Report Course Evaluation, MTTN40

Basic facts

Course namePackaging Technology and Development
Course codeMTTN40   Course syllabus
ECTS credits7.5
Study period the course was finishedHT_LP1
Programmeall (MFIP)
Registrated students65
Number and share of passed students     53 / 82 %
Number answers and response rate48 / 74 %
Number answers from males21
Number answers from females25
Study hours according the curricula
Lectures    40 h
Group work    28 h
Laboratories    20 h
Time with supervisor    0 h
Self study time    112 h

Summary of questionnaires

The CEQ-score span between -100 och +100, there -100 means that "I fully disagree to the statement" and +100 "I fully agree to the statement".

Presence at teaching

Part of teachingNumberShare
0-30 %0 0 %
30-70 %3 6 %
70-100 %39 81 %

Scales and questions

Good Teaching+2045
Clear Goals and Standards+2647
Appropriate Assessment+2837
Appropriate Workload-249
Special questions
The course seems important for my education+2465
Overall, I am satisfied with this course+2859
Graf of scales and questions

Distribution of the answers from question 26:
"Overall, I am satisfied with this course"

     Graf of question 26

Dissatisfied (<0) 8 17 %
Neutral (0) 11 23 %
Satisfied (>0) 28 58 %
No answer 1 2 %

Mean of CEQ-score+28
Standard deviation (StdDev)59

Distribution of the answers from question 17:
"The course seems important for my education"

     Graf of question 17

Mean of CEQ-score+24
Standard deviation (StdDev)65


Comments by the students' representatives

The group project overall, but especially to work with new people, to do something practical and the company contact. The diversity of lectures. The relevance for the education and future.

Some guest lectures don’t feel so relevant, are unispiring and some companies talk too much about themselves. Do hand ins by email not printed copies. The feedback sessions are too long. The word limit on the report is too low. Not necessary with individual assignments, exam and group project, too much workload and repetetitive.

Comments by the course leader

Based on the CEQ results and the meeting with student representatives (2017-12-15), we conclude the following:
1. Best parts of the course:
• Project work with companies (packaging development project)
• Working in groups with students from different programmes
• Organization and structure of the course
Comment by teachers: Since the students were satisfied with these parts of the course we will keep the project part of the course, we will keep the requirement for forming diverse groups and we will keep the overall structure of the course. In 2017 we have introduced a new system for handing in, getting feedback on and grading the project reports. Based on the CEQ results and the discussion with the student representatives, we conclude that this new way of handling the project reports was well received by this years’ students and we will therefore keep that system for 2018.

2. Weakest parts of the course:
• Guest lectures
• Too high workload (too many assignments)
Comment by teachers to guest lectures: During the meeting with the student representatives, we discussed the quality of the guest lectures. The students said that some guest lectures were excellent while others were less good. Issues with less good guest lectures were when there was too much talk about the companies and when there was overlap between different guest lectures.
To address this weakness, we have planned to:
• Evaluate the data collected about individual lectures (own course evaluation data) to get more detailed information about which guest lectures that students do not find valuable.
• Evaluate where we can avoid overlap between guest lectures and inform the affected presenters.
Comment by teacher to workload: The course includes several individual and group assignments that are spread over the whole course period to make the students work continuously and to avoid having most of the learning activity at the end of the course. The student representatives did personally not agree with the CEQ results (that the workload is too high). They said however that an issue might be that in some groups the division of work is very uneven. Thereby the hard-working students have to balance for the less active students and maybe get too much to do. If some students are left alone with the biggest share of the group work in addition to the individual assignments that they hand in, their workload might be too high.
To address this weakness, we have planned to:
• Evaluate how we can make sure that the students do a few individual assignments during each part of the course (instead of doing most individual assignments during course part 1)
• Evaluate the possibility to reduce the number of optional individual assignments
• Require all groups to meet with their supervisor once during part 1 and part 2 of the course. Make it mandatory to discuss the group’s working situation in these meetings (division of workload between different group members).

Comments by the programme director

Comments have not been submitted before the deadline

How the questionnaires were filled in

At the final prototype exhibition (redovisning av projektresultat)