Visa resultat

eHealth, SSY115, vt2008

Your own effort

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

15 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		4		26%
Around 20 hours/week»		8		53%
Around 25 hours/week»		2		13%
Around 30 hours/week»		1		6%
At least 35 hours/week»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- This course in all honesty is a joke. This is a masters programme and the level of this course is a joke compared to previous courses I"ve had here at chalmers. As a matter of fact the whole biomedical engineering programme is a joke, the level of the programme is subpar to other masters programme at chalmers. How is it a course at this programme is based on silly handins and lectures where company presentations are at focus? What do we gain from that? We are here to gain knowledge of science and technology but yet in this and other biomedical courses we are given unneccessary BS information. THIS IS A MASTERS PROGRAMME AT CHALMERS!!! COURSES LIKE THIS DO NOT BELONG HERE!!! I"ve done all my handins ON the lecture before the deadline, THAT MEANS I"ve done them in 2 hours. How can a course be that easy?, four childrens-game-handins and a copy/paste report to PASS? Oh, let"s not forget the extremely difficult requirement of attendance at ALL lectures, HAHA THIS COURSE IS A JOKE!!! No Offence to any one in charge but really, this course is totally unneccessary, we don"t learn anything important or anything we can"t learn for a ourselfs by googling the internet for 15 minutes.» (Around 30 hours/week)

2. How many lectures did you attend?

Less than 8»		0		0%
8-9»		0		0%
9-10»		5		38%
11-12»		8		61%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

- all of the lectures because it was compulsary to attend (first lecturer who done such a thing!)» (?)
- Some of the lectures were a bit out of the Biomdical Engineering Scope, we are not studying computer science! However overall were quite good.» (11-12)

3. How many project presentation sessions did you attend?

None»		0		0%
1»		7		50%
2»		4		28%
3»		2		14%
4»		1		7%

Genomsnitt: 2.78

- not yet.» (?)
- Haven"t gone yet but I assume I will go to my own presentation session!!!» (1)
- one extra then my own presentation day» (2)

4. How often did you attend the consulation time?

Never»		6		40%
Once»		6		40%
A few times»		3		20%
Often»		0		0%
Very often»		0		0%
Every time»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.8

- Can"t imagine why the HELL anyone would need consulation!, Consulation about WHAT? This course was kids play, what are we supposed to go and get consulation about how to use google? HAHA THIS IS A JOKE!!!» (Never)
- This was a very good service though I didn"t made use of it as much as I would like.» (Once)
- for homework feedback» (Once)

Goals and goal fulfilment

5. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		2		14%
The goals are difficult to understand»		0		0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		7		50%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		5		35%

Genomsnitt: 3.07

- The goals gave information to some extent but I think eHealth and the cource itself gave more knowlege than was described in the goals. If that is not true more focus should have been on remote care services.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- It"s not that the goals are unclear, but rather NOT ACHEIVED!!! It says: The overall aim of the course is to provide health providers and the healthcare industry with people having basic skills and prerequisites to design and implement eHealth solutions, inside as well as outside the hospital environment. Lärandemål (efter fullgjord kurs ska studenten kunna) · describe a generic biomedical remote surveillance or eHealth system, from sensors to caregiver user interface, and to be able to implement such a system on a small scale, · discuss possibilities and limitations of remote surveillance systems, to reflect on its impact on humans and on society as a whole, and to demonstrate awareness of the responsibilities of the engineer in this context, · understand the needs for standardization and interfacing between various systems, and have basic knowledge of existing international standards applicable to eHealth solutions. HOW IS 4 handins which only needs 15 minutes of googling to pass by writing 2 handwritten pages of BS a way to teach us basic skills to design and implement eHealth solutions? The handin on remote surveillance was kids play as the rest of the handins, anyone with half a brain present the last 10 years could understand how it would work, VIDEO CONFERENCING!!! All in all this course content was everything BUT new, only a fool would fail to realize the desire and need for standardization in ANY industry let alone healthcare.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

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

13 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		2		15%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		10		76%
No, the goals are set too high»		1		7%

Genomsnitt: 1.92

- 7.5 Credits for this BS? By Chalmers standards this is a joke.» (No, the goals are set too low)
- But the lectures must be arranged in a way that we could get some background knowledge before we advance to more complicated issues.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

No, not at all»		1		8%
To some extent»		2		16%
Yes, definitely»		1		8%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		8		66%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- i hav`t attended, i just dropped» (?)
- The exam was voluntary for higher grade which means that for a pass (grade 3) it is only needed to attend lectures, pass 4 handins and write a report and present it. All these are kids play.» (No, not at all)
- The home exam should have been mandatory.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		3		20%
Some extent»		2		13%
Large extent»		8		53%
Great extent»		2		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

