|
|
| 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.
Ethics and Intellectual PropertyStatus: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2008-03-13 - 2008-03-28 Antal svar: 15 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 32% Kontaktperson: Anneli Hildenborg» Klass: Övriga
Part I: General Questions1. What is your overall impression of the course? Please motivate your answer!- Bra kurs, bra att diskutera sådana här frågor eftersom de kan komma att bli väldigt viktigt för våra framtida val inom det här yrket och det är bra att ha fått en första kontakt med ämnet i sig (patent etc.) och veta något om vem man kan vända inom Chalmers med sådana här frågor.»- Important, relevant to phd students.» - Made me think. I"m new to ethics and the course was good in the sense of making me think on these questions. » - Very good end generally needed.» - Some great lectures and couple of bizarre hand ins. However, overall a good course.» - Good. Like the topic and the teachers seems professional and to know what they talk about.» - Good. on a scale 1-5: 4 It really made me start thinking. Very engaged and competent lecturers. Structure, goal etc of course not that clear Could have 3 more "separated" parts of the course. Now everything "floated" together.» - An interesting course, giving new ideas about my work and its implications. Good lecturesr and interesting assignments. Good with interaction between students an lecturers.» - Overall good. This because of good lectureres, interesting topics that brought up questions regarding my own situation as a phd-student.» - Interesting discussions and presentations around the problem if IP.» - Interesting lectures as all lecturers have profound knowledge in the subject. » - Contentwise I learned a lot about an area I was not previously very knowledgeable in, and I think I will benefit a lot from this knowledge. However, I felt that the course was a bit unorganized, and I went away from several lectures not really knowing what I had learnt.» - The subject is very intresting and I think it is important for PhD students to reflect over this things. A good idea needs to be protected and you as a researcher should know how to protect it. I think this course gives you a very good introduction to the area.» - Interesting, much more interesting than I was expecting before course start. Personally, the result is a more open mind for these questions and concerns and a continuous awareness in the future. The course also highlights what to think about and how to find information regarding patenting otherwise unknown if the situation comes up. » - fair, too much repetition on classes and I really didnt like some of the guest speakers» 2. What would you recommend us to do differently next year, do you have suggestions for improvements?- Tydligare instruktioner om vad som kan läsas inför vad... alltså att om en föreläsning om blabla så kan det vara lämpligt att läsa just det här... tydlighet alltså. Annars kan det ju vara trevligt om ni föreslog några av de utmärkta föreläsningarna som finns inom ämnet på nätet... själv så jag nyligen Lessings "last lecture on free culture", den hade ni exempelvis kunnat rekommendera som lite extra material så vi som studenter hade varit lite bättre förberedda på att diskutera de frågor som kunnat uppkomma under de riktiga föreläsningarna.»- I did not understand what was the main topics of some lectures, the discussions were from time to time a bit unfocused (very interesting, though). To improve this, I think the lecturer should bring up a few key points in the beginning of each lecture, and limit the discussion to those points. In the end, a short summary of the discussion could be made. » - Since many of the participants are distant I suggest full-day schedules. I travel 1.5 hour each direction so 1.5x2x7=21 hour (almost three workdays) plus the environmental aspects on wasting 200 liter organic fuel.» - For the number of credit(?) points given for the course, it could surely be expanded. If there would be more material that should be discussed. On the other hand, it also good here not to try to too much force some view on people, but rather let people (us) think ourselves about our situation, and as needed deal with it. In that sense I think the course fulfills it"s intentions: not being just a course to tell something, but a course in many cases implying some action to be taken.» - Change the hand ins, give more time for hand ins » - Be in time to class. It is very unpolite to valid your own time higher then others. Remove the number-of-sides demand on the case study» - More clear course goals or learning outcomes. Hand-out of cases more in advance. Now there were 4 working days before hand-in. Too little if you have other engagements. Feed-back on hand-ins- have missed that or have not got any.» - -The first case assignment was a bit vague, it was not easy no know what to do. Parhaps try to tie it to some litterature