Course analyses

Course analysis for Advanced Analytical Chemistry KEMM76 HT 2024

Course responsible teacher: Margareta Sandahl 
Other teachers: Peter Spégel, Fiona Nermark, Lars Nilsson 
Number of students registered: 22 registered students 
Course representative/s: Kristina Gustafsson, Evangelos Synefakis 
Grades: 5 st U, 6 st G, 5 st VG 5 st U, 1 st G, 0 st VG (re-take)

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: 6 out of 22 (27,3%) The low response rate means that the results should be interpreted with some caution, as there is a risk of selection bias.
Brief summary of the results: Overall, the students were very satisfied with the course. The students especially appreciated the lectures and videos going far in theory, the labs that provided a good amount of practice and that the course all together provided a deep understanding in analytical chemistry and in critical thinking. As suggestions for improvements some students mention that the application of statistics could be more prominent.

More than 5 of 6 students feel that they have reached 6 of the 9 course objectives to a high extent and 3 of the objectives were felt to be reached by at least 3 of 6 students.

Teaching in term of lectures and lab workshops are by most students believed to contribute to a high degree to their learning, while exercises and seminar to a satisfactory degree. Most students (5 of 6) claim that they have received feedback on their progress. The workload was felt by 4 of 6 as reasonable.

All 6 students claimed that the exam related to the intended learning objectives, that the course developed their critical thinking and that they felt respectfully treated by both teachers and fellow students.

Comments and reflections from the teachers

The teachers felt that the course went overall well. All students did not attend the exam (only 16 out of the 22 registered students) and the passing rate was 69% which is a little bit on the low side. The course is structured around lectures (also available as recordings), with four scheduled Q&A sessions evenly spaced throughout the course, as well as workshop sessions. The Q&A sessions aim to provide insights in how to argue for the choice of an analytical method based on the stated question/problem and chemical properties of the sample. We noted though that many students were absent during the Q&A sessions.

The course is heavily focused on laboratory work (the laboratory component accounts for 7.5 credits), providing opportunities for practice and feedback on learning in the subject through seven instrument-based labs and four computer-based exercises, the latter focused on multivariate statistic data processing and data analysis. In total, feedback is provided on eleven written reports. All students (except one that dropped off the course) earned the. 7.5 credits of the laboratory component the course comprises.

Furthermore, we have during the last years noted a negative trend in exam results regarding exam question of smaller parts of the course, such as method validation. This year only 4 of the 16 students that participated during the exam earned marks on this question (many did not even answer) indicating that this part of the course is ignored when studying for the exam.

Since the last time the course was held, we have extended the preparation time for the final seminar and this time there were no complaints. We also added a Q&A session for discussions regarding mass spectrometry. Moreover, a declaration of author contribution to the written reports was added attempting to provide the students with insights in authorship ethics.

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

Until the next time the course is given, we will discuss if any improvements can be done in the teaching to strengthen the students feeling about reaching the learning outcomes they mention being reached to a lesser degree. We will also try to come up with strategies that will attract the students into the Q&A sessions. Furthermore, we will discuss written examination formats designed to encourage studying all parts of the course.

2025-04-29, The course analysis is compiled by Margareta Sandahl

Course analysis for Advanced Biochemistry KEMM23 VT 2024

Course responsible teacher: Susanna Horsefield
Other teachers: Urban Johanson, Ingemar André, Henrik Stålbrand, Helin Strandberg, Simon Gripvall
Number of students registered: 27 registered students
Course representative/s: Linus Bohman, Herman Sjölin
Grades: 1 st U, 9 st G, 15 st VG

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: 17
Brief summary of the results: Overall, the students were very satisfied with the course. The students especially appreciated the labs, in particular LAB2 where they get to plan and execute their own project. The student also liked the lectures and the communication
and feed-back from teachers and course assistants. Some student’s commented on wanting more practical experience of protein chemistry methods and some of the lectures were thought to be a bit too detailed in places. A majority of the students (56.2%) stated that they used the course literature to a very low degree.

Comments and reflections from the teachers

The teachers felt that the course went well and that there was a positive atmosphere. Two of the problem exercises worked well but Problem 3 could be improved to promote better
discussions. There are still problems with LAB1 that needs to be looked into.

Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given

Since the last time the course was held, we have expanded Problem 2 which worked well. The difference between cloning and expression strains that often caused confusion when planning LAB2 was clarified during one of the lectures, which seemed to have worked. The enzymatic assay was removed from LAB1 which was an improvement.

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

Until the next time the course is given we plan to go through LAB1 to figure out what is
causing the problem. We also plan to remove the course book as this is not used to a large
extent and only focus on review and research articles as the course literature.

2025-02-06, The course analysis is complied by Susanna Horsefield

Course analysis for Advanced Biochemistry KEMM23 VT 2023

Course responsible teacher: Susanna Horsefield 
Other teachers: Urban Johanson, Henrik Stålbrand, Ingemar André, Helin Strandberg, Max Lindberg 
Number of students registered: 18 registered students 
Course representative/s: Klara Peltomaa, Wilhelm Hansson Wennersten 
Grades: 0 st U, 8 st G, 9 st VG

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: 11

Brief summary of the results: Overall, the students were satisfied with the course. The students especially appreciated LAB2 in which they plan and execute their own projects but some found it a bit stressful and that the feed-back could be improved. The problem discussions could be improved to stimulate more discussion amongst the students and LAB1 needs to be revised. It was also suggested that more time should be given to PCR/primer design and membrane protein purification.

Comments and reflections from the teachers

The teachers felt that the course went well overall. The topics of the problem discussions should be revised to allow for more in-depth discussions. There were some issues with LAB1 that need to be looked at before the course is given next time. It may be possible to shorten LAB1 to allow for a third lab on membrane protein solubilization and purification. The usefulness of the required reading got very mixed reviews in the course evaluation, it is difficult to know if this is because the students didn’t feel the need read the literature or if the literature itself was not appropriate.

Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given

Since the last time the course was held, we have changed the assignment of lab groups from being based on experience (students with more experience paired with students with less
experience) to randomized. This was perceived well by the students, although some prefer to choose their own lab partners. The protein purification in silico exercise was removed and parts of it was covered in Problem 2, which previously had been based on cloning. While the change of topic for Problem 2 seems like a better fit for course, the actual exercise needs to be expanded to stimulate more discussion. We added the opportunity to have individual feed-back sessions on the LAB2 project plans and this worked well but was not used by all. This will be kept next year and we will emphasize that this is a good opportunity to receive more feed-back.

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

Until the next time the course is given, we will go through LAB1 to minimize any technical issues and look into the possibility of adding a third lab on membrane protein purification. Problem 2 and 3 will be revised to stimulate more discussions. We will try to schedule LAB1 earlier so that there is more time for report writing before the LAB2 planning starts. The question about course literature (required reading) will be revised in the next course evaluation to better assess the student’s opinion on this part of the course.

2023-09-28, The course analysis is compiled by Susanna Horsefield

Evaluation summary for KEMM23 Advanced Biochemistry 15 hp VT2022

Course leader: Urban Johanson
Other teachers: Susanna Horsefield, Carl Johan Hagströmer, Dev Thacker, Max Lindberg
Guest lecturers: Henrik Stålbrand, Ingemar André
Number of students: 15
Grades after 2nd exam: Of the 15 students, 1 did not pass (U), 6 passed (G) and 8 passed with honours (VG), which is normal result on this course.

