Slutrapport kursutvärdering, FLYN05

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 % 0 0 % 30-70 % 1 33 % 70-100 % 2 67 % Skalor & enskilda frågor Skala Poäng StdAvv God undervisning +53 27 Tydliga mål +21 26 Förståelseinriktad examination +71 19 Lämplig arbetsbelastning +21 14 Enskilda frågor Kursen känns angelägen för min utbildning +100 0 Överlag är jag nöjd med den här kursen +83 29

Fördelning av svar på fråga 26: "Överlag är jag nöjd med den här kursen"        Antal Andel Missnöjda (<0) 0 0 % Neutrala (0) 0 0 % Nöjda (>0) 3 100 % Har ej besvarat frågan 0 0 % Medelpoäng +83 Standardavvikelse (StdAvv) 29

Fördelning av svar på fråga 17: "Kursen känns angelägen för min utbildning"      Medelpoäng +100 Standardavvikelse (StdAvv) 0

Kommentarer

Kursrepresentantens kommentarer

En mycket uppskattad och lärorik kurs som behandlade intressanta och nya modeller som är högst relevanta för framtiden. Tills nästa kursstart ska arbetsbelastningen mellan individuella uppgifter och grupparbeten ses över. Utöver detta kan föreläsningarna och seminarierna få ett större fokus på den praktiska tillämpningen av metoderna.

Kurslärarens kommenterer

The survey shows that all respondents were satisfied with the course and all indicate that the course seems important for their education, which are encouraging results.

During the meeting between course responsible and student representative it was reported that 25-30% response rate is relatively normal. During this meeting, the following potential improvements were discussed, where the representative indicated repeatedly that the general design of the course was appropriate and that these potential changes would be minor adjustments of a good course with already interesting and relevant content:

Good Teaching scored +53, and could be improved by more extensive and timely feedback after assignments. Also, practical application and how the methods are used in industry could be emphasized more. The content and plan for seminars could be announced more clearly beforehand, so that the difference between seminars for teacher-guided self-study (attended less, generally) and teacher-guided practical workshops (attended more, generally) is made more distinctly and clearly, which could raise attendance rates. The student representative indicated that this course was theoretically interesting and for the depth of the two method students have not worked with (much) before, which means that some respondents’ request for more practical examples should not completely overshadow the theoretical parts of the course. There is also some overlap with the MTO perspective taught in other courses, which all R students will have undergone, as well as with FLYN01 which some but not all students will have taken. Therefore the first module could probably be less theoretical and more practical and mention more differences of these methods to other risk analysis methods, as well as industry applications to early on illustrate course relevance.

Clear Goals and Standards scored +21, the student representative indicated this could have something to do with that the methods being taught (FRAM and STAMP) were mostly unknown to the students beforehand. The course description for next year has already been changed to mention both FRAM and STAMP and their main literature, to set clearer expectations. The course can be published with all modules as a whole next time at course start, or at least with a longer description of each module (lecture, seminar, and peer reviews), now that the first execution of the course during HT26 has shown that the modules’ tempo is feasible.

Appropriate Assessment was positive at +71. Individual exercises and peer reviews with pass/fail and group assignment with grades 3-5 was generally indicated as suitable, also by the student representative.

Appropriate Workload was at +21, workload was experienced as quite high, though not excessive (still a positive score). Individual assignments and peer reviews might not all have given as much learning outcomes compared to the time invested and time taken away from the group assignment that these implied, so their number or workload could be reduced. The idea of having the group assignment submission by week 2, at the end of LP2, or by week 1 with a group assignment peer review and resubmission, was received well by the student representative. High workload towards the end could be mitigated by student groups having to submit a project plan early on for the group assignment so that they start work on the group project earlier in the course. Workload overlap with a concurrent other LP2 course that also had a peak workload before the Christmas break may have also played a role, according to the student representative.

Generic Skills scored +64 which seems alright but might further be improved with the improvements above. Survey and representative indicate that it is interesting that other systemic methods are mentioned and introduced at the end of the course as an orientation, but they do not need more exercises.

CEQ-enkäten fylldes i