|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENKÄTER | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visa resultatHär 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.
Course Evaluation Research Design and Methods 2012, TEK190Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2012-05-24 - 2012-05-29 Antal svar: 54 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?% Kontaktperson: Magnus Holmén» Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Industriell ekonomi 300 hp
Background1. I am originally coming from*54 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.59 2. I approximately attended54 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.75 3. Comments on your teamwork in your projects- good»- Very efficient, great team-mates and interesting projects» - It was good communication and teamwork.» - Great Teamwork, was nice to be a small group» - Worked well, good size of groups, nice to choose constellation your self.» - Sweet group. Good learning experience. However, the descriptions of the cases needs to be bit more clear. » - My group"s teamwork went well, we have worked together before and that made it easy to get up to speed and do what we had to. » - It worked well» - worked well» - Pretty straight-forward. Sometimes the the questions had too much text/info but in some ways this was a good chance to practice filtering through the mass of data which makes me wonder if that was the original intent» - +» - Good work, some confusing instructions» - Worked very well» - Relativley good but a it disparate » - low participation from one of our team members and little contribution. Would be better for two to do the project or even one » - Worked fine» - It was efficient and worked out well!» - The teamwork has worked out excellent!» - good» - we had good teamwork and group members did their parts» - I worked together with 2 persons I know really well, which was good since we have had very different schedules this term. Then its good to know how flexible your team relations are. » - Good teamwork» - Very good» - Overall good. Similar ambition and performance. » - worked good, did our jobs, a good way to learn a lot» - Good work.» - Worked fine» - Our teamwork was good and I enjoyed it!» - The teamwork went great in both projects and I believe the result will satisfy the examiner.» - it worked well » - Very good compared to other projects, smaller groups which made it easier to divide the work and perform/achieve/contribute separetley. In the KJ Shiba excercise, everyone contributed in a positive sense as well.» - worked good! better according to me to be two three than if we had been more, more efficient! » - The teamwork went well and we managed to be flexible due to very different schedules» Questions on the course4. From your perspective, how relevant is the course content?*54 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.25 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex) 5. How much did you learn from the course?*54 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.9 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex) 6. How demanding was the course?*54 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.07 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex) 7. How interesting do you think the topic of the course was?*54 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.79 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex) 8. Comments on the lecturer- good course and lectures. »- N/A» - Helpful.» - Magnus is great, but doesn"t seem to like his job as a lecturer. Looks like a burden to him to spread knowledge» - Good lectures, but sometimes somewhat to quick jumping between subjects. The physical walking back and forth during the lectures didn"t bother me, but some classmates were really distracted» - Too unstructured» - I like the lecturing style but I think you could use more example/cases etc. for explaining. Especially for the epistemology stuff if possible as it is hard to visualise» - No complaints» - Magnus is a great guy - always helpful and has a good chat. » - A bit unstructured, too many slides. Better planing and timemanagemetn would increase the learing n the lectures. » - It feels like Magnus has become a bit comfortable in his lecturing and that he makes the lectures on routine. Could be improved for next time» - I would prefer a better overall structure of what the key learnings are from each topic. I missed that. » - Clear and good practical tips - I will never forget to pre-test!» - Good, some confusing regarding theme» - Magnus is a good lecturer, no complaints» - It felt quite unstructured at several times. I thought it was difficult to grasp what I actually had learned after each lecture I attended» - Quite fun, but a bit cynical, too optimistic with the time.» - Sorry, but the lecturer seems neither very inspiring nor enthusiastic about the subject. It made me think throughout the course that this is just sooooo boring. However, the last week, when studying for the exam, I realised that it really has potential to be fun and interesting if you just wrap/package the course more like the "managerial strategy course" (i.e. R&D strategy and org.). That is to say, less theoretical/formal/preparing for PHd.-research, but instead more practically oriented in terms of "strategy for management consulting studies." Quite like how you design the exams! If the course content on the lectures were packaged more like the exams (case-based) instead of being over-theoretical I think the course would be more inspiring both for you and for the students! , )» - Entertaining but sometimes little hard to follow. » - Magnus have to plan (time) and prepare his lectures it is not a coincidence that barely half the class attends the lectures.Strycture of lectures often made it hatd to follow the lecturer.» - magnus is a good lecturer, keeps it interesting» - Often hard to follow, maybe due to the subject, but the lectures feels unstructured» - Need more structure and present the purpose of the articles and concepts introduced» - From time to time hard to follow during lectures.» - Honestly, the lectures were very difficult to follow. Thats why I hardly attended.» - Magnus a very good lecturer» - A bit too unstructured somtimes. Would be great with more connection between concepts.» - The course should have been held much earlier. Preferebly before we did our bachelor thesis.» - It is obvious that Magnus knows the topic well, but many students do not appreciate his lecture style. Some proposals for next time: Try to have the Multiple choice test early in the course. Then the students are forced to read early, making it easier for the later lectures. The cases are good and very helpful to the learning. Especially Project 3. For the KJ Shiba, » - i"ve been taking the course on distance so i have no opinions.» - seems a bit unstructured at times. not always easy to follow the logic. phrasing of statements/questions can be unclear» - Fascinating story teller! Some things are hard to relate to in terms of content, you really need to keep up with the readings.» - I think Magnus does a very good job and it is good to see that he likes this subject as much as he does. However it is difficult to pay attention throughout the entire lecture when he paces in front of the class for 40 minutes.» - Good, sometimes i did not understand how things was related to eachother, slide vs what was said, » - They were good, perhaps little to talkative. Many side tracks » 9. Comments on the lecture slides (in terms of your studies, not the lectures)- good slides, helpful when studying. but somewhat of an information overload on some of the slides.»