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.

Research Design and Methods 2013, TEK190

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2013-06-04 - 2013-06-14
Antal svar: 33
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 55%
Kontaktperson: Magnus Holmén»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Industriell ekonomi 300 hp


1. I am originally coming from*

33 svarande

Industrial engineering at Chalmers»20 60%
another programme at Chalmers»5 15%
another Swedish university»5 15%
I am an international student»3 9%
I am an exchange student»0 0%
I am a KBE student»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.72

2. I approximately attended

33 svarande

20 % of the lectures»4 12%
40 % of the lectures»0 0%
60 % of the lectures»5 15%
80 % of the lectures»13 39%
100 % of the lectures»9 27%
I did not attend any lectures»2 6%

Genomsnitt: 3.87

3. Comments on your teamwork in your projects

- Worked very well, worked with good team memebers»
- The teamwork was great although it was very stressful towards the end, especially for project 2. Every member collaborated in a good and efficient way in order to move the project forward. »
- It worked well and was very efficient.»
- Worked terrible.. Two of us did everything while the last one came up with excuses and performed poorly. In the end, the third member didn"t have a single word in any of the two reports. We didn"t bring this up with the course administrators since that usually just makes it worse and affects the grading negatively. However, I don"t think anything could be done to make it better but it felt weird having the third member"s name on the reports.»
- The teamwork worked very well, but the tasks were very time consuming»
- Worked ok»
- Worked out OK.»
- I think I carried a bit big part of the overall workload»
- Good distribution of work in our group. Everybody participated sufficiently.»
- Didn"t really work out very well, because one of the members was from Chalmers school of entrepreneurship. They don"t really have an understanding of what is quality in work, how to find time for groupwork and how to make sense in general. I think MEI students should somehow be warned about this, especially the ones aiming for high grades...»
- My team worked good together, but our results could definitely have been better.»
- The first project was started after Easter,quite normal but tight schedule anyway. The second project was even later started, and became really pressured at the end.»
- Both me and my teammate had to attend alot of mandatory Entrepreneurship School activities instead of attending classes and doing RDM teamprojects. »
- No comments. Well distributed work loads.»
- Worked really well»

Questions on the course

4. From your perspective, how relevant is the course content?*

33 svarande

Irrelevant»0 0%
Not important»3 9%
Maybe useful»2 6%
Useful»17 51%
Very important»11 33%

Genomsnitt: 4.09 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

5. How much did you learn from the course?*

33 svarande

Nothing at all»0 0%
A little»1 3%
Medium amount»6 18%
Much»21 63%
Very much»5 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.9 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

6. How demanding was the course?*

33 svarande

Not at all demanding»0 0%
Slightly demanding»1 3%
Quite demanding»4 12%
Demanding»13 39%
Very demanding»15 45%

Genomsnitt: 4.27 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

7. How interesting do you think the topic of the course was?*

33 svarande

Not at all»1 3%
Slightly interesting»12 36%
Quite interesting»9 27%
Interesting»8 24%
Fascinating»3 9%

Genomsnitt: 3 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

8. Comments on the lecturer

- Great commitment and bloody nice lecturing.»
- Very good. Makes everything more interesting!»
- Touching»
- Magnus is a great lecturer! Without him, this course would have been a nightmare!»
- Good»
- The lecturer"s style made me not want to ask questions in class.»
- Fun but demanding.»
- Good, but I think it would be beneficial with more and shorter lectures.»
- Extremely good lectures.»
- Good as always»
- Pretty good lectures, but I believe it is a difficult course to lecture since it is very practical. I learnt the most through case 2 and studying for the exam, but the lectures were a good complement.»
- Magnus could have been better prepared for some of his lectures. Jet-lag is not a good excuse för not being prepared. Overall great lectures, though.»
- Did not attend many lectures but Magnus is a competent and interesting lecturer»
- Messy and fun as always. Some lectures had strangely long breaks, not sure why, but they should have been normal I think. I like the repetition of previous topics in the beginning of each lecture, but I think this could be done in a shorter manner.»
- Sometimes a little bit fuzzy, but also good that it"s not always strictly what was on the slides that was said. I think it was a fairly good balance in how many lectures were held.»
- Easy style and interesting.»
- Magnus is good.»
- Energetic, enthusiastic but uncoordinated.»
- Not clear, hard to find the "red thread".»
- Perfect as always»
- Generally good.»

