK and business models for example is not covered by literature and was barely covered during lectures. » (To some extent)
- it did. however there were a few issues with the exam. discrepancy between what was being examined and we were told in class - better not to tell students anything then (eg C-K analysis which we were told was not on the exam, eg case from the compendium, were told there would be at least one which wasn"t the case). it felt like a lot of the study effort i put in went in the wrong direction based on info given be teachers. also, the way the questions were phrased was somewhat confusing and the exam was more about interpreting the questions rather then checking actual knowledge. there was way too much writing required - would be better to examine knowledge specifically rather than just have us repeat what we did for our cases as this has already been examined in the actual cases.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

19 svarande

Small extent»3 15%
Some extent»10 52%
Large extent»4 21%
Great extent»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.26

- Sometimes, fuzzy lectures» (Small extent)
- very little » (Small extent)
- I found the workshops to be too long and sometimes way off topic. I truly enjoyed the projects and you guys are definitely on to something - but the teaching mostly felt tedious. A one-or two hour class would usually suffice. Maybe combine it with a more open workshop where we could consult you if needed, and otherwise simply work on our project? (which is where the learning happened)» (Some extent)
- UPPSTYRD HANDLEDNING =)» (Some extent)
- It is difficult to stay focused since many of the lectures fail to keep to the subject» (Large extent)

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

19 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»4 21%
Large extent»10 52%
Great extent»5 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- Very fuzzy book, when you read some chapters, and really concentrate, you still not understand what they are talking about? Unfourtunately, you are forced to go through it since you have to adopt their thinking.. And, some things are so explained in such a complicated way. Reading sections of text about eg. Backcasting and then wondering, "did I got it?". Then you google for it, and you understand the concept at once, with just some lines of text and a picture. Pictures and illustrations by the way, is really usefull to keep up the interest of the reader..» (Some extent)
- The compendium is helpful, though I understand why you still call it the beta version. Some chapters are very helpful - some not so much.» (Large extent)
- However not for the exam» (Large extent)
- Great course book!» (Great extent)
- only the compendium really» (Great extent)
- But I didn"t get to use it much during the exam.» (Great extent)

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

19 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»2 10%
Rather well»11 57%
Very well»6 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.21

- I would have said well, IF the workshops slides would have been published before the workshops. How are we supposed to work from the slides, without having access to these? I have never seen some many mobile phones in the air at the same trying to photograph the essential slides before the workshops...» (Rather badly)
- the slides not being uploaded prior to the workshops was a big dissapointment.» (Rather well)
- Could make the PingPong page more appealing. Some pages are left blank and not utilised effectively. Messages about topics and issues were given on PingPong which was good.» (Rather well)


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

9. Mats Lundqvist:

18 svarande

0 0%
0 0%
6 33%
9 50%
3 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

- Mats and Boo together was not good, very much talk among themselves and not directed to the students.» (3)

10. Boo Edgar

19 svarande

1 5%
4 21%
6 31%
8 42%
0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- Needs to get more structured, both in lecturing and supporting slides. Lectures tend to be too pharma-specific and contain isolated segments/examples that are difficult to relate to the course.» (3)
- did not get too much out of Boo"s lectures» (3)
- Mats and Boo together was not good, very much talk among themselves and not directed to the students.» (3)
- Sometimes I just wonder, what does he talk about?» (4)
- Often hard to follow (obscure references and metaphors), though very knowledgable and with an attention-grabbing style.» (4)
- He"s good but speaks in very large terms so it can be hard to understand how to do it.» (4)

11. David Andersson

19 svarande

0 0%
0 0%
1 5%
14 73%
4 21%

Genomsnitt: 4.15

12. Per Lundin (ThomsonReuters)

19 svarande

1 5%
2 10%
7 36%
8 42%
1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

- competency was certainly there but the presentation was rather boring» (3)

13. Sverker Alänge

17 svarande

0 0%
2 11%
11 64%
4 23%
0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

- can"t remember» (?)
- Lectures can be made more dynamic and interesting.» (3)