- Not very helpful for » - It was a lot of slides with a lot of information. Much to process.» - Good stuff» - Slides were very disorganized and difficult to learn from.» - Quite good, but it would be nice to have them earlier, "repetitium mater estudiore"» - Too unstructured» - Good. I miss better explanation of the articles though» - Very nice!» - In my opinion, this was one the worst part of the course. The slides were way to messy - some old slides, didn"t follow a clear structure etc. Usually the slides are a good summary of the chapters in the book - in this case it is way to messy to see the structure. Quite a few slides were redundandant - exactly the same slides, some slides were old (stating misinformation about which chapters were included in the course - it was contradictary to course pm). Re-do the slides for next year, please!!» - Too many, although when studiyng to the exam the came in hand. » - Too many, it feels like a bomb carpet» - Good and informative.. long but that"s good for studies to the exam.» - 1100 slides, that is too much. Must be a better way to combine slides and make the overview better» - Maybe a bit too much text and number of slides» - a lot of slides to say very few !!! I didn"t understand 80% of them (just some info hanging here and there)for my studies I used 10% of the slides and 90% of the book!! serious changes should be done to enhance the quality of the slides and make them a bit focused and to the point!!!» - Good study slides, maybe need some more red thread» - Slides could have benefited from a revision, many of them were from 2009. In addition, the same slides could come up more than once in the same lecture. - The number of slides should also be reduced. Over 1000 slides for the course seem too much. One lecture had 116 slides in it. I think learning would be helped if the amount was reduced. Content was good.» - Could have been more structured» - Too many slides and too dense. » - Too many / lecture» - Messy!» - The structure of the slides has been so unorganised and unstructured. The slides are just an awful mix of 80% irrelevant text and 20% "core-material" for the course. So sterile and so much irrelevant buzz that you have to sort out, so I totally gave up reading "em! A slide deck should be to the point, specific, and one should immediately be able to understand what is important when looking "em through!» - not always so straight forward » - To fussy, could be made more clear and consice.» - If they were structured it would improve the course signaificantly.the slide content should also be improved LOTS OF USELESS SLIDES content should be ordered in a more natural way meaning the order of topics-» - they were ok, a bit fuzzy sometimes with some really empty slides and some with unclear content» - I found the slide decks unstructured and hard to follow through. Sometimes a discussion is just dropped and then reappear in another context in another slide deck (chronologically later). The slides work for lecturing maybe, but not as stand-alone reading material.» - Very hard to determine what is important in the slides» - Also would benefit from more structure in terms of connection between concepts» - There were a lot of slides and this made it hard to use them for studying. Hard to follow the topic when going through the slides.» - Good slides, a lot of content, but on a good level of the info» - I"ve heard Magnus say he knows he"s not a good lecturer, so that why he makes the slide so that you "can study them and understand later". The problem is that in reality, you can"t. Slides are every bit as unstructured as lectures, e.g. they lack headlines, make sudden jumps from one topic to the other and then go back to the first topic again, etc... For example in one place there was an example of a multiple-choice exam question, but completely without headlines or explanations. So if you weren"t there at the lecture when Magnus (hopefully) explained it, you"d think it"s all true and that research questions "should be as broad as possible" (not true). And thats just one example...» - Way to many. Could be more focused» - Very difficult to follow after the lectures. Lots and lots of information. » - A bit too unorganized in my view. » - Good slides for self studies» - Too many and too repetitive, but some are very helpful.» - Good content.» - i"ve been taking the course on distance so i have no opinions.» - ok. a lot of them» - There were some things that were repeated a lot, some slides appeared to be from earlier years. I think that a more consistent way of naming each lecture (or at least put a date on them) would help us a lot. there were only 6 slides in numerical order.» - There is a lot of repetition, the youtube-links aren"t working and white font on lightgrey/green background is not a perfect match. » - difficult and hard to understand the topic» - Some of them good, bur they could be looked at again» 10. Comments on Marcus Linder"s lecture- none»- N/A» - dno» - Interesting, but the rest of the course could have included more about quantitative methods and where to use them» - good» - Marcus" lecture was really good» - Not attending» - N/A» - Ok, a bit confusing but still it is a good part to incluse in the course. » - Didn"t give that much» - Honestly, quantitative research deserves an entire separate course. squeezing all that content in a single lecture was highly confusing. I lost my attention after 10 mins of lecture!!!!! even the lecturer didn"t seem to understand some of the methods come on !!» - Good with some basics» - did not attend» - Didn"t attend» - Hello? We"ve already taken a course in statistics!! (...and including basic quantitative dataanalysis!) This did not bring much marginal value to the course nor to me. » - Hard to understand» - Bad, not interesting» - -» - N/A» - Did not attend» - Did not attend» - Good. » - Did not attend.» - Very interesting. Too bad I don´,t remember anything from the statistics course so I can use the methods to check for statistical significance.» - Did not attend.» - i"ve been taking the course on distance so i have no opinions.» - he did try very hard to make the topic seem interesting and understandable. not sure about the success. good effort» - NA» - Well.. statistics» - Acctually did not get it, very confusing and to fast with explain! » - -» 11. Comments on Lisa Carlgren"s lecture- none»- N/A» - dno» - Nice» - This exercise was okay.» - Not attending» - N/A» - I attended but cannot remember what it was about » - Lisa was a good presenter but I don"t remember much from it» - Ididn"t learn a single