9. Comments on the lecture slides (in terms of your studies, not the lectures)

- The lecture slides was many but at the same time necessary »
- Good to be able to go back and repeat lectures, since the slides contain much information. »
- Useful»
- The slides were too many and were unstructured. They were difficult to understand if you missed the lectures»
- Could be more concentrated and clear»
- Helpful but a bit unstructured and quantity is not always equal to quality... »
- Sometimes unstructured, some of them hard to understand without an explanation on a lecture»
- After reading the course literature they provide structure and deepens the understanding of the course material.»
- Would have wanted more texts on the slides so they could easily be understood without attending the lecture. I did the course from London.»
- Pretty good, feels like most of the relevant stuff is there (stuff from papers as well).»
- Very many slides, and maybe a bit unstructured»
- Better than Bryman and Bell»
- There were a lot of slides and unfortunately I did not have time to go through them all ahead of the exam.»
- To use the slides when studying for the exam could be difficult. If it is possible to sort out the irrelevant slides before uploading them to the portal could be useful.»
- In general good, and easy to understand»
- They were quite useful for studying.»
- Good - a few were not perhaps fully comprehensible without having participated to the lectures though. (most were though)»
- The content of the slides could be more concise and focus on the main theme, in order for us to catch up during the preparation for the final exam.»
- Quite good»
- Not as clear as they could have been, made it a bit harder to follow on both lectures and upon reviewing them.»
- Slides could be better organized, categorized and could be updated earlier (before the middle of the lecture)»
- Slides are very blur»
- Much info, good info»
- Over one thousand slides are difficult to digest. Why wouldn"t a 500 do it?»
- Sometimes it was hard to know why some of the slides were used during the lecture»

10. Comments on Marcus Linder"s lecture

- Useful lecture bout statistical tools and methods. Good examples »
- A bit hard to understand everything. Even though we have taken a statistic course, these things need to be freshen up. »
- Did not attend»
- Good with involving the students in live exercises. A subject good to know more about.»
- Felt misplaced but I guess it was worth having. I doubt that people studied his slides in detail for the exam though.»
- Very useful»
- It was a while since I took the statistics course, and since I did not have time to read up before the lecture I did not learn much in class.»
- Did not attend.»
- It was good, although his experiment failed a bit :) It was nice to fell that the statistics course from the bachelor had some relevance.»
- Interesting. Too bad the info was not for any use in the exam.»
- Did not attend it»
- I didn"t quite get why this lecture happened. Sure, knowing about this stuff is very useful, but it"s not like we know now how to make statistical tests, as we didn"t practice those on any way. He also kept saying that this is probably too easy for us, while actually people didn"t remember much about these things.»
- Good. Nice with the refresh. A little bit unclear what level of depth in knowledge that was required for the exam though.»
- Well prepared and informative. »
- Good»
- Did not attend, read slides and it looked like it took some time to go through all those slides. »
- Did not attend»
- Very interesting and fascinating.»
- Good»

11. Comments on your supervisor in project 1&2?

- The supervision for project 2 was too early in relation to the deadline of the project 1. Even if it was recommended to start on project 2 early and parallel to project 1, it was hard to focus enough on project 2 to get it started.»
- The only day for tutoring in project two had already passed when we started the project so we did not get any. »
- Only had supervisor for project 2. We had one meeting and gained very useful feedback on our ideas for the project.»
- Sara was helpful and forthcoming. »
- Did not use the supervisor.»
- Didn"t help much, the appointment options was too early.»
- Good supervision»
- It would have been beneficial to have a meeting later on with the supervisor to sort some questions out, in our group we were not able to solve it ourselves and as a result we did not learn as much as we could have from the project.»
- Sara was very helpful and responded to our emails. »
- I would have appreciated if the supervision for the second project was a bit later.»
- The supervision in project 2 is too early, as no groups have started the project when the supervision takes place.»
- Didn"t have any»
- Good, but we had not gotten very far when we had supervision so we did not have much to ask about.»
- Sufficient.»
- Good feedback»
- Didn"t find any use of the supervisor, because the supervision was too early and there wasn"t anything to ask yet.»
- Big plus for the flexibility in supervision. We could have used some more supervision but I think in this course a big part of that refers to our lack of "using it", rather than lack in effort from the supervisor.»
- Not much supervision on project 1, and quite helpful for the project 2.»
- didnt have any»
- We need more supervision and clearer instructions. The supervisor had to ask somebody else to be able to answer all our questions. »
- Great!»
- Who was that?»
- Supervising was scheduled way too early, we hadn"t hardly initiated p2 at the instance of guiding.»
- Good»

12. Comments on the course book?

- The course book is more suitable to be call the hand book»
- Good as encyclopedia and guide for future masters thesis and maybe other project as well»
- Not an interesting read, too descriptive sometimes»
- Extensive and relevant topics. A bit too much information and research around them. Sometimes a bit to deep and focused knowledge. »
- Very good, helpful and clear. Feminism?»
- Good, but it contained a lot of material that was not included in the course»
- Pretentious. »
- Good.»
- Everything seems to be in there, although there is some redundancy and some things are hard to find.»
- Didn"t buy it»
- Beneficial for the project work, but not very good for studying for the exam. It is a bit long and boring at times. »
- Terrible read. But I love that you can find everything in it. »
- Not a great reading experience, but it is suitable as a lexicon»
- Some parts of the book were really outdated, e.g. the digital recording of interviews. And the feminist research parts were just weird. I think it would be good to point out in lectures which parts of the book we shouldn"t take too seriously. Otherwise it"s very comprehensive and easily understandable, not an interesting read but definitely useful now and in the future.»
- I did not read that much, especially not A-Z but rather I used it as a reference in combination with summaries, lecture slides, etc. I have a feeling it is quite good though. It gave a good, rather full synthesis of the what (possibly) is needed (except some stuff like KJ Shiba, covered in other ways). In general I"m quite positive to the book.»
- A little bit too heavy to carry around and quite many unuseful sections.»
- didnt buy it. to much information overflo.»
- Great book somewhat to much text that do not say that much. »
- Get the feeling that there is alot of redundant text. Typical "Author payed per page" -book.»
- Fucking bloody fat»
- I really enjoyed it and will continue reading it.»
- Good, but very long.»

13. Comments on the compulsory articles?

- It varied. Some were interesting and felt useful, while some weren"t»
- Some of them were good, but others such as some book chapters did not make much sense too me. It was hard to see the relevant message in some of the articles. »
- Interesting, overall too much reading meterial in the course (articles and book)»
- There were quite a few, some I felt were more important than others but at the time I did not have time to re-read the most important ones.»
- Relevant, but some were hard to read due to the small text.»
- Good stuff.»
- Hard to understand the relevance early in the course. Should maybe have some instructions about how to read them and what to focus on early in the course.»
- Did not read them all, but some of the ones I did read were interesting, such as the Saad paper. »
- Keep those bastards. »
- Okey»
- I read them all only in the end when studying for the exam. They felt useful and I was sorry for not having read them earlier, they would have made projects much easier.»
- Were not all articles compulsory? I read few A-Z but rather scanned through some here and there (and mostly read summaries). They seemed to be okay, but as always, papers typically give a quite narrow addition in terms of knowledge (although perhaps sometimes a more balanced perspective than books).»
- Lots of readings... Especially combined with the other seminar course.»
- Nice»
- Did not use those that extensively. The thing is that the articles was hardly referred to during the lectures.»

14. How much did you learn in the workshop (KJ-Shiba)?

- More than expected. The workshop gave more than the instruction itself.»
- Actually using the method made me remember it well and was a good element in the course»
- A bit, a useful why to identify and define underlying problems»
- Not much that we didn"t cover in lectures but I suspect practically experience and working through the process provided understanding of general difficulties regarding questions and answers that would have been difficult to internalize otherwise.»
- I learned a lot since I never before heard about this method. Also learned that consensus is highly underestimated in terms of achieving it. Also it could be a useful tool for small scale projects and for everyone to have be able to have a say. »
- I think it was a interesting method that I believe could come of use later. When the problems are not so clear and you have to prioritize it is a good method. They way of concretizing the observations made was a new insight to me. »
- 99%. It was nice to be provided with a concrete tool for my future professional career. I really think I"ll consider using it in the future!»
- A little»
- Hard to quantify. It was a good experience though and I take with me some learnings about managing a workshop.»
- Did not attend (did the course from London)»
- It was good to test a method used in reality.»
- Learned a lot about problem formulation, one of the best workshops I have attended so far.»
- Hard to judge. Will see in a few years maybe»
- More than I thought I would.»
- Overal an interesting and good workshop, learned quit a lot»
- Perhaps didn"t learn too much, but enjoyed the process nevertheless. It"s a good tool and I"m sure I will use it in the future.»
- Good experience! A must keep for next year! I learned a lot! (because honestly, I believe a lot of what is taught we do not really fully appreciate until put into a situation where needed).»
- good to practice, but not so much.»
- Nothing»
- Took a lot of time to conduct and the benefit is not clear when you are doing it in a school setting like we did. »
- Alot, and used aspects of in in a concurrent course. »
- Interesting experience»
- Done similar before, but nice with levels of abstraction»
- Much! This is a must-be to next year!»

15. How much did you learn from your work in Project (Lazy lecturer)?

- Quite a lot. The points corresponded to the time spent on project should be higher»
- Much»
- Quite a lot by working out the method on our own but not on an academic level. Also, the task itself was complicated to carry out due to resource limitations.»
- The Thinking Aloud Protocol was very interesting to learn about. However it felt quite abstract and difficult to analyze the protocols if you lack psychology knowledge, at least on a basic level. »
- I knew much about the subject before from prior courses, but some parts were new in how to use them for research purpose. »
- We learnt the method well, parts of which seems applicable to other methods and research in general. I guess that"s about it for me.»
- 75%»
- A lot»
- Not that much about the method we studied. The execution phase took a lot of time. However, the project made sure that our team read up on the literature so that we were prepared to take on project 2. »
- A lot!»
- I think it was quite hard to come up with something, KPI"s should probably not be included next year...»
- Learned a lot, but it is a very narrow scope of what you learn.»
- Attending the others" presentations was helpful»
- Learnt some things about different methods, however, case 2 was much more useful for the course as a whole.»
- Little. Remove from the course!»
- A learned a lot about our method.»
- This project took far more time and effort than it was supposed to take. Learned quite some, but only about my own field and not much from the others.»
- It was rather good. I learned some details more about KPIs, and it was positive that it was something different than just more lectures in standard fashion. Difference in how the course is outlined makes you "listen" more I believe.»
- quite a lot.»
- A little»
- Quite a bit however it was a lot of work timewise.»
- Alot about out method and a little about the rest.»
- A bit, quite useful»
- Very nice»
- We had the KPI and that was ridiculous, please take away.»
- Some»