Evaluation:

Summary of course evaluations

Mid-course evaluation: Reported in the PM “Notes from mid-course evaluation meeting KEMM23 2022-05-02” made available for the students via Canvas. In general the course is working fine. Some suggested changes: move deadline for LAB1 report to the week after the practical, check that provided vector DNA in LAB1 has sufficient concentration, stronger recommendation to attend crash course on methods in molecular biology, some kind of individual supervision prior to presentation of version 2.0 of the plan for LAB2.

Survey&Report: 9 answers of 15 respondents (60%). This is still markedly lower than normal (66% five-year-average), but better than the previous two years (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Declining trend in answer frequency since 2018 is hopefully broken.

The categories were rated from 1 (helped my learning to a very low degree/very bad) up to 5 (helped my learning to a very high degree/very good) and opportunity to add free text was provided on each question. The general impression of the course is very good. All respondents are Fairly, or Very satisfied (average 4.6). This is the highest since 2015 and noticeably better than the five-year-average (4.2). Practicals (Fig. 2), Organisation, Lectures and Exam are the most appreciated categories (4.9, 4.8, 4.6 and 4.4, respectively), whereof the first two are much higher rated than last year (3.9 and 4.1), but also the two last categories are clearly higher than last year (both 4.1). The up-going trend for Exercises continue (4.2, last year 4.0) whereas Communication show a decline (4.1, last year 4.4).

Fig. 2 The practicals are the most highly rated category on this course.

Required reading, Study questions and Problems receive the lowest rating (2.4, 2.9 and 3.3). The two first categories are new questions introduced this year and show a markedly polarized response (Fig. 3), whereas Problems, which was evaluated once before (3.9) show a decline and has a more normal distribution with a peak at the average rating.

Fig. 3 The required reading has the lowest rating and a markedly polarized response among students.

The workload was assessed to be About right by all respondents.
The free text answers specified that the students particularly liked the planning for LAB2, to carry out the planned experiments, lab supervisors, teachers and the layout of the course, whereas too late deadline for LAB1 report, uneven workload, and too little text on power point handouts were disliked.

Comments by teaching team

The course is running very well and part of the particular good rating this year is probably related to that there were no restrictions enforced by Covid-19 this year.
The new evaluation questions specified that the Required reading, Study questions and Problems have the greatest potential for improvements. Unfortunately, there is no perfect textbook for this course and an alternative for the future may be to only rely on articles instead, but as stated in the mid-course
evaluation it is more challenging to read articles. More detailed text on power-point handouts could perhaps provide an alternative to the textbook in the future. About half of the students were helped by the study questions so they should not be removed, but maybe they could be more clearly related to the exam. Problem 2 is not so relevant for the course nowadays and can be replaced by the Exercise on Protein purification in silico.

Evaluation of implemented changes of the course

The following changes have been implemented this year:

• Going back to normal teaching on campus was much appreciated by students and teachers.
• Added evaluation questions on Study questions and Required reading, indicate the potential for improvements in these areas.
• Lab instructions and list of resources were revised, and in contrast to previous years there was no complaint on the written or oral instructions this year.
• Three assistants were engaged on the course, but only two at the time and that seems to have worked well.
• Due to breakdown of a freezer a lot of material was freshly ordered, which ruled out problems with e.g. contaminated stocks and inactive enzymes.

Suggested changes

• Make sure there is sufficient amount and concentration of the dual reporter vector för LAB1.
• Include a positive control for each lab group for the AP assay in LAB1.
• Set deadline for hand in of LAB1 report a little bit earlier and encourage students start with the report as early as possible.
• Provide open office hours for individual help with the planning of LAB2.
• Strongly recommend all students to attend lecture on methods in molecular biology.
• Consider random formation of lab groups.
• Replace Problem 2 with the Exercise on Protein purification in silico.

Summary compiled by Urban Johanson

Please contact studentexp [at] kemi [dot] lu [dot] se (studentexp[at]kemi[dot]lu[dot]se) if you would like a copy of the course analysis for Advanced Organic Chemistry.

Course analysis for Advanced Surface and Colloidal Chemistry KEMM87 HT 2024

Kursansvarig: Emma Sparr
Övriga lärare: Joakim Stenhammar, Ulf Olsson, Anna Stradner
Labhandledare: Marshall Machingauta, Marco Fornasier, Francesca Dessì, Timas Merkelis, Ismail El Korde, Oskar Svensson
Antal studenter: 9 registrerade studenter, varav 8 fullföljde kursen. Utöver dessa 10 doktorander (från CMPS, CAS, beräkningskemi, fysikalisk kemi, kemisk fysik samt fasta tillståndets fysik) registrerade motsvarande forskarutbildningskurs (NAKE013).
Betyg på muntlig examen: 1 U, 3 G, 4 VG efter ett muntligt tentamenstillfälle och ett muntligt omtentamenstillfälle (ej inräknat doktorander). En student deltog i kursen (inklusive laborationer) men deltog inte i tentamen.
Godkända studenter: 3 studenter godkända på tentamen men ej på alla delar av labkursen.

Sammanfattning av kursutvärderingen

11 studenter (inkluderande 5 doktorander), besvarade kursenkäten. Återkopplingen från studenterna är ganska varierad. Flertalet av studenterna anger att kursmålen uppfyllts mycket väl (4 eller 5 på en femgradig skala). Samma studenter är överlag positiva till föreläsningarna och kursens upplägg. Några studenter är dock ganska kritiska till kursen och framför klagomål på boken, att föreläsningarna bygger på att man läst i förväg, och att föreläsarna har olika sätt att presentera innehållet.

Den övergripande kursorganisationen och informationen via Canvas förefaller ha fungerat väl med undre laborationen.

Laborationer. Labbkursen består av 4 laborationer med ganska omfattande dataanalys och individuella rapporter. Flera av studenterna uttrycker att labhandledarna var hjälpsamma och att de lärde sig mycket av laborationerna och skrivandet av rapporterna. Andra upplevde att rapportskrivandet tog för mycket tid och att tidschemat var för tight. Det framförs en del kring att vissa av laborationerna innehåller mycket väntetid och demonstrationer. Instruktionerna för en av laborationerna lades upp på Canvas lite för sent för att alla studenter skulle kunna förbereda sig väl.

Datorövningar. De två obligatoriska datorövningarna får blandad återkoppling. Medan de ses som lärorika påpekas att det är utmanande att lära sig skriva skript i ett program som är tidigare okänt för flera av studenterna. Den första datorövningen verkar ha fungerat bra ochgett ökad förståelse för kursens innehåll. Dock framgår tydligt att den andra övningen (polymerteori) inte fungerat så bra, dels pga en bug i programmet (som rättades till under övningen men orsakade försening), och dels pga att övningen var svår och tekniskt krävande för de studenter som inte har någon vana vid programmering.

Litteraturövning. Litteraturövningen får genomgående gott omdöme. Den huvudsakliga kritiken ligger i att övningen görs efter tentamen. Vissa doktorander uppfattade att de inte har behov av en litteraturövning.

Arbetsbörda. Arbetsbördan verkar ha varierat. Studenterna svarar att de lagt ned mellan 20 och 45 timmar per vecka på kursen.

Kommentarer och åtgärder

Merparten av studenterna är positiva och anger att de har fått en fördjupad förståelse för yt- och kolloid-kemi, vilket även stämmer med lärarnas övergripande intryck efter den muntliga examinationen. Det är dock tydligt att några av Mastersstudenterna (två utav de svarande studenterna) inte delar denna bild, vilket är lite bekymmersamt. Samma studenter som inte anser att kursen gett
fördjupad förståelse inom området är även kritiska till boken, till föreläsningarnas upplägg där man förväntas läsa i förväg, att förläsningsanteckningarna inte summerar det man skaantag att instruktioner till en av laborationerna inte gjordes tillgänglig förrän dagen fö lära sig och att lärarna har skilda undervisningsstilar.

