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.

Innovation management seminar course IIN070 2012LP1, IIN070

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2013-06-02 - 2013-06-10
Antal svar: 19
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 73%
Kontaktperson: Maria Elmquist»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers: masterskurs

Overall impressions

1. How was the course workload?*

19 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 5%
Adequate»11 57%
High»7 36%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

- Especially considering the RDM by Holmén» (Adequate)
- In combination with my other course I appreciated the workload level of this course. However, work effort was erratically focused around deadlines.» (Adequate)
- But not too much» (High)

2. What is your general impression of the course?*

19 svarande

Worst course ever»0 0%
Fair»3 15%
Adequate»5 26%
Good»7 36%
Excellent»4 21%
Best course ever»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

- There was not enough feedback or more correctly, there was no feedback on the assignments. Which made it very hard to improve.» (Fair)
- I would have liked comments after each seminar hand-in. The purpose is to learn, and it would be great to if anything is done wrong. Now there is a risk that the same errors have been made for several hand-ins» (Good)
- I liked this course and its casual feel. Better rapport/discussion with lecturers and participants.» (Good)
- Very effective ways of learning» (Excellent)

3. What do you think about the course administration?*

19 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Bad»3 15%
OK»12 63%
Good»3 15%
Great»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- No resources, poorly formulated PM, faulty PM (wrong dates)» (Bad)
- Quite a few issues over the course, esp. in the beginning.» (Bad)
- It would have been great to get grades for the hand-ins, that would allow people to improve over the semester.» (OK)
- The semniar-booking was a bit messed up.» (OK)
- There was a problem with the sign up on pingpong. Beside that, the administration was good.» (OK)

4. What do you think about seminar-based teaching as a format?*

19 svarande

Rather poor»0 0%
Rather bad»1 5%
Rather good»7 36%
Very good»7 36%
Excellent»4 21%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

- Pros: Discussing, much learnings Cons: Not focus on learnings of the article but rather learnings on assessing articles. Practical application?» (Rather good)
- I believe that the seminars would have been more useful if they were better structured. For example the seminar leader could raise a few questions which are discussed in a smaller group and then all together. Overall, I believe that a little more structure to the seminars would improve the discussions.» (Rather good)
- However groups of 17 is too large. Better with groups of 13-15.» (Very good)
- I am usually not comfortable with seminars, this course was a avery good exercise for me to improve » (Very good)
- Seminars are very good for learning. But in this case, I don"t think they worked well. Each group should have been twice smaller to really trigger discussions. Now it was a few people mostly speaking, while others were concerned about when they can make their one mandatory comment. Smaller groups wouldn"t even necessarily need a teacher-facilitator, they could manage the discussion on their own.» (Very good)
- I enjoyed the format, a much needed break from the lecture/test-heavy paradigm. However, as I"m a lot better at talking than writing I"d appreciate if it was possible to get points for that since it"s a seminar course.» (Excellent)
- The discussions create deeper understanding» (Excellent)

5. Was the term-paper seminar useful to your own writing process?*

19 svarande

Yes»18 94%
No»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 1.05

- I knew most of it from earlier courses, but repetition is always good and the slides were useful in clarifying some things about the structure of the report. » (Yes)
- Significantly reduced the scope of the paper into something that was actually manageable. I think everyone enjoyed the seminar and the chance to get started early and formulate ones thoughts.» (Yes)
- It was very useful and it was a pity that it only happened once, considering that no supervision happened either.» (Yes)

6. What do you think of the examination format? (50% seminars, 50% term paper)*

19 svarande

Rather poor»0 0%
Rather bad»3 15%
Rather good»8 42%
Very good»7 36%
Excellent»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

- There was too much focus on the term paper, which in my opinion was not as useful as the seminars.» (Rather bad)
- It makes sense in theory, but... Everyone was really disturbed by not getting the points for each seminar. Most teachers said in the seminar that they had already graded the papers, but can"t reveal the grades because they were not supposed to. And for this reason, I don don"t feel like I learned much from this course, as I had no idea where in the class my reflections were, how to improve them, what am I doing well and what not so well. Even if no personal feedback, then a grade with overall comments to the class would have been enough. As for the term paper, it was a big disappointment that there was no supervision. This is not a simple task to do, and most of times we had no idea if we were doing good or not.» (Rather bad)
- Pretty good, but would be nice to get some indication of where you stand during the course. I have no idea where I am grade-wise since the seminar hand-ins are so different from examination in other courses. It would be better to know if you are on the right track by getting your scores during the course.» (Rather good)
- Maybe 60% seminars and 40% term paper» (Rather good)
- One MAJOR downside for the course was that the score one received at each of the five seminars was not published until after the course ended. I understand the rationale behind this structure but it turned out to be VERY hard for us as students to make any constructive use of the ‘,general feedback’, from the seminar leaders. » (Rather good)
- The seminar proportion could be increased to 60% with 6 selected seminars.» (Very good)

Lectures and Seminars

Only answer if you participated in the lectures - if not please choose "No opinion"

7. What did you think of the lectures/seminars?

Please only grade the ones you participated in!


- It"s obvious that Marcus is a very structured and neat person who likes to organize things. But in a seminar, I would recommend just keeping it casual and natural (like the others), and not structuring everything and somehow trying to maximize what we get out of the seminar. It"s kinda like trying to structure an open interview - the point is to keep it open and casual if you want to get the most out of it.»
- Jan had a nice setup for his seminar.»
- I think the structure of Jan"s seminar, where the group was divided into smaller groups, is outstanding. That way, everyone get"s to tell their opinions and make themselves heard. Even people who don"t fancy talking to a bigger group. In a discussion in a bigger group like in the other seminars, the discussions sometimes ended up on tracks where people were unable to contribute, and in a bigger group it feels like everything you say need to be top notch or else it is better to remain silent.»
- I definitely think there is correlation between amount of people in a seminar and how good of a discussion you get - if there is almost 20 students it"s very hard to get very deep (which I think is the biggest positive thing about having seminars). One negative thing I thought was quite prominent in many if the seminars is that A) a big problem was that it was fuzzy what we were really talking about and B) it was difficult to really come to any deeper thoughts/insights - perhaps also because there was a tendency to be quite Swedish and not make any stronger arguments. »
- Pretty even quality among the seminars - would have benefited from more structure. I heard Wickenberg"s seminar was really good but unfortunately I did not attend it. However, his seminar in the project management course was good!»
- The first two lectures were useful when doing work, would have liked even more advice on how to read/analyse papers and write hand-ins. »
- The structure of Maria"s seminar was good. Ingo"s seminar was also good, but he was so worried about students not participating that he started talking a lot and reiterating that he wasn"t going to let anyone be silent, without first giving us a chance. People were very active during Maria"s seminar without any threats. Marcus tried to structure his seminar too much. He listed several items on the agenda and spent half the time just talking about himself and other stuff that didn"t seem very relevant. He should"ve let the seminar have a more natural flow. Anne"s seminar was good, but she seemed a bit inexpert some times, not being able to provide good or insightful answers to questions. Jan"s seminar was the least useful and mostly seemed like a meta-seminar. He just tried out a lot of different stuff and exercises that didn"t really seem thought out and useful. I learned more from the more traditional seminars.»

Lecture I - Course Introduction & Reading/Analyzing Texts (Maria E)
19 svarande

Rather poor»0 0%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»12 63%
Very good»6 31%
Excellent»1 5%
Did not participate/No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.42

Lecture II - Writing Research Papers (Maria E)
19 svarande

Rather poor»0 0%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»11 57%
Very good»6 31%
Excellent»2 10%
Did not participate/No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.52

Seminar 1 - Open Innovation (Maria E)
19 svarande

Rather poor»0 0%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»2 14%
Very good»9 64%
Excellent»3 21%
Did not participate/No opinion»5

Genomsnitt: 4.07

Seminar 2 - The Role of Design in Innovation (Ingo R)
19 svarande

Rather poor»1 7%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»1 7%
Very good»7 53%
Excellent»4 30%
Did not participate/No opinion»6

Genomsnitt: 4

Seminar 3 - Value Appropriation for Environmental Innovations (Marcus L)
19 svarande

Rather poor»0 0%
Rather bad»2 13%
Rather good»11 73%
Very good»0 0%
Excellent»2 13%
Did not participate/No opinion»4

Genomsnitt: 3.13

Seminar 4 - Idea Selection at the Front-End of Innovation (Anne E-T)
17 svarande

Rather poor»0 0%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»6 54%
Very good»2 18%
Excellent»3 27%
Did not participate/No opinion»6

Genomsnitt: 3.72

Seminar 5 - Innovation Capabilities (Sofia B)
19 svarande

Rather poor»0 0%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»5 41%
Very good»3 25%
Excellent»4 33%
Did not participate/No opinion»7

Genomsnitt: 3.91

Seminar 6 - Effectuation (Henrik B)
18 svarande

Rather poor»0 0%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»4 44%
Very good»2 22%
Excellent»3 33%
Did not participate/No opinion»9