16. How useful were other groups comments on your presentation in Project 1?

- Not very useful»
- Not very useful»
- It gave good examples on how to use each method, which helps the learning»
- Don"t remember any comments so I would assume not useful.»
- Didn"t receive any as the group which was supposed to comment on us was not present. »
- They were not so useful because they were hard to read and not very thought through. »
- Not useful at all. Felt kinda weird both to write and receive comments since we"re on the same level of knowledge and stuff.»
- Useful»
- Not useful. Magnus Holmén"s comments were though. Although we did not understand his question in class we discussed it within the group afterwards, comparing our method against others, which resulted in better understanding of research methods in general.»
- N/A»
- Not very useful.»
- Not useful»
- Pretty useful, I think it is a good idea to get feedback from others!»
- Not useful. Easier to read in B&B. Bad quality on the slides. »
- Not that useful »
- Not useful.»
- A little bit useful. Good to have though (always nice with feedback).»
- not so useful, too general criticism instead of constructive feedbacks. »
- Not at all.»
- We didn"t get any group comments since they thought that it was not important to give it to us.»
- Not very.»
- So so»
- Not useful as people do not take their time nor responsibility to share their thought. »
- Not very useful»

17. How much did you learn in Project 2 (open and position innovation )?

- Learned more from project 2 than from project 1»
- Much, but I think this project was much more time consuming considering mandatory interviews. Therefore, the projects could be switched. »
- Not so much. I have done interviews before, and the small things that I may have done wrong I learned from literature. But practice is always good.»
- A bit about the subject of study, unfortunately not extensively about the method.»
- The project was interesting in terms of designing the study. What to think about in terms of data collection and so on put a perspective on how important it is to have a well defined problem/ research question, as well as the nature of data collection totally affects the outcome of the study and what type of conclusions that can be drawn. However, a lot more could have been learned as the project felt slightly rushed due to the high workload»
- I learned about a general outline of a research project and what you can find out from different types of methods. Also, the linkage between the questions and the answers you get was a learning point. You learned how people respond to questions and you learn how to see it from the respondents view.»
- 80%.»
- A lot»
- A lot. We used the course book when designing and executing the study in order to ensure that we did everything as correct as possible.»
- Not a lot - it just took up a lot of time trying to find companies to interview. It would have been much more valuable to focus on writing a good interview design rather than to spend 90% of the time looking for interviewees.»
- Hard to tell. Wouldn"t the last for questions have been better as answered with multiple-choice alternatives? :)»
- Very good project.»
- I"m starting to learn a bit about interviews»
- I learnt the most in this project. Unfortunately I realized all the things we did wrong/could have done better, while studying for the exam. The project was very useful for having something to relate the course book and articles to. »
- A LOT! Necessary to keep.»
- I liked that project, learned a lot about several aspect of the course.»
- A lot. Useful project, too bad the other one took so much time that less effort was possible to be put into this one.»
- A lot! Very good project! It was very useful for me learning some of why it is important to do research according to the literature - in other words, it made me understand some of the important learnings of the course rather than just study and learn steps to remember for an exam.»
- quite much.»
- To make trivial stuff sound fancy»
- Not that much considering the time put in to the task at hand. The problem is that the execution takes up so much time that there is little time left to actually learn from it. »
- Alot, useful in the exam. The issue of properly understanding open innovation took alot of the time that should have been spent in the Research design itself. Use an easier-to-understand topic. We are not all MEI-student.»
- Not so much about the topic but the methods»
- Pretty much»
- Much! Enjoyed this one! »
- A lot, but realized that some was wrong when the in depth exam studies started.»