Vi är väl medvetna om kursbokens relativt höga svårighetsgrad. Eftersom det inte finns någon alternativ lärobok som behandlar alla de ämnen vi vill ta upp är det dock en grundtanke med kursen att föreläsningarna ska guida studenterna genom boken, i synnerhet de mer utmanande kapitlen. Vi uppmuntrar därför studenterna att läsa i förväg för att under föreläsningarna lägga tiden på de mest utmanande delarna och för att ge gott om tid till frågor och diskussioner i smågrupper. Det är möjligt att detta upplägg inte är så välfungerande för alla studenter, och att det kan bli svårt att tillgodogöra sig föreläsningarna om man halkar efter. Inför kommande år kan vi överväga att ersätta några av föreläsningarna med seminarier/diskussionstimmar där studenterna får förbereda frågor kring några kapitel i taget och diskutera dessa med en eller flera lärare. För att underlätta läsandet uppmuntrar vi även studenterna till att komplettera läsningen med datorbaserat studiematerial (Interfacial systems) som de kan ladda ner från Canvas. Detta material innehåller interaktiva övningar som hjälper förstå teorin. Det framgår inte om de studenter som var missnöjda med boken har använt sig av detta material. Inför nästkommande år är det lämpligt att starkare uppmuntra studenterna att använda det datorbaserade materialet, och att lägga in en specifik fråga om detta i utvärderingen.

Laborationerna avser att illustrera centrala experimentella tekniker samt att fördjupa förståelsen av kursens teoretiska innehåll genom analys av data och skrivande av rapport. Flertalet av studenterna anger att laborationerna och rapportskrivande var viktigt för deras lärande. Det framkommer klagomål kring hur instruktionerna delades ut samt tekniska problem under några av laborationerna. Detta kommer ses över inför kommande år.

Datorövningarna avser både att fördjupa förståelsen samt att ge viss träning i att använda och modifiera kod för att göra beräkningar. Det framgår att den första övningen fungerat bra och hjälpt lärandet, medan den andra övningen framstår för svår och inte anpassad för denna studentgrupp. Därtill uppstod ett olyckligt tekniskt problem under övningen som borde uppdagats och korrigerats innan övningens start. Även om det senare problemet kan undvikas inför kommande år så är slutsatsen att vi även bör se över övningen i sin helhet - både innehåll och genomförande - inför kurstillfället 2025.

Litteraturövningen (litteratursökning, muntlig presentation och diskussion av andras artiklar) får överlag positiva omdömen. Några studenter är kritiska till att denna övning ligger efter tentamen. Schemaläggningen är anpassad så att alla föreläsningar ska läggas före juluppehållet och det kommer vara svårt att flytta på litteraturövningen så länge kursen ligger under perioden Nov-Jan.

Några studenter ger positiv feedback kring examinationsformen (muntlig) trots att vi inte frågat specifikt kring detta i utvärderingen. Inför kommande år bör vi lägga in en fråga om examinationen för att få mer heltäckande återkoppling.

Kursutvärderingen sammanställd av Emma Sparr (kursansvarig) efter samråd med övriga lärare.

Course analysis for Computational Science: Reproductible Data Science and Statistical Learning BERN02 HT 2024

Course responsible teacher: Mikael Lund
Student representative: Honia Rasul
Other teachers: Ullrika Sahlin, Jens Uhlig
Number of students registered for exam: 15
Evaluation responses: 9
Grades: 1 U, 1 G, 13 VG

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

The following is a summary of the feedback given by the students. Many bar-plots in the feedback have flat distributions, making it hard to make strong conclusions. Generally, students were positive.

Course Content & Organization

• The course was interesting and useful, but the structure felt disorganized at times.
• The balance between modules was uneven, with some requiring significantly more effort than others.
• Statistical modelling made up a large portion of the course but lacked sufficient lecture time.
• Reproducible workflows were well-received but should be placed earlier in the course.

Lectures & Lecture Notes

• Lectures were generally good, but some felt rushed or not well-planned.
• Some lectures needed proofreading.
• Some students struggled with machine learning topics due to lack of background knowledge.
• Lecture notes were messy, sometimes changed weeks later, causing confusion.

Exercises & Assignments

• The workload was too high, with exercises taking much longer than estimated.
• Some exercises were unclear on expectations and open-ended in a way that made it hard to gauge effort.
• The lack of prepared notebooks made starting from scratch difficult, especially for statistical modelling.
• Students needed better guidance on functions and libraries for coding tasks.
• Feedback on some assignments was minimal, mostly limited to approval or rejection.

Programming Language Issues

• Unclear expectations regarding Python vs. R created difficulties.
• Some students struggled to get help with Python since certain instructors primarily knew R.
• Lecture content sometimes used R, leaving Python users struggling to translate it.

Projects & Exams

• The project was a highlight—students enjoyed applying their knowledge with freedom.
• More diverse project ideas (e.g., in Biology or Chemistry) would be appreciated.
• One student felt that the oral exam setup was unclear and stressful.

Miscellaneous Feedback

• Some instructors were hard to reach, and availability outside of lab hours was limited.
• FAIR principles lectures felt slow and could be consolidated to free time for other topics.
• The scheduling and organization of assignments should be improved.
• Cleanliness in the computer rooms (especially chairs) was an issue.

Comments and reflections from the teachers

Overall, students were generally satisfied with lectures, exercises, and the project. However, some expressed concerns about the course literature, though specific details were lacking. Due to the diverse backgrounds of students, some struggled to catch up while others found the material repetitive. Workload varied significantly among students, ranging from 10 to over 40 hours per week. Some students felt that there was insufficient time to cover all the material, while others did not. Lectures were sometimes perceived as rushed.

To enhance learning, teachers recommend starting with reproducible workflows and data wrangling, adding information about recordings in the schedule, and maintaining lab reports as part of the examination. Advanced, non-mandatory examples will be provided for students with prior knowledge, along with clearer project instructions and suggested project topics. There were suggestions to restructure the course into three distinct modules per instructor, though this remains uncertain. Labs and notebooks will be refined based on this year’s experience.

Additional observations include the challenge of balancing course compactness while covering a vast topic, the need for improved practical aspects in course materials, and the importance of incorporating student-suggested resources. Low attendance during training sessions made it difficult to assess student progress effectively. Lastly, a more detailed plan of overlapping topics with other courses would help reduce redundancy and improve course flow.

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

1.Better Balance Between Modules

• Adjust workload distribution across modules to ensure a more even effort.
• Reduce the number of exercises or provide alternatives for students with relevant prior knowledge.

2. Clearer and More Prepared Lecture Notes

• Ensure lecture notes are finalized before class and avoid mid-course changes.
• Proofread notes.
• Notify students promptly if changes are made.

3. Improve Assignment & Exercise Clarity

• Clearly state expectations for each exercise, including time estimates.
• Provide prepared notebooks for statistical modelling to ease starting from scratch
• Offer function/library references or guidance for coding tasks.
• Streamline assignments (e.g., look at MNXB11 for inspiration).

4. Enhance Programming Language Support

• Clarify Python vs. R expectations from the start.
• Ensure both Python and R users receive adequate support during labs.
• Provide translated lecture materials where necessary.

5. Reorganize Course Structure

• Move reproducible workflows to the beginning of the course.
• Reduce topic switching to improve logical flow.
• Consider consolidating FAIR principles lectures to allow more time for machine learning.

