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.

Creative IP, CIP061

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2008-03-06 - 2008-03-20
Antal svar: 9
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 39%
Kontaktperson: Anneli Hildenborg»
Klass: Övriga

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.

1. How understandable and reasonable are the course goals?

9 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»5 55%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»1 11%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»3 33%

Genomsnitt: 2.22

- It was unclear what the expectations from different the partners was. It would had been useful to know what kind of info they had got and what they expect from us in a more clearer way than was outspoken.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- Since Jens explainded the goals at the begining of the course clearly it was easy to grasp the importance of our actions and the impact in the knowlege process.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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

9 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»1 11%
Yes, definitely»2 22%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»6 66%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

- I haven"t hear anything about the publication of the grades. I think this should also be informed at the begining of the course» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)

Study climate

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

9 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»2 22%
Very good»7 77%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.77

- Good with feedback session during the work.» (Very good)
- During the feedback we had the opportunity to express our lack of understanding and so forth. I like the way the questions and feedback sessions were carried on. » (Very good)
- The feedback sessions with Jens were really great.» (Very good)

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

9 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»3 33%
Very well»6 66%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- Sometimes it was to much with 7 persons in a group due to division of workloads. » (Rather well)
- I was good but sometimes my fellows spoke in Swedish making me feel segregated of the group and unproductive. I think this was the result of the tension of having seven people in the group.» (Rather well)

5. How was the course workload?

9 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»3 33%
High»6 66%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- Intense but rewarding. I kept me working some extra time. However it was funny because I learned from a different field.» (High)

Summarizing questions

6. What is your general impression of the course?

9 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»0 0%
Good»7 77%
Excellent»2 22%

Genomsnitt: 4.22

- Although it was once again an early stage research it was interesting since it was a real setting.» (Good)
- I liked though it was very fast. I would like to have one week more to be able to hand in better and more helful recommendations to the researcher we worked with.» (Good)
- It was very interesting to come closer to the cutting edge researcher in the field but the framework were really fuzzy. But I think I learned quite much about the difficulties of approaching such open-ended task and communicate with outside actors.» (Good)
- It was a lot of fun to have the opportunity to work with external people and apply our "tools"» (Excellent)

General Questions

Please help us improve the Creative IP lab by giving us some feedback and tell us what you thought about the following. We appreciate all comments, positive as well as negative!

7. The task

- The task definition coud be improved. It was hard to define the limits of the scope. We desviate our attention to much into the degunkification becasue it was the biggest problem for the research team. However the main scope of the taks was evaluate the technology. In order to avoid this in the future the research teams can be better informed of the outcome of our collaboration. »
- very interesting to apply the knowledge gained in the fall on a real project»
- The task was good as the instructions were quite open for interpretation. I liked how the task depended on how the innovation project differed among the groups.»
- Could had been more effort communicating it clearer and in more depth. From the beginning, it was very unclear where we could had added value (or at least in which kind of areas) for the researcher team. That could had facilitated the work a lot I think. »
- Quite hard to know what to do in the beginning but i guess that is how it is»
- Good»
- Hard but good. It was good to try on a live case even though there was much frusttration on how to get about the tast.»

8. The group (the group you were working in)

- Smaller groups would have been better. »
- It was a good group however it was hard to speak out my opinions sometimes. Sometimes it seemed like if some small clusters of persons were formed to confront other`s opinions. I think the solution for this problem would be working within 3 or 4 people groups (is possible that two or three groups work in the same project instead of having large groups with problems of agree upon the work, in my personal opinion) »
- Goo but too big... 7 persons were too much»
- Too big, although we had a lot of fun. It was hard to coordinate so that everyone had a task at all times.»
- It was too large but I did understood that it was some projects missing. I would had preferred groups of 3 persons. (I understand the administrative complications...)»
- Too large. 5 in each groups are max»
- fantastic, but 7 is too many people»
- Good but large. Good to try to work seven persons in a group and see how it could be managed.»

9. The research project

- They were friendly and open all the time.Something I would like to know was the end and the effect of our recommendations in their activities.»
- Interesting, but the researchers did not know our role, what we were supposed to do.»
- Very fuzzy, but great learning experience. I wouldn"t have liked it more if it was easier to define so I think that it was perfect.»
- Exiting yet quite complicated to understand the technology»
- our biotech project was a little too hard, since there were no assets to commercialize»
- Ok.»

10. The final presentations

- I would have liked the possibility to hand in the report one fay after the presentation to take the comments on the presentation in to account.»
- I would like to have a better defined audience and they to be more proactive during the presentation because even though this was a role play simmulation, sometimes is good to have a professor student relation. »
- ok»
- Great way of examining a course.»
- Nice»
- Received good comments.»

11. Alignment with the rest of the ICM education

- Good alignment and good to be able to apply the tools. Although it sometimes was more about understanding the technology then the ip.»
- Good. I think it is quite aligned because we had to apply previous knowledge as degunkification, IAA and TIM. Somehting I think can be improved is including other building blocks as trademars or copyrights within the scope of the project. Only patents were included.»
- fully alighed»
- Perfect.»
- Good to use the knowledge outside the education walls. »
- Good to get a hunch of how it might be to work as a consultant (for CIP-PS)»
- good wrap-up of all knowledge we"ve gained so far»
- ok. It was hard to see that we generated any value for the project.»

12. Teaching and feedback

- Could have some more lecture about how the work actually is organized in for instance cip-ps or at an external consultancy firm. More project organization theory or practical tools.»
- Probably if the professor would know more about the technology the feedback would be more sharp. However since this is complicated I think it was very good and helpful for the task»
- very good»
- The feedback talks with Jens were really good. It was very interesting to be working with Jens and to get a feel for how he would coordinate what needed to be done.»
- Good support from feed back sessions»
- only questions, but no feedback.»
- Very good opportunities for feedback. However after the feedback sessions we asked ourselves sometimes what we actually got out from the meeting. Sometimes it was hard to get clear answers how to go about a task.»

13. What was best, what was worst?

- The group was the worst because as I mentioned before, having large groups complicate the dynamic and creates internal conflicts. The best was the contact with the research team. For me it was a great approach of a real consultancy job giving personally a good insight of the activities I can perform after the education. »
- The best was the hands-on experience. The worst was that we were 7 people rather than 3-5.»
- Worst: I did not learn "anything" new in the sence of hard knowledge. I would had appreciated more lecture which had gave us a better foundation to go more into depth, e.g. some more into depth of a present or new model in parts of the "TIM/IAA" assessment, just to feel the improvements of the already known knowledge. »
- Best: Effort by teachers to try to arrange real life projects and integrate them into our education.»
- our group, lotta fun»
- Best was to try to work in a big team and try to have good "time-management". Good was also the frustration and to see that it was really hard to actually get something tangible out of the project and to be able to give the project any benefit from our investigations. Worst was also the fluffyness and the insecurity of what we really should help the project with.»

14. Other

Kursutvärderingssystem från