18. Comments on the exam (difficult? in line with the course? etc)

- The multi choice questions were tricky, many(most) of the claims/statements were formulated in a way that made the meaning true or false depending on how you would approach the questions. Maybe I wasnt prepared enough, but since the majority of the class thought the same, the claims/statements could have been formulated nicer. The rest of the questions were time consuming! question 1 and 2 did take most of the time. »
- Hard multiple choice questions where the questions are formulated vaguely (e.g. with "very", "often", "usually")»
- Felt very difficult. Questions were in line with the course, but the examples was a bit abstract. It demanded too much thinking of what was really was asked for, which feels more appropraite when it is a home exam. »
- Difficult. Some confusing statements (esp. in the true-or-false), as asking a question in negative form etc. which have been advised against in this course when making questionnaires, feeling constructed to trick the student.»
- The true and false questions were rather hard. The prior exams were more straight forward with the statements. It was too much vague and ambiguous statements (just as we have learnt not to use). The other part was better. Because the questions are very open, you can answer with the view you know and show that you have learnt things during the course. In the first question, the structured interview question part was rather hard to do. Both because of the time limit and that the structured interview was not a good method to answer the questions.»
- Felt very difficult, despite the fact that I attended all the lectures, was the deepest involved in both projects, and studied as much as I could after all hand-ins. I can"t say I wasted much time during the whole term either. We"ll see how the exam turns out. Anyhow, I"m not convinced that a regular exam feels appropriate for a topic like this. I"m sure Magnus has tested and thought about alternatives, but it felt a bit unsuitable regardless.»
- In line with the course. However, a few sloppy formulations in the MC and a bit strange that the total points added up to 70.. »
- Too many details, could have been more "overall" questions.»
- Very difficult. Such open questions make it both hard to know where to begin and hard to know when to stop. It was too difficult for me to organize and design my studies in a 4-hour-hand-written exam. After writing a whole page I always think of something that should have been discussed along with arguments in the middle of the page. I would have much rather had a home exam so that I could have shown depth of understanding instead.»
- The multiple choice questions were unreasonable and very difficult. For example, whether it is faster to conduct phone interviews than postal questionaries depends on how large the sample is and how many people that are conducting phone interviews. Whether web based qustionaires are chapter/more expensive than postal surverys also varies with sample size and cost of software used. How can these be made to definite questions?»
- Quite hard. It"s a lot to keep in mind before writing it :)»
- Extremely difficult, by far the hardest exam so far on Chalmers. I feel that it was too hard, but hopefully the grading will be very kind.»
- It was a pain, a few more hours would"ve been nice. Seemed like it covered all relevent topics though»
- Pretty difficult exam, in particular the first part. I do not really like the multiple choice questions and at times they feel pretty ambiguous. The exam is short on time, which is pretty good since it forces you to limit what you write. »
- In line. Leading question? ,)»
- In line with the course. However the multiple choice questions were more or less impossible as there always were one or to answers that could be either right or wrong.»
- Difficult! I don"t like the multiple choice part at all, because most questions were subjective and context dependent, while the context for most was not provided. It"s a luck thing, I could get 0 points just as well as 15. Other questions were what I expected more or less, just even more ambiguous. Pretty difficult to nail. Nevertheless the exam seemed to cover most of the course content, which is good.»
- To be honest, it depends on the grading. Quite difficult to know. Probably quite difficult, but it might be good with a rather hard exam (to be honest I feel like there"s a constant inflation in grading nowadays due whining from students). I think the outline of it is rather good, but it differs quite a bit in that it is very little of "parrot-knowledge" but rather more real-life example questions. The first part is quite tricky to get right (I guess, will see when I get the results), but on the other hand it might quite good regardless.»
- Could be more multiple choice, instead of writing long time for the open questions, and perhaps not overlapping with the projects.»
- Quite difficult»
- A lot to write on the exam difficulty was pretty much the same as previous years. However it felt like it could have been shorter and still measure the same things.»
- Very open, which doesn"t have to be negative. Difficult»
- Difficult, too little time and too narrowed scope »
- High level»
- Very difficult as the questions was partly ambiguous and vague, and the level of knowledge in the exam was way beyond the basics of research design and methodologies.»
- Very difficult. It felt like there was not enough time. Also hard to know in what way to answer and how to get started.»

