Visa resultat

Idea evaluation 2013 Chalmers, TEK216

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

28 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		2		7%
Around 20 hours/week»		7		25%
Around 25 hours/week»		13		46%
Around 30 hours/week»		5		17%
At least 35 hours/week»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.85

- It was quite work intense in the end of the course due to the fact that we could not get in contact with our idea providers initially and needed to wait for 2 weeks. Therefore we needed to rearrange a bit in our work in a late stage. » (At least 35 hours/week)

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

28 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		8		28%
75%»		13		46%
100%»		7		25%

Genomsnitt: 3.96

- Maybe more » (50%)
- often not so effective lectures unfortunately and it was disappointing to sit ! » (50%)
- Since the lectures were very unstructured with no clear connecting to the assignments alot of the time spent at lectures was time wasted. This especially concerns Boo Edgar an Mats Lundqvist.» (50%)
- The reason why I didn"t attend 100 % of the teaching was that I felt that the lectures were inefficient use of my time. » (75%)
- I missed 1 or 2 lectures» (100%)
- 90 %» (100%)
- Some of the lectures were slightly fuzzy. One issue I had was that the workshops were either very short, or hours long - I believe that more reflection and engagement is needed to be put into the students workflow.» (100%)
- I missed a few lectures when I was sick» (100%)
- sometimes I left them early, because the lectures were bad... reflections below i guess..» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		1		3%
The goals are difficult to understand»		3		10%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		15		53%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		9		32%

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- Väldigt rörig struktur över ramverken och vad man verkligen skulle lära sig av kursen! Det enda vettiga var projekten! Föreläsningarna och målbilden av kursen måste förbättras!! » (The goals are difficult to understand)

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

27 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		2		7%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		25		92%
No, the goals are set too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.92

- Alldeles för lågt satt mål! Denna kursen är ändå master nivå! Det förväntas mer och på bra mycket högre nivå!! » (No, the goals are set too low)
- But I thought that it was gonna be more in-depth than it was» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- As said bafore, the goals could have been more clear though..» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

No, not at all»		6		22%
To some extent»		17		62%
Yes, definitely»		3		11%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 1.96

- very very disappointed with questions, specially if the question is about a case presented in book rather than evaluating what students have learned,there should be some guidelines on the case so we don"t need to memorize unnecessary information in order to show what we can when it comes to IDEA EVALUATION! » (No, not at all)
- Tentan var under all kritik. Jag har pratat runt i klassen och vi är många som är upprörda över dess utformning. Poängen var kasst distribuerade i förhållande till kursens innehåll. Tycker herr examinator annorlunda har han varit kass i att förmedla vad som är viktigt i kursen.» (No, not at all)
- Tentan var jättespretig!! För mig som läser mastern mai, så var vissa frågor svåra att svara på! Då vissa frågor inte ens rörde denna kursen! T.ex sista fråga, svara med IP perspektiv! » (No, not at all)
- Question 4 on the exam was a disgrace to Chalmers as a university with high ambitions. To ask detailed questions about one of the associated professors own personal projects is not in anyway supporting my learning process or testing my ability meet course goals.» (To some extent)
- Since the theory presented in this course is extremely thin, I feel that it would suit the course better to base the evaluation only on performance in the idea evaluation cases.» (To some extent)
- Specific questions about a specific case presented in the course literature should be banished! I do not see the point in remembering the exact customer utilities of EcoEra"s platform... is that relevant to understand how good a student is at idea evaluation? Probably not...» (To some extent)
- Some exam questions was difficult to understand. Personally I think it is really important to wright the questions in a way so they are clear and consistent. » (To some extent)
- The actual idea evaluation did but the exam was just 4 hours of writing without a real goal or structure» (To some extent)
- I personally believe that it is a bit strange that the exam has 60% of the grading - when basically all work has been put into the different projects! » (To some extent)
- It would had been enough with only projects and maybe a personal reflection in the end of the course instead of exam. The exam did not add much knowledge and I think it was difficult to express how much you had learned during the projects.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		14		50%
Some extent»		11		39%
Large extent»		2		7%
Great extent»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 1.64