14. Christopher Hedvall

18 svarande

2 11%
4 22%
5 27%
7 38%
0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.94

- knew his stuff but the lecture was even more boring that that of Per Lundin. Information could have been conveyed in about a quarter of the time» (2)
- He didn"t present anything new.» (4)

Study climate

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

19 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»2 10%
Rather good»9 47%
Very good»7 36%
I did not seek help»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

- Asked for more information/clarification about the CK maps as I did not do it before and our first group did not have any members of the Chalmers/GU programmes, but was not helpful. This could have been explained better, provide some reading materials or even make new materials which help explain with examples as the course literature did not go into it.» (Rather poor)
- It would have been useful with a little more formalized "consulting"» (Rather good)

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

19 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»4 21%
Very well»15 78%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.78

- It is difficult getting people in a group who has never dealt with any of the tools before and did not in any way have the mindset of adapting to them. But that"s life I guess.» (Rather well)
- From my perspective the students outside of GIBBS/CSE is not as engaged and it caused frustration but I see the point of taking group norms one step further. » (Rather well)
- It has been quite well in the groups, however outside the groups, not all students were as communicative, especially as few of us were "outsiders". Culture issue it seems.» (Rather well)
- As an outsider, I was really surprised how easy and fun it was to work with both GIBBS students and CSE students!» (Very well)

17. How was the course workload?

19 svarande

Too low»1 5%
Low»1 5%
Adequate»7 36%
High»8 42%
Too high»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.47

- overall ok, quite back heavy but i guess that"s normal» (Adequate)
- Unfortunate collision with very intense Brand Management course (3 weeks, 7,5 hp)» (High)
- cant emphasize on this enough. » (Too high)
- Could be troublesome reading to courses at the same time, considering the high workload in this course.» (Too high)

18. How was the total workload this study period?

19 svarande

Too low»1 5%
Low»1 5%
Adequate»5 26%
High»7 36%
Too high»5 26%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

- Taking another course which is project based engineering which is quite demanding with reports and technical work.» (High)
- My bad. Other projects...» (Too high)
- When brand management started it was difficult to find the time for anything and I would had want to help my group to prepare the hand in more but now there was no time.» (Too high)
- Adequate until Brand Management course started.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

19. What is your general impression of the course?

19 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»3 15%
Good»12 63%
Excellent»4 21%

Genomsnitt: 4.05 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- As said, workshops has lots of improvement-potential, otherwise an excellent class» (Good)
- I think its a bit sad that they, in some ways, make such a interesting subject - uninteresting..» (Good)
- Maybe have the exam in the beginning of the course to get all the tools. » (Good)
- Would have been excellent if not for the workload and contents of the exam. However, a really valuable and interesting course. In general also well administrated. » (Good)
- coming from the MEI program, this was a welcome change to the usual courses. in all aspects of classes (workshops rather than lectures), literature (didn"t have to read ~30 articles) and the very subject itself - practical vs theory heavy» (Good)
- Really fun topic!!» (Excellent)
- the cases were very good and that was the part where I learnt most.» (Excellent)
- Most interesting course at Chalmers so far!» (Excellent)

20. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- idea evaluations»
- The case approach»
- compendium plus articles plus cases. both fish and real cases.»
- Cases!»
- The close connection to reality, using actual cases is really great.»
- David Andersson»
- The casework and the different lecturers.»
- real cases, working with patent databases»
- All the assignments and how they were organized»
- The cases were really interesting and that is whereI learned the most.»
- The idea evaluations! I learned a lot from that.»
- It was very good that we had to work with real cases »
- the cases.»
- The real cases.»
- Keep the style of lectures & workshops, as well as projects/cases. Allow the group to decide whether they should work on both cases or split it between them and then have a general overview of how the case they are not working on is progressing, but fairly detailed knowledge of the case they are focused on.»
- The connection to reality!»

21. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- workshop format»
- Coursebook Some of the subjects »
- - shorten the time on fish case to allow for more time to the real cases. - time efficiency during lectures! dont mess around. say what needs to be said and move on. Unfortunately, talking about a bunch of stuff made me leave some lectures. - be sure to have workshops in a time efficient way so that we feel that it is good to go/stay and not a waste of time. - to some lectures, do actually say that: this is mandatory to read. At least on the two very interesting articles!! Many students read them 2 days before the exam. Say it, that you SHALL read it and we will discuss it in class, time efficiently. (Good articles, that I wish I had read much earlier)»
- "Workshops". Replace with ordinary length lectures and more time for cases.»
- Workshops converted into lectures, information early on as to what the idea providers are expecting from us (the students).»
- The CK does not fit into this concept...»
- Better distribution of slides prior to workshops. Shorten down workshops.»
- if giving information about the exam in class, ensure it is actually true»
- The lectures was a bit too long. Sometimes the workshops seemed to have no meaning and people left to spend their time on something more qualitative work. Don"t have workshops every time but when you make sure that they have a real purpose. Scenario planning was really good because we could use it directly in the report.»
- The fish case should be updated!»
- Fraim the claim! Keep to the subject during class and think about what you want to say! 5 hours lectures is to long time.»
- It was hard to get involved in both real cases in such a short period. Maybe we should do only 1 case more properly or shorten the first (fish) to give more time for the real cases.»
- maybe the fish case? the novelty-part was a bit screwd up. more time for the last two cases?»
- Have sessions for consultation. Give proper feedback from the first case, I was rather disappointed that it sounded like everything was good. We want to develop during the three idea evaluations but then we need feedback! More efficient lectures, we don"t need two hours to think. It is better to do it quicker. Maybe have the exam before the real cases. Better communication with the idea providers and what"s expected from us.»
- Explain the concepts more with appropriate examples. The theory presented seems very complicated and is not the exact way that group members who are on the Masters did the work. I know that the theory is from external sources, but attempts should be made to try and simplify it, especially if the course is open to those outside the Masters programme.»
- Shorter but more intense lectures. It often took four hours to go through something which could have been explained in 45 mins. Let us work on our evaluations instead!»

22. Additional comments

- First of all, when Sverker started to talk about sustainabillity I was thinking.. "hmm, is this a joke?" Sustainabillity have been a subject we have getting used to during so many courses already, and when talking about the Bruntland commision like something we havent heard, I was thinking.. hmm.. In general, I think too much of the contents is quite fuzzy.. It shouldnt be, and I think it doesnt needs to be. And also, that it feels, I might be wrong in this, like we are forced to much to use their approach, to evaluate the idea, using their recommended tools and name for the headlines.. In all, it was a funny course, which can be improved in many ways..»
- All in all, a very good course where I again learned a lot, and a lot of new tools and ways of thinking. Good!»
- One of the better courses so far at Chalmers.»
- Thank you for a very interesting course!»
- Interesting course, but the workshops could have been more time efficient or more info could have been put in the course.»
- Set some kind of standard for how much info the idea providers must submit. We had one ideaevaluation whith 17 pages info from the begining and one with 12 page powerpoint that had not answered any of the requested questions from you.»
- I am a MEI-student and I really appreciated the helpfullness of all the teachers and the friendly climate during the lectures/workshops. »
- Keep up the good work. It was a really knowledgeable subject for an engineer to take. Quite different from the normal business type courses which I thought it would have been. The sustainability aspect is very important. Maybe try and get the group to discuss the sustainability aspects more such as their viewpoints as it seems that not all were so interested in the actual issues and want to do something about it and rather that they do the course to complete the Masters programme. Really happy to have been able to participate in a programme that is only given in limited locations and that such a course does not exist otherwise. :)»
- Since there is a third party involved in each idea, the output (the report) is more important compared to assignments in other courses. Hence, in order to maximise the quality of the report a solution could be to have the exam on theory only after 3-4 weeks and then start applying that knowledge when performing the idea evaluation. Strange with 40% report and 60% exam. The argument that there needs to be a high level of individual work doesn"t hold, look at the BCL course, 30 out of 120 points (25%) were individual. »
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 4.05

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 4.05
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.76

Kursutvärderingssystem från