|
Kursen kändes relevant för de flesta studenter och innehållet var vad många hade väntat sig. Det var uppskattat att kursen hade nära anknytning till maxlab och dess stålrör. Studenterna var nöjda med föreläsaren och innehållet på föreläsningarna men det rådde delade åsikter om upplägget. Några ville ha fler föreläsningar med PowerPoints, andra ville ha mer skrivande på tavlan. Övningarna var uppskattade, speciellt att de var i anslutning till varandra samt till den sista hemuppgiften. Programmet som användes för simuleringen får lite kritik för dess ej användarvänliga gränssnitt och vissa tyckte att instruktionerna var något otydliga ibland. De som använt litteraturen gav den positivt omdömme och tillgången till allt kursmaterial på kurshemsidan var omtyckt. En majoritet tyckte att hemuppgiften var att föredra framför en vanlig tentamen i den här kursen och och många gillade upplägget med skrivandet av en rapport. Vissa tyckte att lite mer hjälp inte hade skadat vid utförandet av hemuppgiften. Ett par studenter hade läst tidigare kurser i ämnet men kände inte att kurserna överlappade varandra för mycket. Både föreläsaren och övningsledaren var mycket uppskattad och det förväntade arbetet kändes rimligt.
The questionnaire form was provided to the students (13 in total: 10 LU incl. 7 PhD students, and 3 LTH students) before the presentations (week 3/2014). The questionnaires could be left to the voting box at MAX-lab reception to guarantee anonymity. The results, as I see them based on seven filled feedback forms, are shown below together with my response to the feedback.
The first question is used to find out if the course provided such content the students expected. The content was mostly evaluated as expected but included also a note about overlap with MAXM06 course (1 opinion). RESPONSE: At present, there are two common paths to MAXM16, either via MAXM06 or via MAXC11 – unfortunately that brings some overlap issues but this can be worked against by more detailed planning of the (MAX-lab) courses.
Questions two, three and four were aimed to evaluate the lectures, the exercises and the course literature, respectively. The general feedback was encouraging but somewhat mixed what it comes to forms of teaching (white-board vs. PowerPoint vs. discussion). The chain of exercises all supporting the final home duty was well received. Literature, though sometimes relying students taking the notes (laborious) by themselves was in average deemed adequate. RESPONSE: In my opinion the course book gives most of the required facts in very good format. However, some parts have to be extended and some parts are missing completely from the book. The biggest challenge is finding the best way to include that material in teaching: now I chose to write very fundamental parts to the white board; I have a feeling that if this was given as hand-out, the results would not have been so good. What remains to be done is finding the balance between students writing, and students reading.
I have not used conventional exam for this course under the last years. Also now, the home duty and the exercises were used as an exam. Question five is used to collect opinion about this examination method. Here all the opinions were supportive for the examination method; in one opinion the benefit of mastering more general aspects by ordinary exam was taken up. RESPONSE: Looking backwards the home duty reports, I would estimate the learning outcome very high, even what it comes to general understanding. I’m willing to continue this way of examination.
Question six concerns connection to other courses: Here positive overlap with earlier MAX-lab courses was given (see comment on question 1, though). RESPONSE: As long as this course can be accessed by two paths it will be difficult to match the content to the varying background the students might have – taking that into account, I think that the overlap is acceptable and in some parts even positive.
The last question was left for other comments and only some opinions came out, maybe one directly connected to questioning randomly selected student about content of previous lecture. RESPONSE: Resent studies focusing in learning methods show that going back to previous content before new material increases the learning outcome strongly – I decided to try that this year and will do it in future too.
The questionnaires could be left to the voting box at MAX-lab reception to guarantee anonymity.