- What teaching? The content of the lectures where nothing informative in means of value to our education. Stuff presented to us at lectures were information that was already know or could be attained by 15 minutes of googling. Im exaggerating but you get the point.» (Small extent)
- Well, the teaching were lectures so hard to tell, but about the teacher i am happy, she returned everything with comments rather fast, good comments, I liked the feedback. Otherwise it would have been a waste of time.» (Large extent)
- The drawback is that the lectures sometimes overlap (and the mistake with same lecture as i introduction...) and even sometimes contradictable.» (Large extent)
- Very helpful and she takes her time to listen and help» (Great extent)

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

Small extent»		4		28%
Some extent»		6		42%
Large extent»		3		21%
Great extent»		1		7%

Genomsnitt: 2.07

- HAHA WHAT LITERATURE!!! The whole course was all oppinions and science-fiction imagination.» (Small extent)
- The book is really good, very general, but helped a lot.» (Large extent)
- I don"t like literature as such but I have read a lot of papers during the work on assignments and project. I even found myself reading health standards for fun and once dreamed in HL7.» (Large extent)

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

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		0		0%
Rather well»		3		20%
Very well»		12		80%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- We could know exactly how everything was going on with the webpage, the teacher really used it. » (Very well)
- The webpage, handouts and all were all great in terms of information needed.» (Very well)
- I have never seen better, and didn"t thought the student portal were actually capable of such administration.» (Very well)

11. How did you like the course examination form (assignments, project, mandatory lectures and home exam)?

Very poor»		2		13%
Rather poor»		0		0%
Rather good»		5		33%
Very good»		8		53%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

- Assignments-Kids play, did them 2 hours before deadline. Project-Kids play, all oppinion based copy/paste material. Lectures-REALLY USELESS Exam-Haven"t done it yet, but since it is only needed for higher grade I can say it"s not done proberly based on the low requirements to pass.» (Very poor)
- assignments were very simple so that a high school student could easily answered. 3 of them were more like writing our imagination ruther than research and science. we couldn"t even seearch them on the internet because they were not objective and scienctific concepts.» (Very poor)
- I nerver like mandatory lectures but most of them were interesting.» (Rather good)
- i loved the project.Its a pitty we can not do anything more practical, but looks hard to do.» (Very good)

12. How often did you check the homepage?

Never»		0		0%
A few times»		0		0%
Every week»		1		6%
A few times per week»		9		60%
Every day»		5		33%

Genomsnitt: 4.26

13. How good was the quality of feedback from the teacher?

Very poor»		1		6%
Rather poor»		1		6%
Rather good»		5		33%
Very good»		8		53%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- we were supposed to hand-in "first draft" and get feedback to improve our project works. but Anna wanted us to deliver almost a complete project "just with minor defects" ruther than a draft. What does "fist" draft mean? Are ther any other drafts or oppertunities to get feedback? It was absloutly naive!» (Very poor)
- As i said, very good. She actually read everything we wrote» (Very good)
- Anna is very nice and helpful and was very good at giving feedback when it was needed.» (Very good)
- Very good feedback though one could wish more feedback on the project report but small corrections, though they were many :)» (Very good)
- Great feedback!» (Very good)

Individual lectures

14. Introduction (Bengt Arne Sjöqvist, Ortivus)

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		2		13%
Rather good»		1		6%
Very good»		7		46%
I did not attend the lecture»		5		33%

Genomsnitt: 4

- Don"t remember specifics» (Rather poor)
- all of the lectures were given without any background and they were not technically-oriented. Just a lot of concepts and texts.» (Rather poor)
- This is one I would not quite. More device oriented.» (Very good)

15. Medical Image Systems (Daniel Persson, Siemens)

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		2		13%
Rather good»		6		40%
Very good»		5		33%
I did not attend the lecture»		2		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.46

- Don"t remember specifics» (Rather poor)

16. Medical Simulators (Christina von Dorrien, Mentice)

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		2		13%
Rather good»		6		40%
Very good»		6		40%
I did not attend the lecture»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- Don"t remember specifics» (Rather poor)
- Very interesting» (Rather good)

17. eHealth Projects and Usability (Isabella Scandurra, Univ of Uppsala)

Very poor»		1		6%
Rather poor»		5		33%
Rather good»		3		20%
Very good»		4		26%
I did not attend the lecture»		2		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.06