6. Improve Exam & Feedback Process

• Provide more detailed feedback on assignments beyond approval/rejection.
• Ensure the oral exam process is clear and well-communicated in advance.

7. Increase Instructor Availability & Support

• Improve accessibility of instructors outside lab hours.
• Encourage a supportive approach to student questions.

8. Enhance Project Variety

• Offer more diverse project topics across different fields.
• Increase the number of suggested project ideas to avoid repetition.

9. Fix Logistical Issues

• Improve scheduling to avoid last-minute video announcements.
• Ensure better communication about workload expectations.
• Address cleanliness issues in computer rooms.

2025-3-1, The course analysis is complied by Mikael Lund with input from student representative and teachers.

Course analysis for Coordination Chemistry and Organometallic Chemistry KEMM52 VT 2024

Course responsible teacher: Anders Reinholdt 
Other teachers: Ebbe Nordlander, Ola Wendt. 
Number of students registered: 21 registered students 
Course representative/s: Teddy Strandberg, Ruben Hansson 
Grades: 4 st U, 5 st G, 6 st VG 

Evaluation 

Summary of course evaluations 

Total number of responses: 4 
Brief summary of the results: 4 out of 21 students evaluated the course, and the statistical uncertainty of the answers is therefore relatively high. Among those students that responded, there was an even spread between overall satisfied and overall dissatisfied students. The students generally remarked that there was introduced new course material compared to previous years, and that that had led to some confusion about the aim of the course. However, the students largely appreciated the course material, both new and old, which was in general of interest to them. For future iterations of the course, the students would appreciate that the planning and structuring of the course would get a better flow.

Comments and reflections from the teachers 

This course was a first iteration after one teacher (OFW) largely handed over the teaching responsibility to a new teacher (AR). The change in staffing naturally also leads to a new emphasis in relation to which topics are covered in the course. Some topics have therefore been re-designed, some have been removed, and others have been newly introduced. However, the overarching mission of the course is to allow the students to build knowledge of coordination chemistry, which is a vast subject, spanning the entire periodic table. With such a vast chemical topic, we have, this year, put more emphasis on the coordination chemistry of the main-group elements. In a sense, this has also led to some turbulence, both for teachers and students, especially with regard to expectations for the course contents. On the other hand, this year’s teaching has given valuable experience, which we will use to constructively shape future iterations of the course. Next year, we will have a more holistic view of the course, and make a more detailed plan for the timing of the different course elements (lectures, lab exercises, seminars), and not least work on the synergy between the new and old course elements.

Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given

Since the last time the course was held, we have changed teachers on the course, and this means that the major task going forward is to make this transition as good as possible. This has meant that OFW has had very little interaction with the students in the 2024 version of KEMM52.

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

Until the next time the course is given, we will in particular work on integrating the various sub-elements of the course, such that the integration between them becomes more seamless. We will also rebalance the new and old course material, such that the elements covering organometallic chemistry again gets more attention.

2025-02-14, The course analysis is compiled by Ebbe Nordlander and Anders Reinholdt.

Course analysis for Medicinal chemistry KEMM20 HT 2024

Course responsible teacher: Ulf Nilsson 
Other teachers: 
Number of students registered: 21 registered students 
Course representative/s: One student was elected, but did not join discussions nor evaluation 
Grades: 1 st U, 7 st G, 13 st VG

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: 1
Brief summary of the results: Overall, the students were very satisfied with the course.

Comments and reflections from the teachers

Möte med studentrepresentanter hölls 250122. Överlag fungerar kursen mycket bra och är uppskattad ur alla aspekter.

Comments and reflections from the students

Bra:

• Engagerade och kunniga föreläsare.
• Bra och relevanta gästföreläsningar.
• Duggorna/tentan speglade kursinnehållet väl.
• Rimlig arbetsbörda.
• Duggor underlättar och förbättrar inlärningen av materialet då arbetsbördan blir jämnare över läsperioden.

Förbättring:

• Övningarna kan förbättras för att bli gynnsamma för samtliga studenter, oavsett om de har gjort övningsuppgifterna i förväg eller inte.
• Börja varje tillfälle med att skriva upp de frågor som studenterna vill diskutera.
• Diskutera sedan andra uppgifter eller övriga frågor om kursmaterialet om tid finns.
• Alternativt/tilläggsvis: Särskilda uppgifter som enbart diskuteras på övningarna i små
  grupper, dvs inte är med i listan på övningsuppgifter.

Kommentarer:

• Åsikter om kursens svårighetsgrad skiljer sig mellan fakulteterna. Generellt sett tyckte studenterna från naturvetenskapliga fakulteten att kursinnehållet var för lätt medan teknologerna upplevde att det var lagom nivå.
• Repetitionsföreläsningarna första veckan uppskattades av många studenter.

Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given

None

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

Förslag till vidareutveckling som diskuterades var att studenter gör övningsuppgifter innan övningar och bestämmer, i förväg via canvas eller direkt när övningen startar, vilka övningar som diskuteras i detalj tillsammans vid övningarna. Diskussionerna initieras och leds av studenterna.

2025-01-22, The course analysis is compiled by the course responsible teacher

Course analysis for Medicinal chemistry KEMM20 HT 2023

Course responsible teacher: Ulf Nilsson 
Other teachers: Sebastian Clementsson 
Number of students registered: 25 registered students 
Course representative/s: One student was elected, but did not join discussions nor evaluation Grades: 0 st U, 7 st G, 12 st VG

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: 8
Brief summary of the results: Overall, the students were very satisfied with the course.

Comments and reflections from the teachers

The teachers are very disappointed by the lack of interest from the students to evaluate the course and discuss improvements. Hence, it is valid to question if the course should be continued at all. The course is co-taught with the engineering faculty LTH and students there engaged in evaluations and discussions on course improvements. Please see the LTH ceq-evaluation for the course KOKN01 for HT 2023 for details and conclusions.

Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given

None

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

Given that comments were generally positive and that no student wished to involve in course development, no changes are planned.

2024-04-25, The course analysis is compiled by the course responsible teacher
 

Course analysis for Molecular Driving Forces and Chemical Bonding KEMM30 HT 2024

Course responsible teacher: Mikael Lund 
Other teachers: Petter Persson, Jan Forsman, Donatas Zigmantas, Jens Uhlig 
Number of students registered for exam: 22 
Course representative/s: Ellen Nilsson, Michael Kennedy 
Grades: 0 st U, 18 st G, 3 st VG

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: 13
The students gave a mixed review with both praises and frustrations. Several feedback questions got flat distributions which makes them hard to judge. Below we list elements we feel are clear-cut and further backed by conversations with course representatives and students throughout the course:

1. The Python part is appreciated, and many students find it useful for their future career. Some find it difficult; useless; and with a high workload. Many students find the final project too long. The teachers agree on the last point.
2. Mixing with LTH during the python block was not deemed beneficial by the students, and they had little interactions. It instead caused logistic issues.
3. Some students find the spectroscopy lab-work unnecessary and a repetition of previous knowledge (UV/VIS dilution series). They suggest skipping it and make the lab theoretical. The analysis and report were not deemed trivial.
4. Poor instructions for the spectroscopy lab; no aid with the analysis which was supposed to be in Python. Students had to figure out how to do it independently, causing frustration. Poor timing of final lab and report caused frustrating interference with exam preparations and following course block.
5. Inspirational talk by PhD students and postdocs were much appreciated.
6. Course structure using Canvas is appreciated, at least for most parts, but somewhat spoiled by clashing lab.
7. Teaching format by Jan Forman highlighted as best: he used pre-recorded videos,
   combined with a short lecture, with a summary and a walk-through of one or two exercises.

