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.

Tissue engineering 1, KPO065, sp3 2013

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2013-03-18 - 2013-04-14
Antal svar: 10
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 34%
Kontaktperson: Inga-Lena Hagelin»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Bioteknik 300 hp

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.

9 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»1 11%
Around 20 hours/week»0 0%
Around 25 hours/week»4 44%
Around 30 hours/week»3 33%
At least 35 hours/week»1 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

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

9 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»2 22%
100%»7 77%

Genomsnitt: 4.77

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?

9 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»2 22%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»4 44%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»3 33%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

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.

8 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»6 75%
No, the goals are set too high»2 25%

Genomsnitt: 2.25

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

8 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»4 50%
Yes, definitely»4 50%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

Teaching and course administration

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

9 svarande

Small extent»1 11%
Some extent»3 33%
Large extent»3 33%
Great extent»2 22%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

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

9 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»4 44%
Large extent»3 33%
Great extent»2 22%

Genomsnitt: 2.77

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

9 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»3 33%
Rather well»4 44%
Very well»2 22%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

Study climate

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

9 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»3 33%
Rather good»1 11%
Very good»3 33%
I did not seek help»2 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

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

9 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»1 11%
Rather well»3 33%
Very well»5 55%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

11. How was the course workload?

9 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»2 22%
High»3 33%
Too high»4 44%

Genomsnitt: 4.22

12. How was the total workload this study period?

9 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»1 11%
High»4 44%
Too high»4 44%

Genomsnitt: 4.33

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

9 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»2 22%
Adequate»3 33%
Good»2 22%
Excellent»2 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.44 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- working in teams»
- The project work»
- The clinical aspects of the projects including presentation of them should be preserved as they were very useful for our projects and the project plan. »

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The slides from the lectures are almost incomprehensible and not useful for studying. At the beginning of the project it was not so clear what we had to do, what was the purpose and the way to proceed. Maybe the presentation of the project could be clearer in the pratical aspects.»
- - I think the project need to be worth some more credits. We spent a much larger part of the work, working with the project compared to the time spend on studying to the exam. The credits doesn"t represent our work in a good way no. - The site visit should be moved to the beginning of the course in stead of int the end when our workload is much heavier. - In general I think information about the course was not presented clearly. For instance, we still (after the exam) don"t know how the grades are calculated: we know that the project is worth 25% and the exam 75% but not if you need to pass both parts. Neither do we know if we get point on the project or a grade etc.. - It was also huge differences in the information given by the project supervisors: some said the labs should start already in TE1 while other said that no laborative work should be done during TE1. - There was also different information given but the supervisors about the project report and the presentation: what should be included, how to write it, etc. If we would have been given more directives about the presentations and the report it would have help much. One example is the report: we got a document on what suggested headlines but not stated how to write for instance if the experimental part should be described as a flowing text or in bullet list (different supervisors gave different answers to this question and Paul didn"t answer our emails). - Comments mentioned above are just examples of organization problems about the course. I think you need to go through it and make it more structured. - Over all I think the things brought up during the lectures in many cases are things that at least the ones studying biotechnology have know for a long time. I was really disappointed about that. I thought that the course should be more detailed than courses that we took in our first years but instead less details were brought up here compared to courses we have taken before mainly regarding cell signaling, differentiation, biomaterials,wound healing. The only new things for us were the lectures given by Mats Brittberg and the ones about bioreactors and scaffold production. That was a huge disappointment for me how have looked forward to this course during the whole year. »
- Peter Carlssons lectures are very detailed and it"s hard to see why that is relevant or the course. Also, the cellular fate presentations feels a little bit like waste of time because you"d rather be working on the project report instead»
- The lectures should not be to detailed or specific, for example some things that Peter Carlsson talked about were too specific. Also, Paul Gatenholm should start responding to emails. »

16. Additional comments

- A lot of things are based on, or only directed to, the students taking both courses. Understandable but a little weird for us only taking the first. Also, the project information was not the same for the two groups consisting of only TE1 students, which lead to big differences in how the project turned out (for example we spent countless hours on a cost evaluation that wasn"t necessary for us)»
- Some lectures were very detailed for example Peter Carlssons lectures, and it was very hard to know which parts of the lectures were actually relevant for us. Also, the cellular process presentation felt unnecessary and time-consuming as other parts such as lab work was also done parallel to this. Another thing that I want to bring up is the fact that Paul Gatenholm did not respond to any emails which is not okey. »
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.44

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.44
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.61

Kursutvärderingssystem från