Genomsnitt: 3.88

Seminar 7 - Knowledge Management (Jan W)
18 svarande

Rather poor»1 10%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»3 30%
Very good»2 20%
Excellent»4 40%
Did not participate/No opinion»8

Genomsnitt: 3.8

Seminar 8 - Business Model Innovation (Joakim B)
19 svarande

Rather poor»0 0%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»7 63%
Very good»2 18%
Excellent»2 18%
Did not participate/No opinion»8

Genomsnitt: 3.54

Additional comments

8. Please write down any additional comments and suggestions of improvements

- Again, give grades after each seminar. That will allow students to improve over the semester, instead of perhaps being stuck doing the same things wrong.»
- Seminars: When choosing between 8 seminars, you inevitibly miss out on 3/8 subjects. Although I think it is suboptimal, I"m not sure how it could be fixed. Term paper: I think some supervision during the process of the term paper is necessary. I would also appreciate clearer guidelines for what we are expected to deliver (which supervision meetings would be good for). For examples, during the TCIT course we had supervision two times, 20-30 mins each, and it was very valuable and perfectly enough.»
- Feedback is by far the biggest missing piece of the puzzle in this course! (!!) Although self-studies are nice (on occasion), without any feedback or any learning-loop it becomes difficult to learn I think. It feels like this goes against a majority of science in the pedagogic field. Of course there should always be an aim to be as fair as possible, but I think one should think long before putting teaching aside to being completely fair.»
- It would have been great to receive the points of each hand in as soon as possible (no feedback required unless the student sends an email requesting the feedback). Also a possibility to receive feedback about the term paper by adding a midway deadline in order for students to know what they should improve on in their term paper.»
- Having seminars that are not graded is very useful. It enabled practing a discipline I was not very comfortable with. One reason i chose this course was to improve this skill. For the hand-ins, it would be great to gain individual feedback after each seminar, or at least the first. This so that one can eliminate simple errors and wrong thinking. »
- I was really excited about this course before it started. Unfortunately it did not deliver on my expectations. The biggest issue is arguably the lack of resources, which means that there is no feedback on the term papers. I had hoped to get valuable insight in how to write a paper, but without any feedback I felt like I was fumbling in the dark and did not learn nearly as much as I would have liked. The basic idea of the course is very good and I hope it gets more resources for next year!»
- I did not appreciate going a whole course without a clue if anything I did was good or not. Worst case scenario I"ll have performed badly on all seminar hand-ins and my term-paper is subpar all without me knowing or being able to do anything about it. This course cries out for feedback or needs to compensate by more detailed criteria for grading.»
- I understand that giving the students access to the score directly after each seminar might be hard to administer. However, the current situation is not good in any way for the students. Since the score has been made available after the seminars in previous years, it would seem possible to have done it this year as well. Several of the seminar leaders also said something along the lines of “,the hand-ins have already been marked, so don’,t be scared to say stupid things here now…,”, - which seemingly would imply that the scores often were available. With the current system of not knowing how high you scored on the last seminar it became hard to adapt or improve the way you formulated your literature reflections. The “,general feedback”, we got from the seminar leaders was very hard to act upon and contradictions between different seminar leaders were common. I understand that different seminar leaders look at and focus on different things, but having access to your own personal score reviles much more information you need to improve than getting general comments based on 15 students’, hand-ins. With the general feedback-system it is hard to know what part of the feedback actually applies to your hand-in and you might in fact end up making your next hand in worse if acting on it than you would otherwise have. This critique is all the more relevant since submitting this type of hand-in is not a common practice in other MEI-courses and the uncertainty as to what is requested therefore is high. »
- Jag gillade upplägget på kursen med 50% seminarium och 50 % term paper. Jag tycker även att seminarierna vi kunde välja mellan kändes väldigt aktuella och bra uppdaterade med verkligheten! Dock vet jag inte om jag lärde mig något under kursen, då vi inte fick någon feedback alls!!, Till nästa år tycker jag man borde få betyget på ens resention efter varje seminarium, så att man vet vad man gort bra och vad som var dåligt!!, hur skall man annars lära sig något?? Det hade även varit bra med någon handledning till projektet!!, i alla fall ett handlednings tillfälle för att få feedback när man börjat skriva och inte bara i början. »
- The topics and articles for seminars were well chosen, interesting and relevant. But I really feel that I didn"t learn almost anything in this course, for the reasons mentioned above. »

Thank you!

* obligatoriska frågor

Kursutvärderingssystem från