a bit closer? - The lectureres should be in time for the lectures.» - Please give 2 lectures on one day. It is very time-consuming for some of us to go to gothenburg for 2,5h of lectures only. Simply: make things easier for us.» - More interaction whit the students, perhaps more group discussions and small assigments during class.» - Maybe it would be possible to work out assignments that are not that specific to biotechnology/gene patents as this is a very specific problem and does not necessarily apply for other research areas.» - Be clear about what is to be discussed in lectures, what literature is connected with the lecture, and when lectures actually start. While I like the discussion set up of the course, I found that there was a bit too much of what seemed unstructured. More small group discussions would be good.» - Skip the second hand-in.» - More examples from outside the biotechnology area. Maybe the hand-ins should be more focused on your own research area and less on biotech. E.g. pros and cons with patents in your own area and not regarding genes. » - Tell Bo Edgars sidekick to stay away from the class he didnt add any value, he talked for over 50% of the time though, always adding irrelevant information mixed up with corporate sales bullshit. He started to round off the class 7 min before it was supposed to end, he talked for 30 min. » 3. What was your general impression of the administration of the course?- Bra, trevligt att få den mesta informationen på mail.»- Good, no problems.» - Good. It would be beneficial to have a bit more time to the written assignments though, in order to be able to capture the lecture contents in the answers.» - Simply working!» - ok» - ok» - Good and promt answers from Anneli as well as Carolina P. Slides from all lectures could have been handed out/emailed.» - All worked fine. » - Handouts/assignments/instructions provided in a good way. However, some more time could have been provided for each assignment. One week only was a bit narrow.» - very good» - OK» - Generally good, very friendly. » - It worked as it should» - Good, even though I work outside Chalmers, I got the information I needed to participate in the course.» - good, nothing to add» 4. Course literature- Lite bättre tydlighet på det här vore trevligt... alltså att man kanske kunde få det mesta materialet samlat på ett ställe (en fil alltså) istället för spritt som det var och lite tydligare läsinstruktioner.»- Good. I read parts of Ulf"s book.» - A bit cumbersome to read, but interesting.» - Good» - Literature? was there any?» - -» - I have not read that much of it. Too much and not that well structured.» - Served its purpose» - Some of the articles were interesting, some were not. I guess this depends on interest for different topics in the course. Ulf Petrusons book presented many interesting conclusions, but a brief guide to the most important parts to learn in this book should perhaps have been handed out at the start of the course.» - good» - interesting with up-to-date articles on the subject» - Interesting, though I had trouble with some of the law jargon.» - Good» - Did read it, needed some additional info for the assignments though» 5. Miscellaneous comments- I appreciate the possibility to hear about ethics and IP from a lawyer’,s point of view.»- Very good to have it over a long period, such that one have the time to think over things inbetween the lectures. Compressing it would be very harmful.» - -» - I got the impression that the course was intended mainly for medical/biotech/biochem faculty and not a technical university.» - It is hard to say what I actually have learned during this course. Maybe the course objectives were not defined clear enough. If it was to give the students a general idea about the patent problematic in science the course goal was reached. But if students now are supposed to have some specific knowledge in the area....I cannot say to have this. It was little unclear what students were supposed to know after this course.» Part II: Lectures, Exercises and Assignments6. Ulf Petrusson’,s lectures- Mycket bra, trevlig och fyndig retorik särskilt, kunde lika gärna hålla alla föreläsningarna tycker jag.»- Very entusiastic and competent. However, as I point out above, sometimes it was not clear where he was going with his discussions.» - Good lectures. Written assignment 1 was good but number 2 felt to much gene - reserach.» - Great!» - Good» - Very good lecturer. Competent. Somewhat unstructured. Could have more ppt-slides. » - Interesting lectures, good speaker.» - Very good lecturer, captures your interest and relates common problems to good examples. A few more powerpoint slides shown during the lectures would have been beneficial for structural reasons.» - Ulfs lectures where generally very good and he had many different perspectives on the subjects that we could reflect on.» - Very interesting and diverse lectures even though some structure in the