Comments and reflections from the teachers

It is the teachers impression that the students were very engaged and worked well with the material, not the least for the Python part which ran more smoothly compared to previous years. The lecture and exercise attendance were high, and the students worked well with handins, and asked questions. This is reflected in a high level of bonus points and 100% pass rate. The teachers much appreciated this. Many teachers incorporate elements to show the width of the topic, e.g., by picking examples from biochemistry, organic synthesis, environmental chemistry etc. Many students appreciated this, but the evaluation also highlights that some students do not see the direct relevance to them. We feel that the course suffers from having (too) many distinct elements to cater to the broad range of student backgrounds and interests. This results in equally many opinions on the course and its relevance. Finally, the teachers awknowledge the continuous logistic issues around the final lab; see suggested changes below.

Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given

1. For the Python part we change from a local Python installation to the fully online Google Colab. This worked out very well and reduced initial hazzle to get students up and running.
2. This year we have used a water molecule as an example that is used in 3 of 4 blocks. We first perform a QM calculation on the molecule in one block and use the result to predict thermodynamic properties and interactions in two other blocks. We have incorporated this in handins so as not to increase the workload. This change prompted teachers to talk more to each other. The aim of this change is to highlight the connection between topics (suggested last year).
3. Python is strengthened in several blocks, e.g., as handins or lectures. Python/Jupyter is used for 1 of 2 labs in addition to the first block. We prepared it for use also in the Spectroscopy lab, but this was eventually not used. This should be remedied for next event. The aim of this change is to highlight the connection between topics (suggested last year).
4. Almost all assignments and labs are now incorporated as Canvas assignments, making it easier for students and teachers to keep track of e.g. bonus points, lab reports, and mandatory elements.
5. All blocks now incorporate previous exam questions, e.g., by handins, a teacher walkthrough, or videos. This helps set expectations for the exam (suggested last year).
6. For all blocks, the daily schedule changed from two morning lectures + one afternoon exercise session to a single, three-hour block. This block is allocated according to the teaching style and can better accommodate the elastic online video and quiz format used in some blocks (suggested last year).
7. Added an inspirational talk with PhD students and postdocs from Division of Computational Chemistry.
8. Jan Forsman came back to teach intermolecular interactions, replacing Michael Delcey.

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

1. Shorten python projects.
2. Investigate if the python labs should run independently from the LTH course to reduce logistic problems (we were spread out over 3-4 rooms). This would also allow for a KEMM30-specific introduction to the course, helping to put the (many) different parts into perspective and thus further motivate students.
3. Students shall recieve feedback on their handins and reports in a timely fashion that does not collide with exam preparations. This is a continuous problem caused by a tight schedule towards the end of the course. In 2024 the last lab was on a Thursday, with the exam the following Tuesday. Suggested change: reschedule the spectroscopy block to block 2 or 3, instead of 5. Communicate all dates in advance via Canvas.
4. Reschedule the last lab to avoid collision with exam preparations. See also previous point. We will also investigate if the lab should be made purely theoretical.
5. The exam is percieved massive and most/all students stay until the last moment. Suggested solution: split the exam in two, e.g. quantum mechanics + spectroscopy and statistical thermodynamics + intermolecular interactions. Investigate if this is possible within the current syllabus. Alternative solution: offload some of the exam evaluation to mandatory reports, particularly in topics that are treated on a more descriptive level.
6. Continue work on Canvas: all course moments should be tracked (labs, handsins). All bonus points should be given as "points" instead of "percentage".
7. Exam correction by all teachers schedule in due time to reduce processing time.
8. Revise course evaluation form so that it is less time consuming to fill out.
9. Continue searching for a way to make the course less of a frustrating experience, if possible.

2024-11-20, The course analysis is complied by Mikael Lund with input from student representatives and teachers.

Course analysis for Molecular Driving Forces and Chemical Bonding KEMM30 HT 2023

Course responsible teacher: Mikael Lund
Other teachers: Petter Persson, Mickael Delcey, Donatas Zigmantas, Jens Uhlig
Number of students registered: 23
Course representative/s: Ruben Hansson, Honia Rasul
Grades: 2 st U, 16 st G, 5 st VG

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: 10 (43%)

The students gave a mixed review with both praises and frustrations. Several feedback
questions got flat distributions which makes them hard to judge. Below we list elements we
feel are clear-cut and further backed by conversations with course representatives and
students throughout the course:

1. The Python part is appreciated, and most students find it useful for their future career.
   Some find it difficult and with a high workload. The teachers deem the load acceptable
   and consider this during the evaluation (oral presentation of project)
2. The course consists of five blocks, and these appear disjointed.
3. More time for exercises.
4. Better timing of final lab and report so as not to interfere with exam preparations.
5. Better communication of exam requirements and earlier feedback on handins.

Comments and reflections from the teachers

It is our impression that the students were very engaged and worked well with the material.
The lecture and exercise attendance were high, and the students worked well with handins,
and asked questions. This is reflected in a high level of bonus points and pass rate. The
teachers very much appreciated this. Many teachers incorporate elements to show the width of
the topic, e.g., by picking examples from biochemistry, organic synthesis, environmental
chemistry etc. Many students appreciated this, but the evaluation also shows that some students do not see the direct relevance to them. This is somewhat disappointing, and we want
to strengthen this. We fully agree with the students view that it can be difficult to see the
connection between blocks. As detailed below we do propose several changes to mitigate this.

Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given

1. Python/Jupyter (Jens/Mikael): The introduction of the python part was updated. We
   used the LDC installed Python environment for the first time. This was not without
   hiccups, but it worked, and we gained important experiences for next year. The
   computer labs were run together with LTH's division of biotechnology (Daniel Brink /
   Nelida Eriksson). While fun, this caused some challenges since both computer rooms
   were entirely full. Despite very different backgrounds it was our impression that most
   students developed well on their programming skills.
2. Statistical thermodynamics (Mikael Lund): Added video solutions to all handins and
   exam questions. Slightly updated lecture videos on Studio. Added more relevant quiz
   questions. The overall coordination of lectures, quiz, and exercises were better this
   year and I (Mikael) felt it went well. At the end of the block, I got student feedback
   using a Mentimeter quiz. Here, most students stated that they preferred video lectures
   over traditional lectures. This opposes answers from previous years.
3. Intermolecular interactions (Mickael Delcey): Mickael Delcey replaced Jan Forsman.
4. Course represenative has changed from Petter Persson to Mikael Lund.

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

1. Define a course molecule that is carried between blocks. We can e.g., perform a QM
   calculation on the molecule in one block and use the result to predict thermodynamic
   properties or spectra in other blocks. We will incorporate this as handins or exercises
   so as not to increase the workload. This change will further prompt teachers to talk
   more to each other.
2. Python shall be incorporated in all blocks, e.g., as handins or lectures. Python/Jupyter
   will be used for the two labs. We imagine that we create a Jupyter Notebook template
   for reports which will also help new students at LU to know what is expected.
   Difficult parts could be pre-populated with partial contents. This could further reduce
   trouble students reported with e.g., numerical integration.
3. All blocks shall use Canvas for handins, lab reports, and mandatory elements.
4. All blocks shall present a day-to-day schedule on Canvas with detailed information of
   contents and relevant page numbers in the course book.
5. All blocks shall incorporate exam questions, e.g., by handins, a teacher walkthrough,
   or videos. This will help set expectations for the exam.
6. Students shall recieve feedback on their handins and reports in a timely fashion that
   does not collide with exam preparations.
7. Stress that course representatives can contact the main teacher at any time during the
   course. In that way we can adjust early on.
8. Reschedule the last lab to avoid collision with exam preparations.
9. We will consider adding an additional exercise hour or use video lectures and quizes
   to gain more exercise time. The latter is relevant for statistical thermodynamics and,
   possibly, intermolecular interactions. Here we could allocate a three-hour block,
   starting with a brief teacher resume of the video and quiz results; then proceed to
   exercises.