thing in that lecture. I still don"t understand the meaning of it. please try to change it for next year and or at least plan the study case lecture before it!» - Do it after the introduction to theme» - did not attend» - Didn"t attend» - Nice try to bring in a workshop in the course as opposed to all lecturing! Very good initiative! Unfortunately it didn"t really work out though. Maybe it should be more organised/prepared from the lecturers perspective, and maybe use a more interesting case. Maybe the case-PM should be distributed in advance so that more time could be spend to design the case study in the workshop. Maybe it should be more like the KJ-shiba workshop, and meet in the morning and get divided into groups and be given a task to solve in a group room and then present to a moderator. We should be given an exam-question with a lot of data (like question A on today"s exam) and be divided into "consulting teams" (4 people etc) and then get two-three hours to present for the moderator (Lisa) a proposed case study on a A2 sheet and the reasoning why we should design our case studies like that.» - -» - N/A» - Did not attend» - Did not attend» - N/A» - Did not attend.» - The case study exercise should have been held after the lecture since (at least in my group) we didn´,t have enough knowledge concerning case studies for the discussion to be productive.» - Did not attend.» - i"ve been taking the course on distance so i have no opinions.» - the workshop was ok, could have been useful to have a case study lecture before doing the exercise.» - Hmm, a bit low level? But a good intention - made us thinking in a way that was applicable for studying for the exams.» - Interesting. Not much of a lecture but a case assignment.» - Good case but should maybe had been after we had the lecture about case studies » - Good with some practice instead of just listening» 12. Comments on Martin Wallin"s lecture- boring. didn"t get too much out of it.»- N/A» - He was interesting to listen to.» - dno» - Good to get second perspective on much of the course content» - Martin"s lecture was good, the examples he had of his studies were useful» - Good tips and trix, but didn"t really get the picture.» - Good first half. Interesting with practical experiences.» - First part was OK, but he lost me in the second part. » - Ok» - Very good» - Did not contribute so mutch» - Good lecture showing us the importance of literature and examples of how to perform projects» - Didn"t attend» - Unfortunately I could not attend.» - Good!» - very good» - Martin is a committed lecturer and I enjoyed taking part of his experiences of research projects.» - Did not attend» - Did not attend» - N/A» - Interesting and useful with hands on examples.» - Interesting. Not that focused on the theories of research but more of how a research project can be performed in real life.» - Did not attend.» - i"ve been taking the course on distance so i have no opinions.» - he was good. managed to cover most aspects of research projects in the lecture. conveyed the info in a way that seemed practically relevant» - Good beginning, interesting. then a bit unrelated to the course in the end.» - Loved it! Very interesting to listen to him, he talks about what he likes in a very entertaining way!» - I liked him, really tried to greate attention but would have prefered if he had talk little slower » - Good and interesting lecture (more tangeble)» 13. Comments on your supervisor in project 2&3?- great. »- N/A» - Didn"t talk to them.» - did not have any» - Great» - Sara was very helpful.» - alright supervision» - had none» - Good.» - It was quite hard to get more help or input than what was scheduled but maybe that is how its supposed to be» - We mainly contacted Magnus - we called him and he always had time to answer our questions - or time for a short spontaneous meeting. Credits to Magnus. Bad setup with specific time-slots. Much better to be able to book your own time - we hadn"t even started with project 3 when our time slot was.» - WE did not know that there were schedueld time in the beginning so we had to re-schedule. Once we had the supervision it was good. » - Didn"t meet the supervisor» - Very helpful at helping us find our direction» - Did not recieve good supervision as a non-attending distance student» - Bad, to busy supervisors, inflexible» - Sara was very helpful. » - Overall very good. It was maybe too early in the process, but we got some good advice on our initial ideas and how to proceed.» - Good response, and quick. To the point and always helpful! (We had Sara)» - Did not use any supervision. There was enough info about the projects in the project PMs for them to be solved without supervision. » - Very good!» - Very good! Very helpful» - worthless to set dates that early and to have them fixed it should have been 30 minutes which each group can book with the supervisor.» - nothing to complain» - It worked just fine.» - Good meeting» - Did not take the chance to get supervision» - Ok. » - Did not use supervision.» - I had Sara and it worked very good! Good meetings and she took the time to answer questions on email as well!» - During project 3 it was good. During project 2, we mailed her to ask for a meeting but got the response that we had missed all the timeslots and could not get any other chance. It felt strange to get such response from someone who is assigned to help us. I can understand that they are under time pressure, but the timeslots should in that case be spread out more, not beeing all at the same day, very early in the projects.» - As a distance student, I did not have any supervisor.» - we didn"t have one» - Sara is super!» - Lisa Carlgren was a very positive and devoted supervisor! great job! Magnus was very helpful with all the question that we hade, the best supervisor on examiner level I would say! Thanks alot to both of you!» - It was easy to get hold of her which is good, her comments were useful, good job. » - on project 2 we got the feedback quite late and nearly just before hand-in, but mailed 1 week before, but it was wrong with e-mail. otherwise it was ok but the lime is limited and sometmes hard to get feedback via mail, but it was quite clear during our meetings» - -» 14. Comments on the course book?- okay»- Good!» - It was quite big.» - Too much fluff and examples. Slides was sufficient» - Informative, but too much text (American books).» - Alright, but some chapters felt irrelevant. A good article to replace ch 1 would have been nice» - good» - The book is boring but covers good stuff» - Good!» - Really good.» - It took a while until I reached a level where I understood. I had to learn the basic concepts before I could take in the context, once that was done it was a good book.» - Ok» - Actually a bit boring. But I haven"t any other suggestions so I guess it is okey.» - Not the best method book I have read. But I do not have any other suggestions.» - Insightful but maybe too much text» - good, maybe suggest to read the first chapter in the end of course? made you boored to introduce with that» - Liked it.. a bit long, but good. » - Very difficult to understand in the beginning. Maybe we should have been recommended to start with another chapter or to really explain estimology and ontology thoroughly in lectures. I didn"t have any problem of understanding it when I focused intensively (and presumively had a better understanding of other concepts) in the end.» - Too throughout, it goes into too much detail. Perhaps a more focused reading list would sort that out» - Extreme amount of filler text (American literature).» - It"s ok» - Have only read some parts of it, but of what I"ve read it seems pretty much to the point and relevant.» - Good and extensive» - To thick.......» - ok but a lot of unnecessary in it and not idealy correlated with lecture content» - i didnt like it. no chapter numbers at the top of the page, messy layout, small boxes of text and examples all over the place.» - A lot of fuzz to explain sometimes quite mundane ideas.» - Unstructured» - Good but too long» - A lot of material, hard to know what to emhpasize. » - Actually quite good. Despite a rather boring subject, the book does a good job of it and is largely readable. It also provides some well needed structure and definitions to the course.» - Ok» - Didn´,t read it.» - Very good book. Make us read earlier! The MCT questions on their website are helpful and could be encouraged to do.» - Good and easy to understand. » - it is good» - thick» - In the end, it was very good. But a bit unstructured. A very unmotivating first chapter... maybe it is better to have a bit more soft opening for take home reading??» - The first few chapters are a pain to read, then it gets more interesting. I"m not entirely sure how relevant everything in the book is.» - think it was good, little to much concepts, topics but liked the explanations, some of them was really good and some of them was quite hard to understand » - To much "bullshit", much words with litte content. I don"t know if there are any better (I think my former school uses this as well).» 15. Comments on the compulsory articles?- great»- Some interesting and easy to read, some others straight the opposite» - They where instructive.» - Fluff, slides sufficient.» - varying quality, some didn"t feel very relevant» - Some more relevant than other, might want to look over a few» - I think some of the were hard to understand. I think Magnus should give more space talking about epistemology etc. during courses. Like the text by Potts.» - ...» - Didn"t find time to read them.» - Did not read them, read the KJ-shiba and sumaries that someone else in the class hade written.» - Ok. Don"t understand the importance of epistemology and ontology» - Some interesting, I would reduce them to 10 and really emphizise on those.» - Interesting, especially Popper and Scupin. Great use of examples to complement the theory also.» - Good» - Should be discussed more in class or be assosiated with some sort of lecture element to increase understanding of what was relevant and why. » - Some felt a bit difficult and not that relevant. It would have been nice with a study guide on why each article was considered important.» - Sometimes a bit unclear what the take-away from the articles were, but they really helped to illustrate how things are done practically and what the limitations of different methods etc. are. » - Some of them were really good! for example Pettigrew, the testestorone levels-paper and the hofstede. Others were not very good, for example potts and popper (both were terrible and the marginal value of having read them is approximately zero unless you"re going for a pHd which I presume none in the class will do. If you just google epistemology and ontology you will learn more in five minutes than you do by reading potts in five hours). Maybe you could also bring in some more real life (non academic) papers/consultancy studies to see how they have gone about and how to apply methods in non-academic work! (Think: more like your exam questions) » - too many all relevant?» - most of them did not give anything. » - some were interesting. didnt read them all» - n/a» - Did not get the purpose of all of them, and I believe som could be removed» - Where all neccessary? Some of them made more harm than provided further knowledge. Different naming of concepts etc. made it confusing. » - Many of them I really did not see the use. Articles need to brought up and explained at the lectures, e.g. "why did we read this article", "what does it ilustrate", and "what are the take aways". Also devide articles into groups like "these explaine a useful concept that you should learn (e.g. Scupin W-model, Björkdahl & Holmen PFIA), vs "these are interesting because they are examples of how to use different methods (e.g. The grounded theory-Australian beer drinking and the experimental design sportscar-testosterone-articles).» - Didn´,t read them.» - Did only read a few.» - i"ve been taking the course on distance so i have no opinions.» - Only read the compilations. » - I did not like them too much but they were ok. » - ok, but lost the attention for many of them because it was hard to see how it was relavant to research design methods» - Some made no sens, I think the book is enough for this course.» 16. How much did you learn in Project 1 (KJ-Shiba)?- a lot, it was a fun exercise! »- Quite a bit» - Learned plenty of how the process works.» - Some» - Why is this answer a text box?» - Not much I remember, but good experience» - a lot» - The method is useful.» - Much» - Good experience.» - Learned some but it seems like it is difficult to do it on my own, maybe that was the point of it.» - Much on kj- shiba» - From 1-5 where 5 is top. 2.» - Good» - Was similar to other "sticky-label" tasks I have done before but the theory behind it was new to me.» - useful » - Adequately!» - a lot, good way of learning» - Much. (5)» - I got some understanding of how to conduct good workshops» - Will be ever so helpful, I think the KJ-shiba method is really useful in real life. The project does not need to be altered in any way. Perhaps some illustrations of reformulations that are good would help. » - It was nice!» - I got an understanding of what it is, how it works and why it can be useful. Well, I realise now afterwards that it can be really useful in organisational change in big rigid organisations where there"s a lot of different opinions on different levels. I don"t think I ever will use it myself in work, but at least I"m very glad I can understand what it is if I hear someone talking about it in the future. (As you"ve said yourself: we were a bit to like minded to really see the greatness of the method, I think so too) » - 5 out of 5» - A lot» - Very good» - Very much seems to be a very good and usefull method for problem assessment» - interesting exercise, learnt a bit about problem solving » - I learned more about team dynamics when you are 4-5 leader type persons in a small room than the analytic process itself I guess...» - Very good workshop! Maybe try to find more interesting subject.» - Very much, it was a great exercise» - Much. Good exercise. » - Some, a good method and a good way to focus on real things and not analyze thoughts and illusions» - 3» - Learned a very useful tool» - Learned the method, good project.» - Mostly I think I learned about more of the situation of working in a group and together defining a problem.» - Not that much. I learned the process, but could not figure out the meaning with it, at that time.» - I was one of the exchange students having to do the assignment compensating for not participating. I do not think that the questions were specific enough and neither do I think they were in correlation to the four hours missed out on. I would want to see a remake of that assignment for students coming other years, as I on Google could find that it had been used before in this course as well.» - i"ve been taking the course on distance so i have no opinions.» - learned about KJ Shiba» - A lot! Very fun and interesting way of working!» - Fun prject if you bring food and have a good team leader!» - Good project exercise » - Good to practice» 17. How much did you learn from your work in Project 2 (Lazy lecturer)?- a lot, it was a fun project! »- Quite a bit» - Learnt quite much about the subject.» - Alot» - A lot about our subject.» - A bit» - not too much» - Also a good project.» - Much» - A lot.» - Not that much, got some insight but overall it was not that giving. » - Kind of good. Learned quite much» - From 1-5 where 5 is top. 3.» - Good exercise. Think it should be evaluated on the presentation as well» - A lot of insight. The instruction about finding tips and best-practice was a great motivator.» - good project» - Decent amount» - Good to get in deep, could in some how be combined with Project 3 maybe» - Much about the method we looked at. Not so much about other methods.» - Pretty much » - This should be combined with project 3 perhaps, would lend diversity to reports and different approaches. Good way to become familiar with a method.» - A bit, encourage more fun presentations» - A lot! a good way to learn one of the methods. Really good! Here it really fitted with a more academic study, as opposed to project 3 which I think could be designed more like your extensive exam questions, i.e. more consultancy-ish. » - 4 out of 5» - A lot» - Medium» - quit alot in my on topic but would have prefered if it was divided into two slots insted of 4 hours. Would be better if it was more focus in assignment that it would be used as exam material.» - a bit, my subject was not so new to me» - First of all from listening to the peer presentations.» - Learned a lot but the area was not very relevant in the end» - Medium» - A lot. Liked this way of presenting. » - Some, did patents in the previous course but a useful repetition» - 3» - A little bit. » - Was a good project.» - I learned a lot about my research method even though I think we spent way too much time on the project.» - I learned a lot from my topic, but since it was too many presentations during one lecture, it is hard to take all that information in and listen carefully.» - nothing i didn"t know before» - learned a lot about our research method. limited amounts about the others» - A lot as well!» - I learned a lot of theory.» - liked lecture very much, good to get a overview of the topics» - Much, I like this.» 18. How useful was it to listen to other groups" presentations in Project 2?- somewhat useful »- Good!» - It was good as you had to put less effort later to learn the methiods.» - good you learnd some» - So-so» - Useful, but very boring. Students are not good lecturers, although their slides are good to read from.» - Some were very good and useful for studying» - not too much but might depend on the listening and not the presentations» - Good to get an overview. I think you should grade the presentations so people prepare better, some were so-so.» - Much» - Really useful - nice approach.» - It is nice with a change in lecturer, it was good.» - It was quite good» - From 1-5 where 5 is top. 2.» - Very usefull» - The overview of everyone else"s topic was a good way to learn different methods fast» - very useful, although I lost my focus after the third presentation and I am pretty sure it"s the same for the rest of the class (all yawning and facebooking :) » - Rather booring, enough with their slides» - Not that useful. maybe a different set-up could improve learning. » - Quite useful. Easier to remember concepts when you can link the oonsepts to persons too!» - It was very useful in terms of knowing what methods are out there and how they are used. » - Very useful, a nice summary of many methods.» - It was nice!» - In general I think the presentation had so much buzz in them and they were not to the point! Hence, it was hard to really remember anything at all from them despite me listening all the time through out the session. I also saw a lot of people sitting and playing with their phones etc. and not concentrating/listening to the presenters --> the typical Power point syndrome!! When it comes to the presentations, I think you should give some directives: 1) presentations can only be 5(!) minutes --> makes them more to the point and concise! Easier for the audience to remember and get the message. & 2) Power point should NOT be allowed! --> same effect as a short presentation: more to the point and people really have to make the massage go through! People tend to do really terrible slides and it is soooo hard to focus on PPT cf. to "theatrical" presentations (i.e. without PPT). (and if you don"t like these suggestions, at least make sure to limit the amount of slides to 4-5 etc, as on the old exam!)» - 4 out of 5» - It was okay but better after reading their presentations afterwards» - Okey» - quit useful but graded presentations would improve the quality significantly» - useful with the information and interesting to see how they made their slides or presented» - I thought it was a really nice way to get an overlook of all the methods.» - Hard to determine if the presenters have a correct understanding of things» - Yes» - Useful. » - Useful, a good way to get a basic understanding of many methods. Better than to have lectures on them, easier to take in the knowledge» - 2» - Ok, not sure we need to listen to so many. Fewer groups maybe better» - You get an overview over a lot of methods but (at least for me) it didn´,t stick.» - Very useful!» - i"ve been taking the course on distance so i have no opinions.» - good. better than just to read about it.» - Very useful, it made one able to relate to different topics by remembering different groups appearances.» - Very useful as to when it cames to studying for the exams I remembered who presented what and that was a little bit easier.» - yew very much » - Good» 19. How useful were other groups comments on your presentation in Project 2?