19. How was the "study environment" of the course, in terms of student interaction, teacher interaction, etc?

- Student interaction was good within the project group as well as between different groups. Groups helped each other with for example the pretests»
- Very good»
- Good. »
- fine»
- It was okay. No other comments.»
- Good, Magnus really tried to listen to people in the hallways and ask how they were doing and stuff. Nice to see some real commitment from a lecturer! »
- Good»
- Many people expressed negativity towards the course, which obviously does not benefit the "study environment". »
- N/A»
- Good. It"s good that it"s possible to ask stuff during lecture breaks.»
- Good.»
- No problem!»
- Lovely as usual»
- Good»
- We actually interacted between groups much more than usually for courses. Everybody found it difficult to make sense of what is really expected from the projects, so lots of discussions on that happened. I liked how much you Magnus were going around and asking how people are doing. It was very helpful and clarified many things, keep that up!»
- Rather good in my opinion. Friendly and nice.»
- more interactions between students and teachers are suggested.»
- flexible, expect the supervision meetings.»
- Ok»
- Good»
- Good. I felt we had good support from the teacher, who was open to questions at all times.»
- Good»

20. How was the administration of the course?

- Would maybe be better to make the project 1 smaller and with an earlier deadline. This in order for project 2 to get started earlier with all the interviews.»
- Good considering the switch to ping pong »
- It was okey. Apparently, the pingpong does not work the way the teacher wants it to. »
- Could have been handled better. The unreliability of the administrators in regards to pingpong is a risk and source of stress for students.»
- Except from some problems with using pingpong functions, it was good.»
- Good»
- Ok»
- Good.»
- Nothing to complain about I guess.»
- Good.»
- Good!»
- Sufficient»
- Nothing to complain about.»
- Ok»
- Quite nice. Not much to comment.»
- a little confusing concerning the file hand-in on the ping pong system.»
- Would prefer a google calendar link with correct times since timeedit is never up to date.»
- No real problem with the course administration other then the usual problems with pingpong.»
- Quite poor.»
- Good»
- Good. Next year will be better as the examination will master PingPong.»
- Good»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.81

Other comments

21. Additional comments or suggestions

- How are you going to know that I answered this survey if there is no personalised survey link with a code linking my CID to the survey respondent list, only a general link?»
- I perceive this course as being practical-oriented as the knowledge is best acquired and learned by implementing the methods in real life. Based on this, I suggest this course to be entirely project based (2 or 3 projects) including a pass/fail exam to test basic knowledge. Alternatively, have 2 projects including a take-home exam. I also suggest that this course to be moved to the first period during autumn since we already then are required to conduct a number of interviews and performing studies. By having this as the first course would definitely improve our skills for upcoming courses. »
- I think that the two projects were too large and extensive in comparison with the 40 points that they represented. Especially, project 2 takes a long time to gather responses from semi-structured interviews and it would be good to start with that project. Also, the content of them should be reduced or the project should be awarded more points in total.»
- Keep ut the good work and thanks for making this dull subject at least somewhat enjoyable and interesting!»
- I can imagine that many fails the course, which should not be possible because of how time consuming it was. I consider most students at MEI to be at least medium intelligent (and ok at studying and selecting relevant learnings when there is a lot material). Then, when doing more than 30h/week, one should not be worried about passing.»
- Q 4-7: For personal reasons I could not dedicate as much time as I would have wanted to reading the course literature and therefore I did not learn as much as I could have. Even though, the course made me a better research designer and problem-finder. »
- N/A.»
- Maybe it would be better with more and shorter lectures. It is a quite "heavy" subject, and it can be hard to keep up the concentration for 3-4 hours, especially when we start at 8. I think that would increase the rate of participation as well.»
- Thank you for maybe THE most useful course in this master programme.»
- suggest to start the project earlier, before Easter, especially the project 2, more time needed.»
- I learned that the data from a questionare like this will be hard to analyze.»
- The course feels bias towards MEI-students.»
- 7,5 hp?! This course is like 15 hp, at least, considering the time consumption. But this is typical for Holmén"s courses. I think it is bad that a professor can set his own limits on exams (50% to pass instead of 40%), how is that possible?»
- Holmen is a great lecturer and teacher»
- Thanks for an interesting course!»

Thank you for your time.


Magnus Holmén

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.81
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.7

* obligatoriska frågor

Kursutvärderingssystem från