- Lectures (and the course itself) were generally way too fluffy and focused on strange issues and topics that were often hard to find relevant. Lecturers were many and of very varied quality, I stopped showing up for lectures under the end as I felt it was a complete waste of time. Further, the way the lectures are structured as "workshops" was not quite thought through I feel. The assignments given were often perceived as irrelevant by the students and therefore participation was little.» (Small extent)
- Föreläsningarna kändes oförberedda och klumpiga. Slidesen var ologiska och svåra att följa, överlag fick man inget grepp om vad vi skulle lära oss i kursen. Istället för att lära sig ett teoretiskt ramverk så kunde det tex stå "and then you do it" som förlaring till hur man skulle gå tillbäga. Under all kritik!» (Small extent)
- Mycket dåligt strukturerad kurs!! Lärde mig ingenting från föreläsningarna, då ramverken (de få som var) var väldigt ostrukturerade. Det hade varit mycket bättre om en person ansvarade för föreläsningsmaterialet för att få en bättre och mer tydlig struktur. » (Small extent)
- Some of the lectures felt a bit unclear and confusing» (Some extent)
- It is up and down - Some of it has been very valuable, but other has just been bypassed. Although, the fist "fish-case" was very good for getting the idea of "idea evaluation" in place.» (Some extent)
- Some of the lectures were really good, the ones David held for examples. But I did not learn very much from the rest. It was a lot of repetition from last semester and I think we could have learned more, or get deeper learning from the lectures.» (Some extent)
- rather fluffy lectures, it was mainly when I reviewed the slides before the exam that I truly understood how they related to the course» (Large extent)

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

Small extent»		3		10%
Some extent»		17		60%
Large extent»		6		21%
Great extent»		2		7%

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- We did not think that the literature sufficiently covered the methods used in the project so we used a lot of other papers/books as well.» (Small extent)
- Väldigt smal bredd på kurslitteraturen!! Då detta är en kurs på masternivå så förväntas det kurslitteratur på en mycket högre nivå! Jag hade föredragit en större bredd av artiklar!!, och mer ramverk på hur man skall utvärdera nya ideer. » (Small extent)
- The theory presented in the course is very thin and it almost feels as though the only contribution of the course is a single table of contents. The book used in the course is easy to read but doesn"t really contain anything of substance other than discussion on sustainability. Further, I feel that using a book written by the lecturers and examiners is rarely a good thing, as it prevents them from being critical towards the concepts and theory presented.» (Some extent)
- Rörig bok i en rörig kurs.» (Some extent)
- Informative slides have been very helpful. » (Some extent)
- The idea evaluation book was very good» (Great extent)
- Good reading material!» (Great extent)

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

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		3		10%
Rather well»		17		60%
Very well»		8		28%

Genomsnitt: 3.17

Lectures

9. André Kelkkanen (Early Stage Verification)

1»		2		8%
2»		3		12%
3»		9		36%
4»		8		32%
5»		3		12%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- I do not remember» (?)
- Nothing really new... Which made the lecture feel less relevant... » (1)
- nothing bad about andrée, but the content was not very useful in this context» (1)
- Came very late in the course with information that would have been good to have in the beginning.» (2)
- But hadn"t we already done this when he came?» (3)

10. Boo Edgar

1»		10		35%
2»		6		21%
3»		10		35%
4»		1		3%
5»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.17

- Unable to understand his lecture, reasoning or relevance.» (1)
- I never understand what he"s talking about» (1)
- I"m sure Boo is a smart and successful man, but he has no abilities to communicate his knowledge to others. He always drifts off topic and gets caught up in his interest in biology, different diseases and how they pose as problems in the world.» (1)
- Missing structure and destination in his speech. I did not take much out of his lessons.» (1)
- Boo Edgar bör inte få undervisa. Han är klumpig, taktlös och ostrukturerad. Vi är många som blir nervösa när hans namn nämns i samband med vår utbildning.» (1)
- Ingen struktur alls på föreläsningarna. Bo passar bra som mentor/handledare till projekten, dock mindre bra som föreläsare. Jag hade föredragit mer strukturerade föreläsningar. » (1)
- Common thread?!» (1)
- Boo Edgar should not be holding classes, he is extremely hard to understand, he pinpoints persons that he "attacks". To be constructive though: IF he could start a sentence where everybody in the class could at leats possibly understand him and the setting he is talking about and then spin into the matter at hand it would be easier to understand him. Now he starts each sentence/subject "half way in", it is impossible to understand what he means when he does not explain anything or even what topic he is talking about. He talks a little bit about everything and makes jokes that are sometimes offencive and if not just hard to understand. » (1)
- Oftentimes his lectures are too lengthy, inefficient and not to the point. I am missing the red thread. When having a lot to do in the course and other courses, it is disturbing when lecturers are using several hours to communicate relatively little information.» (2)
- Unstructured, hard to follow. Seems to not have prepared how to communicate his message? But still entertaining and very knowledgeable.» (2)
- Boo"s written chapters in the book are waaaaaaaaaaay better and clearer than his lectures/slides.» (2)
- Boo has so much he wants to say and I think that he wants to say things in a way so that we need to think and form our own opinion but sometimes it gets so unstructured that it is hard to get what he means and what we should learn» (3)
- he has much interesting to say but he often say it in a completely incomprehensible way. very good to discuss with, though. a good idea could be to think in terms of "how can I explain this in one sentence?" and to have a very condensed summary after each lecture.» (3)
- He is very good at speaking in a way that make you listen. It makes the subject more interesting. However, there is too much talk about things around the subject that makes it very hard to follow the red thread. It is also hard to relate it to what we are supposed to learn and the purpose of the lecture. It would be good if he focused more on the learning outcome and regularly relate to that if he talks about things around the purpose of the lecture. This I think would help to better follow his lectures. » (3)