- not really useful»- Not very useful» - Not that much.» - Not very» - Not at all.» - ok» - not at all» - Not that useful. The presentation we had were not optimized for the comments manual which made the comments somewhat useless in my eyes.» - Much» - A bit helpful.» - OK, not that giving.» - A bit» - From 1-5 where 5 is top. 2.» - OK» - Limited... not a lot of useful feedback. The questionnaire itself was probably more useful as a check-list for future presentations» - Not at all» - Not so useful in our case. » - Not that useful» - not at all» - Not very» - Not very useful. People put no effort in writing them. » - not so useful» - Didn"t receive that many» - Average» - not useful» - somewhat useful» - Comments were a bit too universal to be "implementable"» - Not very useful» - Very good, that type of feedback is excellent!» - Good. It is a good way to make each and everyone to pay attention.» - 1» - Not really that useful they were in terms like "good speach" The number-grades on different aspects are quite unhelpful as their is no constructivism. Perhaps it would be a good idea to only have an open ended question concerning improvement possibilities since this question would then get more attention.» - Not that useful» - i"ve been taking the course on distance so i have no opinions.» - not at all.» - Did not get any comment.» - useful» - it is smometimes difficult to understand » - Good to some extent» 20. How much did you learn in Project 3 (business model innovation )?- quite a lot»- Very much!» - It was quite useful to learn the process.» - you learned allot about the cours material» - A lot, will use everything in my masters thesis» - I learned how much effort you can put into improving your data collection methods. However, the cost was relatively high and too much work went into the practical work in booking and performing interviews. I realize that"s also important, but it"s very time consuming and doesn"t teach you a lot. Most of us have already performed a lot of interviews previously, so we don"t learn anything useful. The most useful thing was planning the interviews, not booking and conducting them.» - A lot on interviewing and questionnaires. but not so much about the structured interviewing, there should be something more interesting to do instead of that task» - a lot» - Quite a lot, very time consuming though» - Much» - A LOT! It was really a massive task.» - A lot! Made me reconcder most aspect of the course, I uset it on the exam awswell, I hope that it wll give me some points....» - Quite much. Learning by doing is good» - From 1-5 where 5 is top. 3.» - Not so much» - Not much in the way of theory but a great deal in understanding the practicalities and limits of really life research» - good project. I learned a great deal form it !!! I might say it"s the best part of this whole course » - Not too much» - Good to apply theory» - 40 % of the learnings from the course. » - Very much, but I had unfurtunatelly not tarted to study that much for the exam and might therefore not have performed so good on the project» - we should have discussed project 3 in class or have been given feedback on it. It was a great way to set us on the right track to making a proper investigation and gave a hint of the effort needed. » - I learned a lot about methods» - I learned a lot! Doing the projects (all of them!) was a good way to learn the course material. But I still have a thought of how one might improve the realism and perceived importance of the projects for the students, and to make it less theoretical and more interesting/practically oriented (in the sense that we see how we might be able to use this in the future): You could design the task as a consultancy task and we should be given the role of a consultancy team (again: like your exam questions). "We are the consultants who have signed a contract to undertake the project" and hence we also have a deadline and also a given amount of time to spend(!). Management consultants don"t get paid to work over time (they only get paid for their 60hrs a week... , P) and neither do we! Our CSN cover 40 hours a week so it is very easy to calculate how much time that should be spent on each project! So, i.e: demand students to make time budgets for both projects and record time spent, and also: you can even tell them to include an invoice with the report just to increase the realism (and fun factor) of the project! After all (but without statistical evidence , P), it is just to realise: 95% in the class will become management consultants and the other 5% will probably not go for a PHD. » - 5 out of 5» - Very much» - Much» - very much project is ideal but it would be even better if a early work shopm would be held to help us get started and how to think. does not have to be more than 30 minutes. I would also help if the exam was a "dugga" that was in week 4 or 5 insted then i believe the projects could become much better.» - quite a bit. learnt how to actually conduct a small research study and make interviews.» - I learned quite a lot about how to structure a research project so that its parts actually built upon each other.» - This is when I first got an overview of the course. Learned a lot.» - Very much» - A lot. Extesive but good project. » - Much, useful project to really learn to use the methods.» - 5» - quite alot, but hard to do everything right when you have so little time. » - Quite a lot actually as ours didn´,t go so well. We got a good lesson on the importance of thinking through the research study and plan for later stages in the beginning. To think about all the relations within the snake basically.» - A lot!» - Much!» - it was difficult to do on distance» - most of the course was learned in this project (aside from exam preparation)» - Basically everything before I started studying for the exam, then I understood that everything I learnt in this project would be applicable in the studying for finals.» - Open interviews are time-consuming, how to phrase the question is very important when it comes to interviews. Nevertheless, I did not like the project too much. » - Very good project! Liked but it took a lot of time!! » - Very much, most in the whole course. (see later comment)» 21. Comments on the exam (difficult? in line with the course? etc)- studying quite a lot for the exam (more than normal) and still found it very difficult. multiple choice were a bit abstract and painful but I really hate multiple choice in general. I didn"t really have time to write the 3 responses, was a bit too much for 4 hours. making handwritten slides are really hard for a hand-written test environment better to just say you can use figures and bullet points or something. I liked having "real" life questions in the exam, seems valuable to be able to know how to apply your knowledge in "real" cases. »- Quite in line with the course, » - It was ok, but a lot of text and hard to know how to distribute the time.» - it was okej, it did go through the cours material » - Silly to use the example exam.» - Question A was extremely time consuming. I had to spend 150 min on that question and didn"t even have time to finish it. I only had 15 minutes left each for question B and C. Perhaps he should have one question less. I don"t understand why Magnus has multiple choice questions and why he grades the way he does. A pre-test of the questionnare would show how difficult it is to interpret the different options and how subjective some of them are. Some were also poorly formulated. The greatest problem is that you may know a lot about a subject, but if