Sammanställning och utvärdering av - PDF

UMEÅ UNIVERSITET Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga fakulteten Mall Reviderad Sammanställning och utvärdering av Kurs Nordliga Akvatiska System/Nordic Aquatic Ecosystems Kursdatum Kurskod

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 7
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.


Publish on:

Views: 18 | Pages: 7

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

UMEÅ UNIVERSITET Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga fakulteten Mall Reviderad Sammanställning och utvärdering av Kurs Nordliga Akvatiska System/Nordic Aquatic Ecosystems Kursdatum Kurskod NGED12 Sammanställningsdatum 6.11, , 2014 Institution Kursansvarig EMG Antal kvinnor 5 Antal män 4 Genomströmning och betygsutfall, samt vid vilket tillfälle. Vid SMAK utvärderingen: 78 %, 3VG, 4G; 2U Ann-Kristin Bergström Målgrupp/er vid detta kurstillfälle Advanced level course; Target group: Students with 6o ECTS in Earth Science/Physical Geography or Biology or Chemistry or Environmental Science and 30 ECTS in Earth Science/Physical Geography or equivalent knowledge Föregående kurstillfälle Vad var positivt? Vad var negativt? Vem var ansvarig för att följa upp förbättrings- och förändringsförslagen och till vilken tidpunkt. What was positive? What was negative? Who was responsible to follow up and improve the course based on earlier suggestions based on course evaluations? On what time should those changes have been mase? Evaluation.Positivt (Positive): Good to have the articles gathered in a compendium and numbered to each related lectures The literature was good The excursion was good Lectures was really good Mentometers was great Student work was really good Like that we practised so much on presentations/ many presentations was really good The course was overall really good, I learned a lot The course should be included in the forest program at SLU, Umeå Like that we had much time to prepare on our own Good mixture between own work and work within groups The examinations forms were really pedagogical; liked home examination and student work The seminars were good Negativt (Negative): Level of te lectures sometimes too high The seminars need to be improved with more discussions/group discussions, scientific synthesis (pointed out by several students ca 3-4). More focus on own analyzes and discussions Level to low for an advance course; too little to do Too much time scheduled time; could be filled with more discussion The laboratory and the connected DOM seminar was poorly coordinated and the aim of the practise was poorly presented and supervised (pointed out from a majority of the students) The following discussion and supervision considering the aim and the result was poor Time too short for the home examination The air in the computer room (230 NC) is really bad Too much car driving on the first day of the excursion The home examination should be earlier due to the fact that ERASMUS students are usually moving during those days in January Changes to be made to the next course occasion (autumn ) The part work the laboratory and DOM practise need to be improved. This year there were relatively many students on the course (22) in comparison with earlier years (6-12) which could be one explanation to why information/responsibilities and the aims were missed (communication problems together with un clear instructions) together with new teachers on the different parts. Will consider having clearer instructions and maybe having two persons for supervising during the practise and/or more hours scheduled for that practise. Improve the seminars discussion with more scheduled time for scientific discussion and follow up on those. Change the presentations of student own work to put together a poster instead of having a power point presentation and have a poster session for a day (including presentation, discussion and evaluation of the quality of the posters (voting by participant students) Changes made to this course occasion (2013) The DOM practise has been changed to 3 instead of 2 days. The student work presentations has been performed by making a poster. Detta kurstillfälle /This Course occasion Har kursen uppfyllt de mål (förväntade studieresultat) som finns i kursplanen? Kursens genomförande (klassrumsföreläsningar, PBL, nätinslag, projekt, laborationer, seminarier etc). Positivt och negativt för: föreläsningar, seminarier, gruppaktiviteter, laborationer och övrigt. Examinationen. English version (2014) This evaluation is based on 4 (44%) course evaluation from the students. The course has fulfilled the aims in the course plan. 3 YES. The course as a whole (mean values for all course evaluations) have been ranked as a 4.3 (5 is Very Good and 1 is Definitely