2023-11-14, The course analysis is complied by Mikael Lund

Course analysis for Molecular Spectroscopy - Methods and Applications KEMM29 VT 2024

Course responsible teacher: Ivan Scheblykin
Other teachers: Dmitry Baranov, Arkady Yartsev, Donatas Zigmantas, Tönu Pullerits, Jens
Uhlig
Number of students registered: 3 registered students, + 2 PhD students
Course representative: Agnes Berggen
Grades: 2 st U, 3 st G, 0 st VG

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: 3

Brief summary of the results: Overall, the students were very satisfied with the course. The students especially appreciated quality of lectures and learning from exercises, but wanted more communication between teachers and better quality of the literature.

Comments and reflections from the teachers

The teachers felt that the course went quite well, however, the entrance level of students sometime was quite low for the program offered.

Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given

Since the last time the course was held we have modified the lab exercises and this was perceived by the students as quite Ok, however, more optimization should be done there.

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

Until the next time the course is given we will optimize the lab exercises, also the order of
lectures will be slightly changed. We will also stress more in the beginning of the course that
this course is running “full speed” means that the students should expect to work only on this
course and nothing else. The course evaluation shows that the students worked around 20h
per week instead of 40h. For the next year we are going to pay more attention to stimulate
students to work more during the course by giving exam bonus points for solving exercises.

2024-06-27, The course analysis is compiled by Ivan Scheblykin.

Course analysis for Molecular Quantum Mechanics KEMM58 VT 2025

Course responsible teacher: Valera Veryazov
Other teachers: None.
Number of students registered: 11 registered students 
Course representative/s: Jan SamplerGrades: 1 st U, 6 st G, 2 st VG

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: 3
Brief summary of the results: Overall, students showed very diverse responses to the course, ranging from very high satisfaction to some disappointment. Some students found lectures and seminars very helpful, while others felt that the seminars were inadequately prepared.Comments and reflections from the teachersThe course was particularly challenging in 2025 due to several factors: 1) The quantum mechanics and mathematics portion of lectures was reduced, but the problem sets used in exercises are still undergoing revision; 2) There was no assistant (as usual) available for seminars or labs; 3) The class size was larger than usual. The combination of these factors significantly increased the workload.

The limited responses (3 out of 11) clearly indicate at least one student felt negatively about the course, and some of their comments appear unjustified. For instance, the recommendation, given at the introduction, to read the book was specifically related only to mathematical proofs, which were intentionally skipped during lectures. Additionally, it was clearly suggested that students attempt to solve problems before seminars so that solutions could be discussed during class rather than solved from scratch. The complete solutions for the exercises from the book are available. Uploading complete solutions to Canvas was intended solely to help the teacher identify significant mistakes students might make. Indeed, several serious issues with the prerequisite knowledge were identified and addressed. The claim that exam questions differed significantly from seminar exercises is also unjustified, as many exam questions were reformulations of problems discussed at the lectures and seminars.

Furthermore, a dedicated session was provided to thoroughly review a complete exam from a previous year.

The level of computer literacy among students is very different. While some students were able to solve many problems during computer labs, others have problems even with editing files.

Some controversies arose regarding the examination. While electronic devices were permitted, their use was difficult to monitor effectively. In the future, only printed or handwritten materials will be allowed during the exam.

Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given

Since the last course offering, several changes have been implemented: i) Lab instructions were extensively revised and expanded, yet students continued to express concerns; ii) An extra day was added to the project, but students still reported insufficient lab time; iii) Python-based exercises were improved and expanded, and an additional textbook, C. Cramer's “Essentials of Computational Chemistry,” was suggested, although it did not receive favorable student feedback.

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

The sole recommended textbook will be Atkins and Friedman's “Molecular Quantum Mechanics.”

Before the next offering, seminar problems will be further revised and simplified, focusing on smaller exercises with minimal mathematical complexity. More attention to solving of exercises during the seminars should be paid.

Assignments will include firm deadlines. Extra points stimulates the student activity during the course, however, extra points compilates the logistic of the anonymous examination and it is hard to maintain them.

The examination should prohibit any electronic devices. If some information from the book is essential for the examination question (such as tables, formulas), it should be provided. No books are allowed during the exam.

The course's structure and expectations will be communicated more clearly during the introductory lecture, emphasizing the importance of reading assigned materials and completing homework, clarifying expectations regarding exercises and book solutions, reinforcing the necessity of solving the problems and reading lab instructions in advance.

Labs exercises should have more clear indication about the level (mandatory and optional). It is not possible to increase the time for the computer labs.

Python-based exercises, offered for the second consecutive year, received no mention in student evaluations. These exercises may be formally included as homework in future.

2024-04-15, The course analysis is complied by Valera Veryazov.

Course analysis for Molecular Quantum Mechanics KEMM58 VT 2024

Course responsible teacher: Valera Veryazov 
Other teachers: Mickael Delcey 
Number of students registered: 3 registered students (2 master, 1 PhD) 
Course representative/s: Xinyu Chen 
Grades: 1 st U, 1 st G

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: 2
Brief summary of the results: Overall, the students were very satisfied with the course. They especially appreciated the good quality of lectures and seminars but expressed a wish for more training in math and additional exercises, regarding various methods in quantum chemistry.
Comments and reflections from the teachers
The group was diverse: one student already had courses in quantum mechanics, while others (master students) encountered significant difficulties with basics concepts. Although master students had completed KEMM30 course,it seems their prerequisite knowledge was not sufficient for this course. As a result, one student didn’t attend the exam, and another received a low grade. More interaction with KEMM30 teachers is desirable.
We also observed that some students utilized AI-generated texts in their reports and exercise answers. While it was not prohibited to use AI for enhancing grammar and text consistency, students omitted any level of criticism towards AI-generated responses. That aspect should be discussed with students in a more extensive manner.

Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given

Since the last time the course was held we have made several important changes: we removed mathematically intensive material and introduced more interactive labs. Students appreciated the reduction of math in the course, although they still feel that the demand for mathematical knowledge is too high. Students also welcomed an additional book for the course, which is written in a more chemical and applied manner. All students plan to take more advanced courses within the subject.

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

Until the next time the course is given we will continue developing small tasks and exercises, particularly using Python notebooks. In the lectures, more emphasis to basic concepts in quantum chemistry will be given, although it will formally overlap with KEMM30 course.

2024-04-12, The course analysis is complied by Valera Veryazov

Course analysis for Molecular Quantum Mechanics KEMM58 VT 2023

Course responsible teacher: Valera Veryazov
Other teachers: -
Number of students registered: 3 registered students
Course representative/s: Oliver Ohlson
Grades: 0 st U, 2 st G, 0 st VG

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: 2
Brief summary of the results: Overall, the students were very satisfied with the course. The students especially appreciated lectures, course materials and computer labs. The student mentioned nice learning curve and discussions about the subject. At the same time they mentioned too high demand of mathematics used in the course and too little time for the study.

