Evaluation KEMM07 “Colloidal Domain” autumn 2013
Answer in English or Swedish. Please use the back side of this form or a separate piece of paper if you need more space.
Please send in your evaluation to , or leave it in Emma’s mailbox at +2
1. Student category (undergraduate or PhD)
Undergraduate: 3
PhD students:6
2. The goals of this course are that the student should acquire a more profound physico-chemical knowledge within the area of colloid and surface chemistry, and a quantitative understanding of a selection of fundamental phenomena within the subject. Were these goals accomplished? Answer with a grade 0 – 5. Comment if you wish.
Undergraduates:
- 5
- 4
- 4. Most of the goals were achieved. But still some difficulties with some electrostatics theories
PhD students:
- 5.The course was very well organized and useful
- 4
- 5
- 3
- 5, good with the CD, good with different teachers
- 3
- 5. I'm a physicist and know no chemistry, which I really think I do now, to a larger degree
3. Evaluate the lectures by giving a grade 0 – 5. Comment if you wish.
Undergraduates:
- 5
-4
- 5. Good complement to the book
PhD students:
- 5
- 4. If lectures at 8 a.m., the lecturers need to work harder in order to ensure that listeners don't fall asleep. Many of you managed to do that. Interactions with the students is a very good way.
- 5
- Emma's and Lennart's: 5. Anna's 4, Rest: 2-3. It would probably be good for us students if Lennart or Emma took care of the most difficult parts.
- Emma 5, Lennart 5, Anna 5, Tommy 3, Erik 3, Peter 5
- 4
- 3. Didn't attend all but those where I attended were good even though I don't really like discussions. I learn from listening.
4. Evaluate the lab course by giving a grade 0 – 5. Comment if you wish.
Undergraduates:
- 5. Intressanta och givande laborationer
-4
- 4. Lab courses were well done, we can better understand the course. But 3 students per lab is too much. 2 is better. Good complement to the course
PhD students:
- (no lab course)
- 4. Very serious and time consuming. Good for learning about what the labs are about, bad since I didn't have time to learn what the rest of the course was about
- (no lab course)
- 4
- 5. Very good and good supervisors. Helped a lot with the understanding
- (no lab course)
- 4. Good lab assistants. The labs gave a good practical view of the theoretical basis.
5. Evaluate the computer exercises by giving a grade 0 – 5. Comment if you wish
Undergraduates:
- 5
- 3
- 4
PhD students
- 5
- 4. Both exercises contributed to my understanding of the course material. It was good for me to learn how to work with
- 5
- 3. It felt a bit meaningless to use programs that you did not understand but to analyze the results were good
- Good to have them in order to get a better understanding. But I would like to have more comments on the report.
- 3
- Were not there, did it on my own. The web page crashed which was bad. Would like to know a little bit more about the software used (but maybe they did that at the actual exercise). Good lab assistant!
6. Evaluate the literature study/presentation by giving a grade 0 – 5. Comment if you wish
Undergraduates:
- 5
- 3
- 5. A way to learn how to search in the literature, and to train to expose in English for scientific studies
PhD students
- 5
- 4. Enough time was spent on it. Good that we got some feedback
- 5. It is a good chance to practice
- 2
- 5. Good with feedback on presentations
- 4
- 4. Good! Maybe if we got more than 1 day to prepare it would be even better but maybe a quick presentation was the point.
7. What did you particularly like about the course?
Undergraduates:
- Laborationer och föreläsnignar ger en väldigt bra bild på olika delmoment av kursen
- good lectures, labs and book
- Generally all the course, very good course to understand many phenomena
PhD students
- Lectures, oral exam, presentations
- It was very serious and covered lots of material. Good with some discussions during lectures. Good with diagnostic test.
- It contains almost all of the basic concepts of this field
- Emma's and Lennart's lectures
- The overall composition. To use theoretical arguments for observed phenomena
- Particularly Emma's lectures as they were clear and simple
- The content, most of it anyway
8. What did you particularly dislike about the course?
Undergraduates:
- (no answer)
- nothing really, just high pace
- Electrostatic and forces was very interesting but more difficult
PhD students
- morning lectures
- I didn't have enough time to learn the material. The errors in the book.
- The book is too much to read
- Very different level of knowledge required between different lecturers. Some focused a lot on the maths, while others focused only on understanding
- (no answer)
- The timing
-The book. Many errors
9. How many hours per week (in average, not only during the last week), did you spend on the course?
Undergraduates:
- 4 to 6
- 5
- 7
PhD students
- 10
- 25-30 (including labs)
- 15
- 35-40
- 30
- 15-20 hours
- Had it last year and now I completed what I missed then so I don't know
10. Other comments and/or recommendations for future courses.
Undergraduates:
- Det skulle ha varit bra om man kunde få svaren till uppgifterna i boken.
- (no answer)
- please start courses at 9 or 10, not 8.
PhD students
- (no answer)
- Would be better if there were some more days between the diagnostic test and the exam. It would be very valuable to get a complete errata with the book.
- Adding more literature study
- Correct mistakes in the book
- Force the students to be more active and participate in discussions
- (no answer)
- (no answer)