you don"t know a single obscure fact, it counts as though you didn"t know anything about it. For instance, if you know 75% of all there is to know about surveys, but you"ve missed a single, obscure fact about surveys or if one of the options is ambiguous, then you"ll receive 0 points on that question, which basically counts as though you know nothing about surveys. If you know 75% about all subjects in the course, there"s a chance you"ll still receive 0 points on the multiple choice questions. Basically it"s all or nothing, which isn"t good. Instead, he could have just a list of true/false statements and award a point per correct answer and deduct a point per incorrect answer. No solution is perfect, but that"s one suggestion. Lastly, I think he should lower the thresholds on the course. It"s a difficult course, but he makes it more difficult by requiring at least 50 % to pass and 65 % for a 4. At least he could lower the required score on the exam.» - Too massive question A, "be more specific"» - difficult, a little bit too much as usuall» - Difficult, but it was okay» - Difficult, but in line with the course. Maybe Magnus could prepare us for structuring the qualitative questions. Time is of the essence and I did not really feel I could perform to the level I have studied.» - Extremely similar to previous exams we got hold of. 2/3 questions were almost identical. Multiple choice was extremely hard though. I don"t like the approach that you can have 3 out of 4 prompts right on the multiple choice - but still get 0p. That"s not testing knowledge in the proper way, IMO.» - Difficult, I dont know if I understood i correct, t depents on what my result is but overall i think it was ok. Too little time!!!!! stress to make it through... » - Ok» - In line with the course. A bit difficult to know what you want in terms of focus areas. The scope is wide. But I guess that a part of the course.» - I think it is to comprehensive. Would like to have more questions on the litterature as a "dugga" and extend project 3 to check the learnings on research design. I feel that 4 hours is not enough to enable to think things through enought to really just wright the most important things on each question. I am normally very fast.» - The wording was a little strange in the multiple choice section - Otherwise was very relevant» - Dont ask to produce slides next time, otherwise good, maybe to twisted muliple choise questions» - In line with the course. » - Ilikethefact that it was very practical. The course material and lectures felt more directed to academics. Multiple choice question should be combined with a small line for motivations of why the statement is true or not. It is too big risk for misunderstandings otherwise.» - I personally found it pretty difficult because it leaves so many possibilities. it is hard to argue for your choices in slides, and 25 points was perhaps too much for 1 question, but the format was well thought up to test our skills and learnings and not just what we can repeat from the book.» - Difficult» - I think the course is very theoretical/academic while the exam is very practically oriented (as in high level of non-academic realism). This is a miss match. I think if the course/lecturing would have been practically oriented in the same way, presenting more cases and application of theory and less pure academic theory/PHD-preparing, I think the exam would have been proper. However, as it is now, there is very low construct validity on the exam as it does not check our theoretical academic knowledge about research methodologies and designs, but rather practical applicability of different design. So, you should either make the exam more academic or, preferably, make the course/lectures more practically oriented as in real non-academic work life, and at the same time more interesting. Again: I can guarantee you that now one chose the MEI programme to become PHDs but rather to become Management consultants etc. Conclusion: as I said, now the exam didn"t really mirror the course content, you will probably get a lot of bias in the results whether we"ve leaned the course material or not. The design of the exam instead checked other parameters (of course also them highly relevant for a MEI student but again, not reflecting the core course contents).» - Not so difficult. A good exam. Much better than previous years. The multiple chose Questions was difficult» - Difficult» - Very difficult. Fussy questions» - difficult i al senses and time demanding. i think themultiple choice questions shold be switched to short questions instead. I belive that would represent the students" knowledge.» - quite difficult. multiple choice were hard and not what i expected, didnt feel like real multiple choice questions.» - I found it quite difficult bet then I have to admit that I have not studied as much as I usually do either.» - In line with course» - In line with the course but a bit to broad, should have been more focused» - Good exam overall. The multiple choice formulations could have been clearer. » - difficult with the first part, with alternatives. Though to remember exactly whats what when many alternatives are similar. Suppose it"s useful to really determine who knows what.» - Any true/false multiple choice questions MUST be UNAMBIGUOUS!» - The exam was quite difficult. I believe it was in line with the course but that the three essay questions were so open ended increased the difficulty level a lot.» - I don"t like when one question is as big as 25 p. Try to divide them up a bit more, having for example more 10p questions. » - i"ve been taking the course on distance so i have no opinions.» - content ok, was a bit surprised/shocked about having to a) make a slide show on paper and b) write an email and count words. i get that it"s a way to make us think outside the box and deal with unexpected things but it does not resemble reality in the slightest, where there would be technical aids!» - Framing of questions may be changed. Eg email and slide makes it unessecary hard.» - I think that the exam tested the right things. It"s basically about making a framework that you are comfortable with using, then you can apply it to any situation that you face. A bit like consultancy work ,)» - fair exam!» - questionnaire was hard, not really think think the questionnare was quite narrow » - To some extent i think it was unnecessary. (se later comment)» 22. How was the "study environment" of the course, in terms of student interaction, teacher interaction, etc?