Comments and reflections from the teachers

Unlike in previous years, in 2023 all lectures, seminars and labs were made by the same teacher. That allows to make more consistent content between lectures, seminars and labs. The book used at the course, indeed, requires quite high level of mathematics and is difficult for chemistry students.

Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given

In 2022 the course were given on-line. In 2023 it was made in the classroom and also performed by one teacher. Comparing to previous year, the lab materials were revised, so the students can work on the labs by themselves.

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

The students have a positive response about the course, but the book has to be changed. It is a big move, of course, since P.Atkins “Molecular Quantum Mechanics” were used as the course book for two decades. But it is a time to make the change.
The change of the course book also will lead to the revision of lectures and exercises.
Students also suggested to use more computational codes at the course. This suggestion is hard to implement, since the time for the lab is limited. However, it might be possible to add one additional day for the lab.

2023-03-31, The course analysis is complied by Valera Veryazov
 

Course analysis for Scattering Methods KEMM67 (EXTN82, NAKE017) VT 2024

Course responsible teacher: Anna Stradner
Other teachers: Andrew Jackson (ESS and Division of Physical Chemistry); Felix Roosen-
Runge (Division of Physical Chemistry); Lab assistants: Marshall Machingauta, Marco
Furnasier, Lucrezia Caselli (all Division of Physical Chemistry).
Number of students registered: 3 registered master students; 4 PhD students registered with
course responsible
Course representative/s: Ruben Hansson
Grades: master students: 0 st U, 2 st G, 1 st VG; (PhD students: 3 st G, 1 st VG)

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: 3 master students (to most of the questions only 1-2 master
students have responded) and 2 PhD students have responded to the questionnaire.
Discussed here is the result of the master student questionnaire.

Brief summary of the results:

• On average the students graded the quality of the course as good: average of 4.7 for the lectures, 4.3 for the scattering lab projects and 2 for the literature, on a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very good).
• The quantity was also graded as good: (4.7 for lectures, 4.0 for the scattering lab projects and 2.0 for the literature), on a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very good).
• The information/communication work during the course was regarded as good to very good (average 4.0 for teacher availability, 5 for lab assistant availability, 3.7 for communication between teachers and 4.3 for communication on Canvas, on a scale from 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good)).
• The students on average perceive the different components of the course as helpful in the learning process: clear and distinct course literature: 1.3; helpfulness of lectures: 4.0; helpfulness of lab projects: 3.5; structuring and instructions for lab projects: 3.0, on a scale from 1 (not at all/bad) to 4 (very much/very good).
• The students think that the examination reflected the syllabus of the course well: average grade 4.3 (on a scale from 1 (very little) to 5 (excellent)).
• The students considered the course relevant to their programme: average grade 4.7 (on a scale from 1 (no, not at all) to 6 (yes, completely)).

• Comments: What has been good?: “The lab assistants are very nice and helpful. The lecturers are very open to questions which is extremely appreciated.”; what has been bad?: no comments

  Comments and reflections from the teachers

  The teachers were overall satisfied with the course. Due to illness of one teacher, the computer lab course had to be diminished and some lectures had to be made available as prerecorded lectures followed by a Question & Answer Session in classroom.

  Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

  We plan to restructure the course and course material. The respective discussions will take place in early autumn 2024.

  2024-08-12, The course analysis is compiled by Anna Stradner

Course analysis for Scattering Methods KEMM67 (EXTN85, NAKE017), VT 2023

Course responsible teacher: Anna Stradner
Other teachers: Andrew Jackson (ESS and Division of Physical Chemistry); Peter
Schurtenberger (Division of Physical Chemistry); Lab assistants: Jennifer Gilbert and Nikol
Labecka (both Division of Physical Chemistry).
Number of students registered: 2 registered master students; 4 PhD students registered with
course responsible
Course representative/s: -
Grades: 0 st U, 5 st G, 0 st VG

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: Only 1-2 master students (to most of the questions only one
master student has responded) and 2 PhD students have responded to the
questionnaire. Discussed here is the result of the PhD student questionnaire.

Brief summary of the results:

• On average the students graded the quality of the course as good: average of 4.0
  for the lectures, 4.5 for the scattering lab projects and 2.5 for the literature, on a
  scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very good).
• The quantity was graded as very good: (5.0 for lectures, 5.0 for the scattering lab
  projects and 4.0 for the literature), on a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very good).
• The information/communication work during the course was regarded as good
  to very good (average 4.0 for teacher availability, 4.5 for lab assistant availability,
  4.0 for communication between teachers and 4.5 for communication on Canvas,
  on a scale from 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good)).
• The students on average perceive the different components of the course as very
  helpful in the learning process: clear and distinct course literature: 2.0;
  helpfulness of lectures: 4.0; helpfulness of lab projects: 4.0; structuring and
  instructions for lab projects: 3.5, on a scale from 1 (not at all/bad) to 4 (very
  much/very good).
• The students think that the examination reflected the syllabus of the course well:
  average grade 4.0 (on a scale from 1 (very little) to 5 (excellent)).
• The students considered the course relevant to their programme: average grade
  6.0 (on a scale from 1 (no, not at all) to 6 (yes, completely))

Comments and reflections from the teachers

All the teachers were overall satisfied with the course. Due to illness of some teachers,
some lectures that had been planned to take place in the classroom had to be given
online and/or were made available as prerecorded lectures.

Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given

Since the last time the course was held, we have introduced an extra double lecture meant
for asking questions only (Q & A lecture), as this has been demanded by the students in
the VT2022 course evaluation. Unfortunately, very few students participated and no
questions were posed during this newly introduced Q & A lecture.

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

We will give it another try with the extra Q & A double lecture next year (VT2024), also due
to the fact that one of this year’s comments specifically relates to the possibility to ask
questions as one of the things that could be improved (“Would have been more stimulating
with … easier to ask questions”), and hope that the students will then participate and take
advantage of it.

2023-06-22, The course analysis is compiled by Anna Stradner

Course analysis for Statistical Thermodynamics and Molecular Simulation KEMM48 VT 2024

Course responsible teacher: Martin Trulsson 
Other teachers: Jan Forsman, Simon Liedtke 
Number of students registered: 3 registered and active undergraduate students and 2 PhD students 
Course representative/s: Ruben Hansson 
Grades: 5 passed

Evaluation

Summary of course evaluations

Total number of responses: 4 (3 from the undergraduate student and 1 from the PhD-students)
Brief summary of the results: Overall, the students were very satisfied with the course and its structure. The students pointed out several things that could be improved.
These include revising the course literature, finding a clearer thread in the lectures and textbook, summarizing the mathematical prerequisites, and more solved exercises during the exercise sessions.
The teachers felt that the course went well as all students who took the exam passed.

Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given

Since last time we have prerecorded lectures (flipped classroom). These worked well and were appreciated by the master's students. These freed up extra time for exercises. In the current setup, on-campus lectures have been replaced with a shorter (about 30-45 minutes) summary of the lecture material (as the lecture is prerecorded), after which students solve exercises themselves under teacher-led supervision. These sessions are followed by exercise sessions where we go through the solutions, either with a student presenting their solution on the whiteboard in front of the other students or with the teachers going through our solutions. With this new setup, we have had more students attempting to solve the exercises (previously, students often attended exercise sessions without attempting the exercises themselves). This has made students more willing to present their solutions on the board. In addition to this, the study assignments and laboratory work have been updated. We have also started creating numerical problems/exercises to a small extent.

Suggested changes until the next time the course is given

Until the next time the course is given, we will try to implement a few of the below-listed actions. It's unlikely that we'll have time to implement all of them by then, so we'll choose some of the following:

• Conduct an overview lecture on the applications of Statistical Thermodynamics and Molecular Simulations, preferably with examples from current research. Emphasize that Statistical Thermodynamics is a tool that can be applied to many different systems, and in this course, we highlight only a few illustrative examples.
• Go through some more straightforward exercises after each on-campus summary lecture.
• Continue developing exercises that must be solved numerically (e.g., through numerical integration using Python).
• Record a mathematic repetition lecture covering partial integration, Taylor expansions, rules of differentiation, and polar coordinates.
• Clarify that students are expected to solve the (unsolved) exercises outside scheduled class time (i.e., self-studies).

2024-04-11, The course analysis is complied by Martin Trulsson
 

Summary of course evaluation for Structural Biochemistry KEMM35 HT 2024

Course responsible: Derek Logan
Other teachers: Ingemar André, Susanna Horsefield (Biochemistry & Structural Biology),
Esko Oksanen (ESS), Sofia Andersson, Erica Ahl & Simon Gripvall (Biochemistry & Structural Biology, course assistants), Céleste Sele (LP3), Anu Tyagi (Experimental Medical Science), Ana Gonzalez (MAX IV), Crispin Hetherington (CAS)
Number of students registered: 24. Of these, 4 were PhD students. Only one of the PhD
students took the exam, the others participated to varying degrees. One student had reregistered from 2023 to complete unfinished exercises. A further two students registered
initially but abandoned the course early.
Course representative: Maria Mino
Grades after re-examination (18 students):
5 students U (28%)
8 students G (44%)
5 students VG (28%)
Average grade: 54% (excluding U: 66%)

Evaluation

Summary of the course evaluation

Total no. of responses: 15 (58%). This is an estimate because two surveys were
sent out by mistake. However, it seems that only one student answered both
surveys.
Brief summary of the evaluation: Twelve students (80%) were fairly or very satisfied with the course, one neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and two quite dissatisfied. The same number of students thought the course contributed significantly to their learning outcomes. All but one of the students said that the workload was about right, and only one thought it was too high. Most students stated that their prior knowledge was sufficient but not more, but three thought it was insufficient. Some suggestions for improvement from the students were:

• More interactive lectures
• More consistency in laboratory exercises (work on same data from start to finish)
• Better communication between lecturers and course assistants
• List of common definitions
• More clarity on what is most important to know
• No last-minute changes to the schedule please!

The site visits to the BioMAX beamline, the electron microscope at nCHREM, the ESS and the crystallisation facility at Lund Protein Production Platform were, as always, appreciated.

Comments of the teaching team

We found the students this year to be generally enthusiastic, but some required much more encouragement. As previously, a few got far behind with the assignments despite us setting a submission deadline of one week after each exercise. As we had decided to prioritise helping students with the exercise of the day rather than helping these students catch up, this meant that they fell even further behind. Some students experienced technical issues, e.g. with logging in to LUNARC, but they did not tell us about them until very late, which also contributed to them falling behind. The number of students who failed the exam was also surprisingly high. Several of these did not turn up for the re-exam in
February.

Evaluation of changes since the last course

The course was substantially the same as last year, with some refinements to the
Structural Bioinformatics module. The sample preparation demo for cryo-EM was done at MAX IV rather than nCHREM (Kemicentrum). 
The computer exercises were once again run on the LUNARC cluster COSMOS. The experience we gained last year on COSMOS, which had just opened at the time, was very helpful and we were mostly able to debug tutorials in advance. However, one tutorial had to be cancelled as it was technically impossible using the currently available software and no alternative solution could be found. We had planned to reduce the amount of material in the final exam and place more emphasis on continuous evaluation, but in the end the exam had the same form as in previous years. This remains a future ambition.

Suggestions for changes to the next course

The cryo-EM module will be further improved next year, as we will be able to run the data collection demo using a new state-of-the-art microscope recently installed at MAX IV. We had intended to do so last year but the microscope installation was delayed.
We may try to reduce the amount of theory on X-ray crystallography a little to
allow more space for other experimental methods. As noted above, we tried to minimize the number of late hand-ins by setting a submission deadline one week after each exercise and trying as much as possible to focus on the current exercise rather than helping lagging students. However, we apparently did not completely succeed with this, as several students again got seriously behind. We should consider a penalty for late hand-ins.
Finally, the students generally have very poor computer literacy, at least regarding Linux. We should consider spending more time on improving this at the start of the course.

2024-04-29, summary made by Derek Logan, course responsible.

Summary of course evaluation for Structural Biochemistry KEMM35 HT 2023

Course responsible: Derek Logan
Other teachers: Ingemar André, Susanna Horsefield (Biochemistry & Structural Biology),
Esko Oksanen (ESS), Sofia Andersson, Niels Meijer & Simon Gripvall (Biochemistry &
Structural Biology, course assistants), Céleste Sele (LP3), Anu Tyagi (Lund Protein Production
Facility), Swati Aggarwal (MAX IV), Crispin Hetherington (CAS)
Number of students: 11. One student re-registered from 2022 but did not participate in the course or take the exam.
Grades after re-examination (10 students):
2 students U (17%)
5 students G (50%)
3 students VG (33%)
Average grade: 62% (excluding U: 70%)

Evaluation

Summary of the course evaluation

Total no. of responses: 6 (60%)
Brief summary of the evaluation: 60% of the students responded to the survey, which is better than average, but still too little to draw statistically valid conclusions. There was a wider spread than normal in satisfaction. Two students were very satisfied, one fairly satisfied, one neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and one quite dissatisfied. Half of the students said that the workload was about right, but half thought it was too high. The students expressed very varied opinions about the same elements of the course, e.g. the quality of one module vs. another, relative value of lectures and exercises. Since the course was run pretty much as last year, this may demonstrate a need to adapt aspects of the course to the diverse backgrounds of the students. However, one aspect on which the students mostly agreed was that the teachers were very willing to communicate.
The site visits to the BioMAX beamline, the electron microscope at nCHREM and the crystallisation facility at Lund Protein Production Platform were appreciated.

Comments of the teaching team

We found the students this year to be generally enthusiastic, but some required much more encouragement. They generally performed well in the exam and in the practical exercises. However, a few got far behind with the assignments and have at the date of writing (April 2024) still not finished them all. Three out of 10 registered students did not turn up for the first exam and one not at all. 

The comments about high workload do not square with the statistics on the amount of time the students say they spent on the course. One spent only 10-20 hours per week, four 20-30 hours and only two 30-40 hours.

Evaluation of changes since the last course

The course was substantially the same as last year, with some refinements to the Structural Bioinformatics module. The sample preparation demo for cryo-EM was done at BMC rather than nCHREM (Kemicentrum). 

The computer exercises were run on the LUNARC cluster COSMOS, which was opened just before the start of the course. We had hoped that the experience we gained on the old cluster Aurora would be helpful this time and tried to debug everything in advance as far as possible. However, new bugs arose on COSMOS that took a great deal of time to sort out.

Suggestions for changes to the next course

The cryo-EM module will further improved next year, as we will be able to run the data collection demo using a new state-of-the-art microscope to be installed at MAX IV.
We will further simplify or remove some of the crystallography exercises.
As already noted last year, we need to ensure speed and quality in our feedback to the students on their computer exercises etc., as they find it hard to keep the material fresh in their minds after more than a week or so. We should also aim to minimize the number of late hand-ins, for the sake of students and teachers alike. We apparently did not completely succeed with that this year.
We will consider reducing the amount of material in the final exam and placing more emphasis on continuous evaluation.

2024-04-05, summary made by Derek Logan, course responsible