Slutrapport kursutvärdering, MTTN80

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 % 5 14 % 70-100 % 28 80 % Skalor & enskilda frågor Skala Poäng StdAvv God undervisning +64 24 Tydliga mål +32 37 Förståelseinriktad examination +36 45 Lämplig arbetsbelastning -13 33 Enskilda frågor Kursen känns angelägen för min utbildning +85 31 Överlag är jag nöjd med den här kursen +68 30

Fördelning av svar på fråga 26: "Överlag är jag nöjd med den här kursen"        Antal Andel Missnöjda (<0) 0 0 % Neutrala (0) 2 6 % Nöjda (>0) 32 91 % Har ej besvarat frågan 1 3 % Medelpoäng +68 Standardavvikelse (StdAvv) 30 Män +60 Kvinnor +74

Fördelning av svar på fråga 17: "Kursen känns angelägen för min utbildning"      Medelpoäng +85 Standardavvikelse (StdAvv) 31

Kommentarer

Kursrepresentantens kommentarer

Kurslärarens kommenterer

CEQ reflection MTTN80 2025
The course is of most students very appreciated and have been so for many years, CEQ-evaluations look very similar over the years, as well as students’ comments.
After each student group makes their final presentation, I also discuss their thoughts about the course so below comments are a mix of insights from the CEQ, and the qualitative oral feedback from students.
Students are very happy with the combination of more practical elements (games, cases, guest lecturers) and the theoretical elements (lectures and related scientific articles) and how theory and practice is "bridged". Further, students appraise the knowledge and engagement of the main teacher, and how the course bridges between other courses (as a capstone-course) and give them insight in how hard it really is to work cross-functional, interorganizational and strategy/tactical in Supply chains - and keep a holistic perspective. Students seems also happy with the engagement, helpfulness and the knowledge of the course responsible – and they find the course “fun” due to all games etc.

While many students also like the tougher requirement that is put on them in this course (to prepare them for what will happen when they get out in the professional life), some think the workload is too high. This year it was ranked to -13, and the only negative “number” in the CEQ-evaluation. The workload is in general the same for many years - but have over time been reduced although it does not show of in the CEQ.
The course is a mix of live-lectures, scheduled video-lectures with Q/A-session directly after, and group supervision. As Covid made me record all lectures (and later trimming them and texting them), I have used them for some of the lectures instead of live-lectures to a) give the students a flexibility in time for when to listening to the lecture, b) giving an opportunity to see the lecture many times, c) divide it in to shorter time periods to watch, d) being able to change speed on the lecture, e) and most important giving me as teacher more time to spend on preparing and supervising students related to different rounds of the "Fresh Connection-simulation games". A lot of teacher time is now spent on group discussions with students in teams of 3-4 students. There is a trade-off between spending more time on supervision in small teams, or live-lecturing of the full class.

When asking students about this - some prefer the flexibility of video-lectures and the intense supervision, while others find it more engaging with live-lectures. Based on the CEQ-discussion last year, I moved one lecture (SCRM) from VIDEO to a live one. Next year I plane to do the same for “Transformation of global SCs”. Part of this is to update them with new examples – as the SC have been very volatile the last years due to the geo-political development. However, contentwise the lecture has been really pointing to what we now have experienced.
However, the balance of spending time on supervisions vs live lectures , I have thought about this every year since changing, but decided for the higher flexibility and more intense supervision as (from what I understand in the discussion with all students, not only the ones answering CEQ) that this is appreciated. But I might now have to reduce the intensity of supervision and feedback. Feedback is for me very important (and it takes long time) but during the CEQ-meeting I was told that my feedback is very appreciated.

During the CEQ-meeting literature was discussed. While it was a change for students to read scientific articles instead of a text book, they did not complain of it. Instead, some of them found it good to learn how to read this kind of literature.
In terms of planning, there was complaints especially of the timing of one case – but this is due to how holidays were positioned this year (and they move every year). There was also a discussion of the planning with joint courses. While it worked fine with one, for the other there was some joint hand-in dates the last week. However – hand-in dates is hard to synchronize in the last week, and deadlines is deadlines and students could plan to hand-in before.
The major change for next year, 2026, will be that I will focus a bit more on SCRM, e.g. by changing to another version of the game that incorporates more of this, giving an additional lecture or Round Table related to this, and probably also invite a guest lecture. In the other hand, I will reduce lectures by combining Sustainability and Digitalization. The last year, we have established separate courses for those two themes.

So in short - the majority of the students find the course fun and that they learn a lot (but have to work hard) and I will keep those elements, while I might slowly reduce some pre-recorded lectures but then on the negative side I have to reduce some supervision activities.

CEQ-enkäten fylldes i

På tenta