- great - best course in MEI program so far in that sense. only negative is the classroom itself was pretty awful. too big and no electric plugs. »- Good as always with Holmen, great teacher especially outside the lectures with his interest in helping out» - It was good.» - No opinion» - Good. Magnus shouldn"t be impatient with students who ask questions, just because he"s got the same question a lot of times. It"s not the same student asking the same question again and again. If there are a lot of questions regarding a subject, perhaps that subject needs to be clarified.» - no problem» - Good from Magnus, poor from Lisa.» - Good.» - Very good interaction with other students and there was chanses to discuss aspect with both magnus and Lisa so it was good» - Ok» - No comments» - Not much inter-group interaction. Lecturer was accommodating to our queries.» - Good» - Mor interaction and reflection would be nice to add. Maybe dividing the class in 2-4 groups and having them attend sessions where content is discussed with supervisors. » - Very good. I studied a lot with other student and Magnus felt engaged in our learning» - Great! I love that you walk around campus talking to the students!» - good» - Good» - Good» - good Holmen was very helpful» - it was ok» - I think that part worked really well.» - Good» - Student interaction could have been increased during the lectures» - OK.» - Overall good.» - 3» - Very good» - Pretty much the same as all the courses, not any better nor any worse» - Ok.» - i"ve been taking the course on distance so i have no opinions.» - typical MEI program. » - Great! Always helpful teachers/supervisors. Gött snack!» - ok» - good!» - could be done more interactive.» 23. How was the administration of the course?- great»- Good» - It was well done.» - okej no problems» - No opinion» - no problem, but slides earlier would have been nice» - Had no contact» - ...» - Good. Except for specified time-slots for feedback.» - Ok not good nor bad...» - Ok» - Good. Nothing to say.» - Very helpful - Especially Sara for sending us all the Portal documents» - Ok» - Good» - No problems. » - Good usage of the course portal at least. » - good availability of material on course site and clear syllabus. Never any problems with times and halls. Very good administration» - Good!» - Good!» - good» - Good» - Okey» - ok» - good» - Fine I guess, did not encounter any problems.» - Good with lots of information on course portal!» - Good» - Good.» - 2» - Very good» - Everything worked fine I believe» - Good.» - i"ve been taking the course on distance so i have no opinions.» - ok» - Kind of good I reckon,the only thing would be a bit more consistency with naming the slides or sending out e-mails when you changed the schedule or whatnot. We students prefer e-mails and mr. Managing Development PRojects (Jan) managed that art in excellence.» - Good» - also ok» - Good in terms of sullabus, but the information were not always put on the study portal which I think it has to be (schedule changes). Then we did not get the point from the project work before the exam which is not good so that you can plan you studying for the exam.» Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.75 Other comments24. Additional comments or suggestions- none»- N/A» - No.» - Cmon Magnus, teaching is fun!» - Master thesis examples were very interesting and felt relevant, it would have been interesting to hear more about their research design and methods» - 12» - Cheers mate! have a good summer Magnus and what ever else have you! TEK190-18» - TEK190-11 give that exam a 5!» - Would be good to have feedback on project 2» - Overall, I believe it is a very interesting and good course. Also, a very important course in terms of thesis and very applicable in my future work life. Now I know how to approach problem better.» - I would change the exam to a Dugga and put more focus on project three. I would also suggest that the design on project three could be decided by the students and not given by the task. I think that it is first when you do the entire process that you see the link between (learning from thesis)» - Great course to prepare the master thesis with, a bit to much projects..» - TEK190-19» - Revise the lecture slides. They often unclear and it feels like the structure could be improved too. I didn"t perceive the course as useful for anything else than academics until the end. Maybe emphasis its usability earlier/more?» - This could be two courses, I would perhaps want to focus on the most useful methods and cut out bibliometrics for instance. Maybe try to integrate the methods into courses in the bachelor of (I).» - I can guess the general opinion of the course maybe not is the best one. Mostly due to the subjects" over academic/PHD-preparing nature. However, as I realised when studying old exams pre to our exam: it really need not to be that academic and it has even potential to be really fun! If you re-organise the course to be more of a management-course it would be awesome! Like a "consulting research strategy" so that the course and lecturing mirrors the exam! Conclusion: You have potential to do a really interesting course if you just re-work the approach to research to be more practically oriented as in non-academic life! (We are really close to working life now so that is both what we need and what we want! *hint) , ) Thanks Magnus for the time at the MEI-programme!! And I wish you an awesome summer! PS. My brain really has a blackout now after today"s exam, it is hardly working anymore (, P). so I"m sorry if the answers in my evaluation are a mess. I hope you get the point of my comments despite this.» - my personal course code TEK 190 - 20 The Snake is the shit» - The real life approach of making us hand-in powerpoints and the feedback after presentations are really good!» - As a student, I would have benefited from a "dugga" on the B&B book, say maybe in week 5, before project 3. The question is how to do this without raising the workload. Exam needs to be made smaller with that approach I guess.» - How will you know who fild out the evaluation? Here is my exam code: TEK190-41» - It would have been good for us distant student to also have a supervisor to e-mail questions to. It was not clear what we were supposed to do in the projects just by reading the PMs. » - it"s a lot of material in the course. almost felt like there is enough for two but more detailed courses. perhaps worth a thought to scratch the project management course in the very first quarter and replace with intro RDM. then have advanced RDM in spring. something like that» - There were many differences in the level of work between different methods.... some were more intuitive than others. What about making the reading for the lectures a bit less per lecture? it is a lot to read and it is a very interesting subject but the actual amount of pages to read scares off people. I think that it would have been interesting to have more cases, like exam related in order to get the mind set set. The most difficult thing for me was the various validation / reliability definitions and to keep track of how they were applicable - maybe some more training on that! Thanks for everything! Great course! One of the best, I understand why we don"t have it earlier :) » - more clear slides and not so many thank for the course i have learnt a lot!» - I think you should scrap the exam, perhaps choose a "dugga" week 5 or 3 so that you know the concepts then make project 3 more extent since it is there you practice method skills that is useful for the master thesis. » Thank you for your time.Regards,Magnus Holmén Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.68 * obligatoriska frågor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
75%