- Don"t remember specifics» (Rather poor)
- The projects were very interesting, but the lecture was hard!» (Very good)

18. International eHealth Programs (Silas Olsson, European Commission)

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		1		6%
Rather good»		5		33%
Very good»		9		60%
I did not attend the lecture»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.53

- Don"t remember specifics» (Rather poor)
- Although I do not like these regulations its interesting.» (Rather good)
- A good overview could have come earlier» (Very good)
- It was the only nice lecture!» (Very good)

19. Organizations, Rules and Regulations (Conny Persson, Sahlgrensa University Hospital)

Very poor»		1		7%
Rather poor»		2		14%
Rather good»		8		57%
Very good»		3		21%
I did not attend the lecture»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.92

- This felt a bit familiar» (?)
- Don"t remember specifics» (Rather poor)

20. National IT-strategy (Gösta Malmer, Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions)

Very poor»		1		6%
Rather poor»		5		33%
Rather good»		4		26%
Very good»		5		33%
I did not attend the lecture»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- Good overview about swedish system (and i thing we already had him)» (Rather poor)
- Don"t remember specifics» (Rather poor)

21. Electronic Patient Records (Jan Hernell, Siemens)

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		6		40%
Rather good»		6		40%
Very good»		3		20%
I did not attend the lecture»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- Well i do not know how important this is for us. » (Rather poor)
- Don"t remember specifics» (Rather poor)

22. eHealth Terminology (Hans Åhlfeldt, Linköping Institute of Technology)

Very poor»		2		13%
Rather poor»		3		20%
Rather good»		6		40%
Very good»		3		20%
I did not attend the lecture»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- Don"t remember specifics» (Rather poor)
- He gave a good impression though i do not remember much and that is perhaps not so good.» (Very good)

23. Healthcare Standards (Mikael Wintell, VGR)

Very poor»		2		13%
Rather poor»		4		26%
Rather good»		3		20%
Very good»		5		33%
I did not attend the lecture»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- Don"t remember specifics» (Rather poor)

24. Stroke Rehabilitation at home with ICT (Martin Rydmark, Mednet)

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		2		13%
Rather good»		5		33%
Very good»		6		40%
I did not attend the lecture»		2		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.53

- Don"t remember specifics» (Rather poor)
- He had a manner that felt like he didn"t care and that effected my attitude, but what he said was pretty ineresting.» (Rather good)
- Very good. I love it.» (Very good)

25. ACTION (Liina Savolainen)

Very poor»		1		7%
Rather poor»		2		14%
Rather good»		7		50%
Very good»		3		21%
I did not attend the lecture»		1		7%

Genomsnitt: 3.07

- Don"t remember specifics» (Rather poor)
- I love it» (Very good)

26. Bioinformatics (Elof Dimenäs, AstraZeneca)

Very poor»		2		13%
Rather poor»		4		26%
Rather good»		4		26%
Very good»		2		13%
I did not attend the lecture»		3		20%

Genomsnitt: 3

- I donnot see the point of this lecture. Rather far from our scope» (Very poor)
- Don"t remember specifics» (Rather poor)
- It was very hard to grasp what he intended to communicate with us.» (Rather good)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		0		0%
Rather good»		4		26%
Very good»		10		66%
I did not seek help»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- Anna is a very nice and kind person. She is easy to approach and asking for help was problem free.» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		1		6%
Rather poorly»		0		0%
Rather well»		2		13%
Very well»		11		73%
I did not seek cooperation»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

- We have had some problems since we take a bit different courses.» (Rather well)
- What were there to cooperate about?» (I did not seek cooperation)

29. How was the course workload?

Too low»		1		6%
Low»		2		13%
Adequate»		11		73%
High»		1		6%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- This is getting repetitive, THE COURSE WAS A JOKE!!!» (Too low)

30. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		1		6%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		8		53%
High»		4		26%
Too high»		2		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- THE WHOLE BIOMEDICAL MASTERS PROGRAMME IS A JOKE!!!» (Too low)
- Though I blame myself for taking 4 courses.» (Too high)
- cuz I took 3 courses » (Too high)

Summarizing questions

31. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		2		14%
Fair»		2		14%
Adequate»		2		14%
Good»		4		28%
Excellent»		4		28%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- i dropped out in between,but my impression general of the course is good, Anna is a very good teacher, and very helping. Compliments for her effort.» (?)
- Joke.» (Poor)
- It was the worst course ever which offered in biomedical program. I hardly can imagine that I know something more than what I knew before I got this course.» (Poor)

32. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

33. What should definitely be changed to next year?

34. Additional comments