11. David Andersson

1»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		7		25%
4»		10		35%
5»		11		39%

Genomsnitt: 4.14

- Inspiring guy! Interesting » (3)
- David är kanon! Han är entusiastisk och inspirerande. Han var nog det enda positiva i den här kursen.» (5)
- Manages to make lectures very interesting and focuses on the most important parts and make them stick to your mind. » (5)
- I like david and his passion for the subject» (5)

12. Emil Haldorsson (IP/FTO/Novelty)

1»		0		0%
2»		3		12%
3»		10		40%
4»		9		36%
5»		3		12%

Genomsnitt: 3.48

- good subject and a very good tool if you can handle it but it was almost too technical to be of much use for me.» (2)
- Ok» (3)
- Could have been more practical examples. » (3)
- Explains the patent searches in a good structural way.» (4)
- Very good, but he should have showcased the tool he was talking about some how so that the students could possibly understand better what exactly he was explaining» (4)

13. John Holmberg (Sustainability and Backcasting)

1»		0		0%
2»		1		3%
3»		10		37%
4»		11		40%
5»		5		18%

Genomsnitt: 3.74

- very interesting but I could not see how it related to the course specifically in any other way than all sustainability courses I have studied before» (3)
- Gives a more interesting and intriguing view of sustainability as a concept. » (3)
- Interesting guy. A lot of good stories.» (4)
- Very interesting. Lectures on sustainability is often mediocre, this one was great.» (5)

14. Karen Middleton Williams

1»		0		0%
2»		3		10%
3»		12		42%
4»		8		28%
5»		5		17%

Genomsnitt: 3.53

- Did not attended » (3)
- Vi fick löjligt mycket tid (över en timme) på oss att göra en övning som tog 5 minuter. Det resulterade i att halva klassen gick hem istället för att stanna kvar.» (3)
- this is 3+, I was surprised to find that this methodology was really useful.» (3)
- Good lectures, but perhaps not the most interesting subjects to listen to.» (4)
- Very good. Effectuation was one of the best parts of this course.» (5)

15. Marine Agouge (C-K)

1»		2		7%
2»		1		3%
3»		15		53%
4»		8		28%
5»		2		7%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

- Was not informed that half the class was new to ck. » (3)
- I don"t understand how a framework for brainstorming can be so strict. We came up with a lot more opportunities and had better structure when we did not use it. » (3)
- I did not get that much out of this lecture other than what I knew from this fall but sure, there was some new dimensions to it. however, I do not reckon it fits very good in this context. I am sure it could be a useful tool, but rather in early stage product development which is, in my opinion, not what we are doing here.» (3)
- I think it would be good to more deeply explore what can be done with C-K. Maybe present different ways of using it in idea evaluation instead of just showing one that may not be suitable for specific cases.» (3)
- The workshop was to late in the syylabus. At that time my group was over the point where the method would have made sense.» (4)

16. Mats Lundqvist

1»		1		3%
2»		4		15%
3»		11		42%
4»		9		34%
5»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3.19

- I can not really recall what this lecture was about.» (?)
- Hard to follow, always turns all arguments from students around instead of discussing or answering them...» (2)
- In my opinion, the course would benefit a lot from more involvement from Mats. He is much more capable of conveying information than Boo.» (4)

17. Nils Ekström (IP Valuation from a Volvo Technology Perspective)

1»		11		40%
2»		5		18%
3»		9		33%
4»		2		7%
5»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.07

- Unfortunately this lecture did not engage me at all and the PPT used during the lecture did not communicate. It felt like supporting notes for the lecturer and not a communication tool used together with the lecturing. I really think that Nils can improve his skills in communicating. » (1)
- Did not relate to course material or course goals.» (1)
- Too much irrelevant information, like talking about basic business plan knowlegde which is knowledge that we definitely already should have by know. I question the content of this lecture and how it fit into this course.» (1)
- En oinspirerande föreläsare. » (1)
- Seriously, do not bring him back. No pedagogy, lack of commitment. » (1)
- Not inspiring at all, rather the opposite » (1)
- What was even the purpose of leistening to him, extremely boring and not generating any better understanding of the topic, felt lika a diary reading with a monotonus voice» (1)
- Not very related to our cases actually. the lecture was not really focusing about small venture creation so it did not really " fit" into the context.» (2)
- It is always nice to hear how it works in the real world but this was not very good packaged.» (2)
- It was very narrow - although very good within that field.» (3)