lecture was missing The powerpoint slides though were completely useless as he skipped through them quite rapidly and oten did not even talk about the content. Would be good to get them as pdf before the lecture.» - Gave a lot of though, but a bit unstructured. Ulf often asked questions about whether we followed, where at least I didn"t. I guess I should have spoken up about this, but it didn"t seem to be expected. I spoke with other students about this, and they had the same feeling. On the other hand, I always did come away from the lectures rather inspired.» - I personally think it is difficult to be alert for 3h when the lecturer only talks. Ulf has a very good knowledge in this area and I think he would reach out even more if he structured the lectures better.» - Interesting and thought-provoking. Good examples. A very good lecturer. » - Good, a tendecy to repeat what was said at the last class and the class before» 7. The lecture by Boo Edgar and Mats Lundqvist- Kändes lite ur fas, blev lite upprepande av det som föreläsningen innan hade tagit upp, även om det kan vara intressant med andra perspektiv så kändes det som ett visst överlapp.»- Good» - Both good. » - Good!» - To much of a sales talk» - Good. Also interesting to hear more about CSE. But had little too high expectations on us being involved in the lecture. Too many questions. » - A good complement to the other lectures.» - Did not attend this lecture for travelling reasons.» - I thought that much of the context Boo discussed had already been handled by Ulf, but repetition is the conerstone of education.» - Quite interesting as well but hard to say what one effectively has learned after this lecture.» - Good.» - Very intresting with their examples.» - Tell Bo Edgars sidekick to stay away from the class he didnt add any value, he talked for over 50% of the time though, always adding irrelevant information mixed up with corporate sales bullshit. He started to round off the class 7 min before it was supposed to end, he talked for 30 min. » 8. The case- Tydligare infromation om det hela hade varit trevligt.»- Good» - Interesting» - Unrelated, bizarre, should be changed!» - Good. But the number-of-sides demand which is totally useless. If there should be a minimum numbers of sides it must be lower. Now, the pages are only fild with nothing.» - Good but from "wrong" area. Some of the questions required quite specific knowledge to give a really intelligent answer. Now there was a little of a guessing game or requied quite extensive search for information.» - Interesting choise of case. As said above, the first case could be made a bit more clear, perhaps more connected to some litterature. » - 1st case very good. 2nd case could have been related more to my own situation. Too much genetics > so it was a bit of a struggle to come up with something good in this one.» - Quite hard too gain an holistic view of the problem, but after the presentation of the case you gain a better understanding!» - Hard to get into the biotechnology problematic if one is not involved into this through one"s own research.» - Intersting, but a bit too much biotechnology focus perhaps.» - You should get the case earlier and maybe some introduction into what is expected from such a thing. I don"t think that many of the students have ever written a case before.» - Even though biotech is out of my area, it was interesting. I am not used to work with cases and I am positively surprised over the outcome of doing that. » - The case gives edge to the course, forces you to think about the issues. Good» 9. The hand-ins- Kändes som främmande från det jag håller på med men jag förstår att det kanske är ett ämne inom vilket man kan komma fram till många dilemman och därmed blir intressant att diskutera, men som sagt så tyckte jag att det låg lite långt från mitt..»- Good, valuable for the learning process.» - Uh-oh? :-) Fine!» - Unrelated, bizarre, should be changed!» - -» - Assume you mean hand-in of case: Too many pages to write. Better to write more condensed. Maybe have a third part if too little work.» - good.» - These were more of "find out and think about it" questions. I really like this because it opened up possibilities to investigate my own situation as a phd.» - quite hard, and maybe the cases shouldent be assigned by a minimum of pages!» - Quite useless as no feedback at all» - Interesting. The five page thing was a bit odd though, depends so much on other factors in the text. Also, getting the assignment one week before deadline was too little when you had teaching and deadlines during that week.» - I could not see the point with the second hand-in. I didn"t learn anything from it and it only took up alot of time to write it. A follow up of the case might be a better idea, or a second case.» - Time-consuming but relevant. Working with the hand-ins result in thinking and discussions about the topic. » - Sucked, no connection to classes and didnt add any value.»
|
|