Slutrapport kursutvärdering, MTTN40

Basfakta

Sammanfattning av enkätsvar

På alla frågor utom den om närvaro kan poängen variera mellan -100 och +100, där -100 innebär att man "tar helt avstånd från påståendet" och +100 att man "instämmer helt i påståendet".

Närvaro vid undervisningen Andel av undervisningen Antal Andel 0-30 % 1 2 % 30-70 % 7 13 % 70-100 % 44 80 % Skalor & enskilda frågor Skala Poäng StdAvv God undervisning +14 41 Tydliga mål +15 54 Förståelseinriktad examination +27 31 Lämplig arbetsbelastning +9 40 Enskilda frågor Kursen känns angelägen för min utbildning +19 65 Överlag är jag nöjd med den här kursen +20 69

Fördelning av svar på fråga 26: "Överlag är jag nöjd med den här kursen"        Antal Andel Missnöjda (<0) 16 29 % Neutrala (0) 9 16 % Nöjda (>0) 30 55 % Har ej besvarat frågan 0 0 % Medelpoäng +20 Standardavvikelse (StdAvv) 69 Män +7 Kvinnor +38

Fördelning av svar på fråga 17: "Kursen känns angelägen för min utbildning"      Medelpoäng +19 Standardavvikelse (StdAvv) 65

Kommentarer

Studierådets kommentarer

Kurslärarens kommenterer

On 16/2, 2016 we had a meeting with three student representatives to discuss the CEQ results and our ideas for course improvements. Based on the CEQ results and the discussion with the student representatives, we conclude the following:

Best parts of the course:

• Project work with companies (packaging development project)
• Working in groups with students from different programmes
• Guest lectures

Comment by teachers: Since most students enjoy the project work we will continue to work with companies for the projects and also keep the requirement of forming diverse project groups (with students from different programmes). We will also strive for having the same balance between guest lectures and lectures by teachers from our department.

Weakest parts of the course:

• Project reports (report requirements/description and feedback)

Comment by teachers: From the CEQ results, we got the impression that not all students are happy with the requirements put on the written reports and on the way that we give feedback to the group reports. The student representatives thought that this has mainly to do with the problem that the project tasks are very diverse and for some projects the report requirements do not fit that well. Regarding the feedback given to reports, the student representatives said that they would appreciate more feedback on reports before grading.

• Workload

Comment by teachers: From the CEQ results we got the impression that some students perceive that the workload is too high. During the CEQ meeting with the student representatives, we received the feedback that this is most probably due to the continuous individual hand-ins and group-hand-ins that are required along the course. Some students appreciate that the workload is evenly distributed over the whole course but other students would prefer to do most of the hand-ins towards the end of the course instead.

Another aspect of the course that was discussed with the student representatives was the grading system. Based on this discussion, it seems that some students perceive that the level of required points for the best grade (5) is too high and that the grading system for prototype and poster contains some aspects that do not seem clearly related to the purpose of the course.

To address the weaknesses of the course, we have planned to:

• Evaluate whether we can clarify the report requirements
• Evaluate how we can improve the feedback given to reports (suggestions are e.g. to provide oral feedback to groups instead of written feedback, to inform students more about report requirements, to provide more flexibility in how to fulfil report requirements)
• Evaluate whether we can improve the grading system

Programledarens kommentarer

CEQ-enkäten fylldes i