18. Sverker Alänge

1»		1		3%
2»		4		15%
3»		16		61%
4»		4		15%
5»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Did not attended » (?)
- more sustainability? I do not recall...» (3)

19. Staffan Truvé (Temporal Analysis - Recorded Future)

1»		1		3%
2»		0		0%
3»		12		42%
4»		8		28%
5»		7		25%

Genomsnitt: 3.71

- 4 hour commercial... » (1)
- Ok, but right now I think that the tool lags too much. » (3)
- Strange lecture here, Recorded Future is an interesting concept but this lecture felt like a live commercial. The emphasis put on this specific software in the course is strange I feel.» (3)
- cool tool, unfortunately packaged in a rather unaccessible way.» (3)
- Engaging! Even if the version of Recorded Future did not work as planned when he intended to show it I understood the consept. » (5)
- Jättebra gästföreläsning!» (5)
- Very interesting and gripping lecture. He talked very enthusiasticly about the tool. However, the tools was not that useful for analysing technology trends. » (5)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		1		3%
Rather good»		12		42%
Very good»		14		50%
I did not seek help»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3.53

- Boo Edgar kan inte svara på frågor, han börjar bara prata om annat istället.» (Rather poor)
- But there should have been more feedback as to how we were progressing with the cases» (Rather good)
- Looking into the idea provider - Was not helpful in one case, otherwise quite good at Chalmers» (Rather good)
- David and Boo is extremely generous when it comes to helping the students and I feel really comfortable to ask them questions if I have any» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		1		3%
Rather well»		14		50%
Very well»		13		46%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- Someone did not contribute very much..» (Rather well)
- Some friction in the group - but thats how it usually is » (Rather well)
- Projekten har varit jättekul och dynamiken har fungerat mycket bra i grupperna! » (Very well)
- Not very good in the fish case but much better in the real case» (Very well)

22. How was the course workload?

Too low»		1		3%
Low»		1		3%
Adequate»		14		50%
High»		11		39%
Too high»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- So we had to manage that by dividing the work and thus missed the opportunity to perform the scenario planning workshop and C-K workshop with the whole group.» (High)
- too high for me but I guess it was something that i choose. But it relates to the fact that you are expected to produce "something real" for someone who really cares.» (Too high)

23. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		1		3%
Low»		1		3%
Adequate»		13		46%
High»		12		42%
Too high»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3.39

- I had another course that was very intense every second week and those weeks were pretty tough but the overall working load has been adequate » (Adequate)
- Because I had the patent and innovation course at the same time and that course was only every other week, but on full time, the workload was high some weeks. However, it was possible to even out the workload some times which made it easier. » (Adequate)
- We had a large case in the brand managment course the same weeks as we where about to try to finish our last idea evaluation rapport.That was a bit tough.» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

24. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		7		25%
Fair»		4		14%
Adequate»		4		14%
Good»		12		42%
Excellent»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.85 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I was very disappointed by this course. Evaluating ideas at a early stage is of course important and I was expecting more concrete methods and theory from this course than a single table of contents. Creativity is also important when trying to identify where a new idea or technology can be applied, but I feel that way too little emphasis has been put on how well these application areas are connected to reality. Often it felt as though entire idea evaluations were performed focusing on an application area where the idea/technology was not applicable, thereby greatly reducing the value of the idea evaluation for the idea provider. The limited time given for the evaluations further limits the value, as students are often unable to even begin to understand what they are really evaluating - many of the ideas are so technical and complicated in nature that they require deeper understanding. Finally, I feel that the course lacks a critical perspective in its coverage of the material and that there is way too much connection between the lecturers, their work and the material in the course (i.e. asking a specific question on the exam about the business of a company which one of the lecturers runs, lecturers writing almost all material, etc.).» (Poor)
- Det här är den sämsta kursen jag har läst under min Chalmerstid.» (Poor)
- De två sista projekten var mycket roliga och lärande. Men det är dock det enda positivt jag har att säga om kursen. Jag läser i mai klassen och har läst kurser där innan, så detta är min första kurs på entreprenörsskolan. Jag har hört mycket bra om skola innan, men blev väldigt besviken på denna kursen. Jag trodde att kvaliten skulle vara mycket högre!! » (Poor)
- - Poor lecturers, message lost along the way, waste of time - Too unstructured and unfocused, no common thread - Lack of depth, too simplistic» (Poor)
- Doing three cases is very good. Teaching and lectures with some exceptions = very poor.» (Fair)
- I missed the consistency of theories and structure from the beginning. It was not really clear what the expectations from the students were. The feedback from the fish case provided to less information to be able to work on the own style on that base. The projects were a lot of fun and the best part of the course.» (Adequate)
- really nice to work with real cases. however, the course structure and the lecture series did not always feel very connected to the learning outcome» (Good)
- I have learned a lot from the cases» (Good)

25. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

26. What should definitely be changed to next year?

27. Additional comments