not good) The following parts has been evaluated: literature (prize, content, availability, utilization degree during the lectures), lectures (pedagogic, content, tempo, level), laboratory (content, level), practises (content, level), seminars (content, level), student work (content, level), excursion (content, level), and finally a self-evaluation of the students own work during the course (time, amount of work). The ranking has been done following a 5 level ranking list; 5 Good 1 Bad (Pedagogic); 5 Relevant 1 Irrelevant (Content); 5 Too high 1 Too low (Tempo, Level). The literature compendium was very much appreciated (both for content and for having access to all articles). As a whole a majority of the course has been ranked at a high level (on average a 4). The pedagogic was ranked from median to high level, and the content of the lectures as well as the level were ranked at a high level (with a few exceptions in both). The tempo was ranked as a 3, which is not too high and not too slow. Detailed descriptions of the ranking of individual teachers are presented below. The laboratory (DOM) was ranked (mean) as 4, hence well related to the aim whereas the level was ranked as 3.3. The DOM seminar, which relates to the computer laboratory exercise, had 3.7 scientific content and the level was 3 (hence, experienced as not too high or too low). The practises were judges as the content having 4.3 scientific level, whereas the level (i.e. the practical performance) was judged as being 3 (medium; ranging from high too low values). The student seminars were ranked at high level (mostly 4-5) considering the content and the level as good (mostly 3; one thought levels was too low on some of the seminars). The students own work was ranked as a 4.7 considering the content and the level was good (3). For the the excursion it was ranked as: Content: 5; Level 3. The evaluation on the students own work during the course was ranked: Time: 3.3 ; Amount of work: 3. Scores for individual teachers for lectures: Pedagogic Content Temp Level HL 4,7 5 3,7 3,3 AKB 4,5 4,5 3,5 3,5 JoK 4,3 4,3 3,3 3,3 JaK 4,0 4,7 3,7 3,3 RB 4,7 4,3 3,3 3,7 TA 3, ,3 Positivt (Positive): The excursions and the practices were good Good literature The working load was reasonable high The student seminar was good practice The time put aside for each different part was good The seminars and student work I think were the best parts of the course because I really learn a lot from reading articles and being able to discuss them with the class. The excursions were also a highlight because they taught us some field methods. The excursions Student work and the creation of poster RB lecture The DOM practise was good Poster session was really good Negativt (Negative): The time for the home examination could have been longer (a few more days needed) The characterization of DOC can be improved a bit. I think it would help to have a discussion about the different parameters that we were calculating in lab because at times it could be very confusing and difficult to understand what they meant. Also maybe having last years data as well in order to compare with ours could be very helpful. We had plenty of time to work on the project, staying from 8-5 isn t necessary but maybe the first day before starting there could be a mini lecture in the GIS lab explaining what the questions mean. Characterization of DOM. I felt lost and it was hard to evaluate the data. Wished for more meaningful discussions during the seminar and more supervision could have facilitated more discussions. The question No 1 was too broad in the home exam. Wished for a more focused question. Discussions within the groups and among the students was low as well as comments during seminars which was unfortunate. It was a bit unclear the purpose of the different tasks within the computer practise of DOM. This could be improved. Förslag till nästa kurstillfälle/suggestions for next course occassion Förändringar som har gjorts till nästa kurstillfälle (vt 2011): Changes to be made to the next course occasion (autumn ) The DOM computer practise need to be further improved. Will consider having clearer instructions and explain in more detail the purpose of each task in that practise. Improve the seminars discussion with more scheduled time for scientific discussion and follow up on those. A bit more discussions, and less presentations. Improve the examination criteria s of the seminar discussions; to force discussions. Have 2 poster sessions during the course; that would make it possible to improve one s skills during the course. Vi är överens om ovanstående text Medverkande lärare Kursansvarig: Ann-Kristin Bergström Medverkande student Holger Jacobsson
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks