Course analyses
You can find the most recent course analyses for our English-taught courses on advanced level here:
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.
New course starting autumn 2024
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 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:
- 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) - The course consists of five blocks, and these appear disjointed.
- More time for exercises.
- Better timing of final lab and report so as not to interfere with exam preparations.
- 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
- 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. - 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. - Intermolecular interactions (Mickael Delcey): Mickael Delcey replaced Jan Forsman.
- Course represenative has changed from Petter Persson to Mikael Lund.
Suggested changes until the next time the course is given
- 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. - 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. - All blocks shall use Canvas for handins, lab reports, and mandatory elements.
- All blocks shall present a day-to-day schedule on Canvas with detailed information of
contents and relevant page numbers in the course book. - All blocks shall incorporate exam questions, e.g., by handins, a teacher walkthrough,
or videos. This will help set expectations for the exam. - Students shall recieve feedback on their handins and reports in a timely fashion that
does not collide with exam preparations. - Stress that course representatives can contact the main teacher at any time during the
course. In that way we can adjust early on. - Reschedule the last lab to avoid collision with exam preparations.
- 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 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
Kursanalys för Spridningsmetoder KEMM67 & EXTN85 VT 2022
Kursansvarig: Anna Stradner (Division of Physical Chemistry)
Övriga lärare: 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).
Antal studenter: 5 registered master students plus 5 PhD students registered with course responsible
Betyg: 1 st UK, 5 st G, 3 st VG.
Utvärdering
Sammanfattning av kursvärderingen
Totalt antal svar: 1-2 master students (out of 5) and 3 PhD students (out of 5) have responded to the questionnaires. Discussed here is the result of the PhD student questionnaire.
Kursanalyser
Här kan du läsa de senaste kursanalyserna för våra kurser.
Kurser på grundnivå
Kurser på fördjupad grundnivå
Kurser på avancerad nivå
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
Vänligen kontakta studentexp [at] kemi [dot] lu [dot] se (studentexp[at]kemi[dot]lu[dot]se) om du önskar tillgång till kursanalysen för Avancerad organisk kemi KEMM21.
Ny kurskod - kursen ges för första gången HT23
För kursanalyser på tidigare kurskod KEMM77 se nedan:
Kursanalys för Avancerad yt- och kolloidkemi KEMM77 HT 2022
Kursansvarig: Joakim Stenhammar
Övriga lärare: Ulf Olsson, Emma Sparr, Anna Stradner
Labbhandledare: Ismail El Korde, Marco Fornasier, Jennifer Gilbert, Jing Hu
Antal studenter: 5 registrerade studenter, varav samtliga fullföljde kursen. Utöver dessa deltog 4 doktorander på motsvarande forskarutbildningskurs (NKE015F)
Resultat: 0 U, 3 G, 2 VG efter ordinarie muntlig tentamen
Sammanfattning av kursenkäten
8 studenter (inklusive 4 doktorander) besvarade kursenkäten. Återkopplingen från studenterna är mycket positiv, och samtliga studenter anser att kursmålen uppfyllts mycket väl (4 eller 5 på en femgradig skala). Vidare ges föreläsningarna mycket höga betyg (snittbetyg 4,6), även om en student påpekar att föreläsningarnas karaktär varierar mycket beroende på vem som föreläser – något som i sig inte behöver vara negativt. Kursorganisationen och informationen via Canvas verkar fungerat utan problem.
Laborationer. Labbkursen får genomgående positiv återkoppling (snittbetyg 4,3), inklusive mikroskopilabben som infördes vid föregående kurstillfälle. Dock påpekas av några studenter att kopplingen mellan föreläsningarna och respektive labbar kan förbättras. Vidare verkar rättningstiden på en av labbarna varit längre än vad som är tänkt (maximalt en vecka).
Datorövningar. Bägge datorövningarna har omarbetats i grunden sedan förra året, efter upprepad återkoppling att de upplevts som omoderna och med för mycket karaktär av ”svart låda”. Dessutom har de gjorts om för att harmoniera bättre med fokuset på Pythonprogrammering som introducerats på kandidat- och mastersutbildningarna, i synnerhet KEMM30. Glädjande nog får datorövningarna genomgående mycket positiv återkoppling (snittbetyg 4,5), och de flesta studenterna uppger att de uppskattade både de fysikaliska och de tekniska (programmering i Linux och Python) aspekterna. Dock påpekas att inlärningskurvan är ganska brant för de som inte har någon erfarenhet av de senare, vilket kräver aktiv handledning och goda förberedelser.
Litteraturövning. Litteraturövningen får genomgående god kritik (snittbetyg 4,4), och inga särskilda kommentarer.
Arbetsbörda. Majoriteten av mastersstudenterna svarar att de lagt ned i genomsnitt 20-30 timmar per vecka på kursen, vilket är mindre än tidigare år och anmärkningsvärt lågt med tanke på det ganska täta schemat. Tillsammans med de goda kursresultaten är detta ett tecken på att arbetsbördan inte är för hög, och att matchningen mellan kursens krav och studenternas förkunskaper är på en rimlig nivå.
Kommentarer och åtgärder
Den övergripande bilden av kursen är väldigt positiv, även om kursens, och i synnerhet kursbokens, relativt höga nivå är välkänd. Detta verkar dock uppskattas av studenterna, som anmärkningsvärt nog ändå skattar sin genomsnittliga arbetsbörda till en bra bit under 40 timmar per vecka. Huruvida detta är ett trendbrott eller en tillfällig förändring återstår att se, och vi ser inte någon omedelbar anledning att öka kursens arbetsbörda.
Laborationer. Till nästa kursomgång ska föreläsarna diskutera hur vi kan förbättra kopplingen mellan respektive teorikapitel och laborationerna – kanske genom att ha en kort ”labbintroduktion” i slutet av föreläsningen som specifikt kopplar det teoretiska materialet till labben. I nuläget görs detta för den ena datorövningen, och har fungerat mycket bra där. Vidare ska materialet till samtliga labbar ses över så att det inte finns några dissonanser mellan notation, nomenklatur, etc. Vidare ska labbhandledarna informeras tydligare om att förväntad maximal rättningstid är en vecka, så att studenterna får rimlig tid på sig att genomföra revisioner innan kursens slut.
Datorövningar. De omgjorda datorövningarna har genomgående fungerat mycket väl, och kommer behållas nästa kursomgång efter några mindre ändringar i materialet.
Kursutvärderingen sammanställd av Joakim Stenhammar (kursansvarig) efter samråd med övriga lärare.
Kursanalys Avancerad yt- och kolloidkemi KEMM77 HT 2021
Kursansvarig: Joakim Stenhammar
Övriga lärare: Ulf Olsson, Emma Sparr, Anna Stradner
Labbhandledare: Madeleine Chouliara, Ismail El Korde, Jennifer Gilbert, Jing Hu, Peter Jönsson
Antal studenter: 7 registrerade studenter, varav 5 fullföljde kursen. Utöver dessa deltog 3 doktorander registrerade på motsvarande forskarutbildningskurs (NAKE013)
Resultat: 0 U, 1 G, 4 VG efter ordinarie muntlig tentamen och omtentamen
Sammanfattning av kursenkäten
6 studenter (inklusive 3 doktorander) besvarade kursenkäten. Återkopplingen från studenterna är genomgående mycket positiv, och samtliga studenter anser att kursmålen uppfyllts mycket väl (4 eller 5 på en femgradig skala). Vidare ges föreläsningarna mycket höga betyg (betyg 4 eller 5), även om vissa studenter påpekar att det kan vara utmanande med de olika undervisningsstilarna som kommer av att ha fyra undervisande lärare. Flera studenter upplever dock kursboken som svårläst och med för många korrekturfel. Kursorganisationen och informationen via Canvas verkar överlag fungerat väl.
Laborationer. Sedan förra kurstillfället har en laboration (AFM) ersatts med en nyutvecklad dito (fluorescensmikroskopi). Labbkursen, inklusive den nya labben, får genomgående positiv återkoppling (snittbetyg 3,8), även om vissa oklarheter i labbmaterialet på några av labbarna påpekas. Det framhålls även som negativt att en stor del av labbarna ligger under andra halvan av kursen, vilket ger en ojämn arbetsbörda.
Datorövningar. De två obligatoriska datorövningarna får blandad återkoppling (snittbetyg 3,4). Även om de ses som lärorika påpekas att det är utmanande att lära sig skriva skript i ett program som är tidigare okänt för studenterna (Maple). Vidare framhåller flera studenter att övningen i polymerteori känns svår att genomskåda, eftersom programmet som används har för mycket karaktär av ”svart låda”.
Litteraturövning. Litteraturövningen får genomgående mycket god kritik (betyg 4 eller 5).
Arbetsbörda. Samtliga studenter svarar att de lagt ned mellan 30 och 40 timmar per vecka på kursen.
Kommentarer och åtgärder
Den övergripande bilden av kursen är väldigt positiv, även om kursbokens relativt höga svårighetsgrad är välkänd. Eftersom det inte finns någon alternativ lärobok som behandlar alla de ämnen som tas upp i kursplanen är en grundtanke med kursen att föreläsningarna ska guida studenterna på ett relativt detaljerat sätt genom boken, i synnerhet i de mer utmanande kapitlen, vilket verkar fungerat väl.
Laborationer. Den nyutvecklade laborationen i fluorescensmikroskopi togs väl emot av studenterna. Materialet till samtliga labbar ska dock gås igenom och förtydligas till nästa kurstillfälle. Vidare ska schemat läggas så att arbetsbördan blir något mindre ojämn, även om det är en utmaning att även schemalägga samtliga laborationer efter att motsvarande teoriavsnitt behandlats på föreläsningarna.
Datorövningar. Utmaningen med mycket varierande dator- och programmeringsvana bland studenterna är välkänd och svårlöst. Detta kompenseras delvis genom grundlig introduktion av enkla exempel och aktiv handledning i relativt små grupper, och samtliga studenter har också klarat att lösa uppgifterna inom den givna tidsramen. Dock finns det en poäng med att anpassa datorövningarna, och i synnerhet den i elektrostatik, bättre efter den introduktion av vetenskaplig programmering i Python som implementerats på kandidat- och mastersprogrammen de senaste två åren. Till nästa år ska därför möjligheten undersökas att omarbeta denna övning från Maple till Python. Vidare ska laborationshandledningen till datorövningen i polymerteori omarbetas i grunden och expanderas, så att kopplingen till det övriga kursmaterialet förbättras och övningen upplevs mindre som en ”svart låda”.
Kursutvärderingen sammanställd av Joakim Stenhammar (kursansvarig) efter samråd med övriga lärare.
Kursanalys för Koordinationskemi och metallorganisk kemi KEMM52 VT 2022
Kursansvarig: Ola Wendt
Övriga lärare: Ebbe Nordlander
Kursombud: Mattias Tan
Antal studenter: 8 registrerade studenter
Betyg: 0 st U, 6 st G, 1 st VG. (7 skrivande på ordinarie tenta)
Utvärdering
Sammanfattning av kursvärderingen
Totalt antal svar: 4
Kort sammanfattning av resultatet: Sammantaget bedömde studenterna att de uppnått lärandemålen i de flesta avseenden och att alla läraktiviteterna på något vis bidragit till deras lärande. Något sämre måluppfyllelse kunde observeras på de ”högre” lärandemålen. Baserat på svar och diskussion med kursombuden är det störst utvecklingspotential i momentet bio-oorganisk kemi.
Lärarlagets kommentarer
Det är första gången kursen går icke-digitalt och det har på hela förlöpt väl. Studenterna är nöjda och uppvisar ett gott lärande. Andelen överbetyg är ganska lågt och reflekterar möjligen det faktum att de högre lärandemålen inte uppnås i lika hög grad. Till nästa kurs kommer vi att fortsätta att examinera den bio-oorganiska kemin med en dugga samt undersöka hur vi kan utveckla uppsatsen i denna del (möjligen med något poängsystem).
Kursombudens kommentarer
Generellt god strukturellt upplagt kurs, studenterna fick hjälp med extra övningar när det önskades. Den bio-oorganiska uppsatsen tog relativt mycket tid att sammanställa och korrigera. Det önskades att få någon form av extra poäng inför tentamen resultatet för att känna att det var värt att lägga ner den tid som behövdes lägga ner på arbetet.
Utvärdering av förändringar sedan förra kursen
Duggan på den bio-oorganiska delen fungerade väl medan uppsatsen skapat en del problem (endast hälften av studenterna är i dagsläget godkända)
Förslag till förändringar till nästa kurs
Se ovan
4 juli 2022, sammanställningen är gjord av lärarna samman med kursombuden
Kursanalys för Koordinationskemi och metallorganisk kemi KEMM52 VT 2021
Kursansvarig: Ola Wendt
Övriga lärare: Sofi Elmroth, Ebbe Nordlander
Antal studenter: 9 registrerade studenter
Betyg: 2 st U, 3 st G, 3 st VG. (8 skrivande på två tentor)
Utvärdering
Sammanfattning av kursvärderingen
Totalt antal svar: 7
Kort sammanfattning av resultatet: Sammantaget bedömde studenterna att de uppnått lärandemålen i de flesta avseenden och att de flesta läraktiviteterna på något vis bidragit till deras lärande. Sämst måluppfyllelse kunde tyvärr observeras på de ”högre” lärandemålen. Baserat på svar och diskussion med kursombuden är det störst utvecklingspotential i momenten seminarier och bio-oorganisk kemi.
Lärarlagets kommentarer
Den digitala lärmiljön är en utmaning för fördjupad kunskap och vi noterar också att det som vanligt är svårt att få igång studenternas läsande varvid andra delen (med seminarier och tenta) uppfattas som stressig. Till nästa kurs kommer vi att undersöka möjligheten att den bio-oorganiska kemin examineras med dugga samt huruvida seminarierna kan placeras bättre i tid.
Kursombudens kommentarer
Inga kommentarer
Utvärdering av förändringar sedan förra kursen
Undervisningens omfattning avseende den bio-oorganiska kemin minskades och uppdaterades.
Förslag till förändringar till nästa kurs
Se ovan
7 sep 2021, sammanställningen är gjord av lärarna samman med kursombuden
Kursanalys för Läkemedelskemi KEMM20 HT 2022
Kursansvarig: Ulf Nilsson
Övriga lärare: -
Antal studenter: 19 registrerade studenter
Betyg: 6 st G, 12 st VG.
Utvärdering
Sammanfattning av kursvärderingen
Totalt antal svar: 25 (74%)
Utvärderingarna sammanställdes av 2 studentrepresentanter: Isolde Zuleta Sjögren och Camilla Lane.
Överlag var kursen mycket uppskattad. Se kommentarer nedan till föreslagna förbättringar inför nästa år.
Lärarlagets kommentarer
Överlag föll utvärderingen väl ut och kursen var uppskattad. Speciellt lyftes föreläsningar fram, systemet med duggor, intressanta gästföreläsningar och relevansen hos ämnet.
Utvärdering av förändringar sedan förra kursen
Vid kursstart och genomgående i kursen diskuterades förväntade kunskaper och detta år erhölls färre kommentarer om otydlighet i förväntade mål.
Förslag till förändringar till nästa kurs
Möte med studentrepresentanter hölls den 27 januari 2023.
Vid mötet sammanfattades några förslag till förbättringar som att om möjligt flytta delar av sista duggan till tidigare och att återgå till ett system där studenter i förväg tilldelas uppgifter att ansvara för att lösningar presenteras och dokumenteras. Vidare efterfrågades skriftlig information om föreläsningarnas roll och syfte i kombination med vad som definierar kursens innehåll. Slutligen bör undersökas om föreläsningar och tillhörande övningar kan schemaläggas med något längre mellanrum för att möjliggöra att studenterna hinner fundera igenom övningsuppgifter innan övningstillfället.
Sammanfattning av studenternas kommentarer
Overall, the students who answered the survey were satisfied with the course and rated the lectures high. Recurring comments were on the exercises: they were appreciated but could be more moderated. There were also comments on how some lectures towards the end were less detailed and made it difficult to know what to study for the exam (dugga 3). Almost all students who answered the survey thought that the requirements on their work efforts were about right, with two students who thought the requirements were too high and one who thought they were too low.
2023-01-27, sammanställning är gjord av Isolde Zuleta Sjögren och Camilla Lane (studenter) och Ulf Nilsson (kursansvarig).
Kursanalys för Läkemedelskemi KEMM20 HT 2021
Kursansvarig: Ulf Nilsson
Övriga lärare: -
Antal studenter: 19 registrerade studenter
Betyg: 6 st G, 12 st VG.
Utvärdering
Sammanfattning av kursvärderingen
Totalt antal svar: 14 (74%)
Utvärderingarna sammanställdes av 2 studentrepresentanter: Stella Greiner och Malin Strandmark.
Överlag var kursen mycket uppskattad. Se kommentarer nedan till föreslagna förbättringar inför nästa år.
Lärarlagets kommentarer
Överlag föll utvärderingen väl ut och kursen var uppskattad. Speciellt lyftes föreläsningar fram, systemet med duggor och även zoom-övningar med hjälp av Onedrive där studenter föreslog lösningar i förväg innan övningstillfället.
Utvärdering av förändringar sedan förra kursen
Vid kursstart och genomgående i kursen diskuterades förväntade kunskaper och detta år erhölls färre kommentarer om otydlighet i förväntade mål.
Förslag till förändringar till nästa kurs
Möte med studentrepresentanter hölls den 20 januari 2021.
Vid mötet sammanfattades några förslag till förbättringar som att undvika explicita komplexa strukturer i dugga/tentafrågor, föreslå tydlig prioritering av övningsuppgifter att lösa inför övningstillfällen, spara filer/foton på lösningar till canvas, förtydliga ytterligare vilka delar i boken som inte ingår, samt att tydliggöra hur sista tredjedelen av boken/kursen (cases/therapeutic areas) ska studeras och examineras.
Sammanfattning av studenternas kommentarer
The overall student feedback was positive. The possibility of taking three smaller exams instead of the final one was pointed out as a positive aspect by several students. “Meet Ulf” to ask questions and the exercises and practice tests on Canvas provided a good preparation for the tests and the exam.
Negative aspects pointed out were mainly due to the course being online. Exercises over Zoom sometimes lacked in participation with only a small group of
students solving them. Some questions can easily be ignored in the chat, maybe it would be better to use the “raise hand” tool in Zoom to ask or make the lecturer aware of the question asked. The blue presentation slides one lecturer used were hard to read.
2022-01-20, sammanställning är gjord av Stella Greiner (student) och Ulf Nilsson (kursansvarig).
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
Kursanalys för Molekulär kvantmekanik KEMM58 VT 2021
Kursansvarig: Valera Veryazov
Övriga lärare: Joel Creutzberg, Ernst D. Larsson
Antal studenter: 4 registrerade studenter (2 deltog i kursen) och 4 PhD studenter
Betyg: 5 st G, 1 st VG
Utvärdering
Sammanfattning av kursvärderingen
Totalt antal svar: 1 master student and 2 PhD students. Due to small numbers of responces and rather equal outcome from the evaluation, the report is combined for both groups of students.
Kort sammanfattning av resultatet:
Comments are mostly positive for all components (lectures, seminars, labs): students like the content and and the way how the information was presented, although it was mentioned that some material was a bit too difficult to understand. But in the same time the workload was spread evenly and all components of the course were well prepared and presented. The suggestions for the improvements include recording the lectures and improved instructions for labs. It were no complains about remote education.
Lärarlagets kommentarer
Teachers agree with the evaluation. The evaluation was unusually positive. From other hand not all students take part in the evaluation. This year was the first time then all elements, including labs, were completely remote via ZOOM. Some elements of the course, for instance, in-class quiz was transformed into canvas assignments. In general, it was much more difficult to involve the students into discussions about the subject. The suggestion to record the lectures will be considered for the future. From other hand, students did not complain about the amount and the content of the materials provided for the course.
Utvärdering av förändringar sedan förra kursen
We constantly improving the slides and other materials, as it was suggested previously, but the process is the on going development. All materials are available at Canvas. As it was planned earlier, some modifications were implemented: a new lab, about point group symmetry has been implemented. A new design for remote submition of calculations during the labs has been implemented and used. A new set of exercises related to the final part of the course has been created. Some changes were implemented during the course, reflecting the need to change the interaction with students due to ZOOM based education.
Förslag till förändringar till nästa kurs
We plan to continue the revision of the instructions for labs and seminars, in particularly we will focus on making small tasks, to be checked as Canvas-style assignments.
2021-04-06, sammanställning är gjord av: Valera Veryazov, Joel Creitzberg, Ernst D. Larsson.
Kursanalys för Molekulär kvantmekanik KEMM58 VT 2020
Kursansvarig: Valera Veryazov
Övriga lärare: Joel Creutzberg, Ernst D. Larsson
Antal studenter: 1 registrerade studenter
Betyg: 1 st G
Utvärdering
Sammanfattning av kursvärderingen
Totalt antal svar: 1
Kort sammanfattning av resultatet:
Comments are mostly positive for all components (lectures, seminars, labs): explanations are sufficient and the time given for all components is the right one.
From the negative sign it was mentioned that the lectures are indeed needed, since the course materials are not sufficient without explanation.
Some complains are related to the classroom (due to the small group, the lectures and seminars were held at Theoretical Chemistry library) and to the problems with with usage of software at Aurum computer class.
Lärarlagets kommentarer
Teachers agree with the evaluation. There is, of course, a point in a demand that all slides and materials should be sufficient, but it is very difficult to exclude completely the teacher in the class.
With a new demand for remote education some materials should be revised.
For the environment questions – Chemical center should consider an investment into modern classrooms with a projector and modern teaching boards.
For the computer class, the software used in the course has been developed for Linux operating system. It works under Windows 10, but with bugs. Chemical center should consider a possibility to have one class running with Linux.
Utvärdering av förändringar sedan förra kursen
We constantly improving the slides and other materials, as it was suggested previously, but the process is the on going development. As it was suggested earlier, one extra lab has been introduced to support the study of group theory.
Förslag till förändringar till nästa kurs
Exercises, especially for the last part of the course will be revised and improved. We will also work on the improvement of the lecture notes and prepare the course for a distant education. We also plan to introduced a suggested list for the projects.
2020-03-24, sammanställning är gjord av: Valera Veryazov, Joel Creitzberg, Ernst D. Larsson, Axl Eriksson
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:
- 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) - The course consists of five blocks, and these appear disjointed.
- More time for exercises.
- Better timing of final lab and report so as not to interfere with exam preparations.
- 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
- 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. - 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. - Intermolecular interactions (Mickael Delcey): Mickael Delcey replaced Jan Forsman.
- Course represenative has changed from Petter Persson to Mikael Lund.
Suggested changes until the next time the course is given
- 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. - 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. - All blocks shall use Canvas for handins, lab reports, and mandatory elements.
- All blocks shall present a day-to-day schedule on Canvas with detailed information of
contents and relevant page numbers in the course book. - All blocks shall incorporate exam questions, e.g., by handins, a teacher walkthrough,
or videos. This will help set expectations for the exam. - Students shall recieve feedback on their handins and reports in a timely fashion that
does not collide with exam preparations. - Stress that course representatives can contact the main teacher at any time during the
course. In that way we can adjust early on. - Reschedule the last lab to avoid collision with exam preparations.
- 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 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: 5 registered master students plus 5 PhD students registered with course responsible
Grades: 1 st UK, 5 st G, 3 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 very good: average of 4.3 for the lectures, 5.0 for the computer lab exercises, 5.0 for the scattering lab projects and 4.7 for the literature, on a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very good).
- Similar results are obtained when grading the quantity (4.0 for lectures, 5.0 for the computer exercises, 5.0 for the scattering lab projects and 4.7 for the literature), on a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very good).
- Also the information/communication work during the course was regarded as good to very good (average 4.3 for teacher availability, 5.0 for lab assistant availability, 4.3 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 very helpful in the learning process: clear and distinct course literature: 3.3; helpfulness of lectures: 4.0; helpfulness of computer exercises: 4.0; helpfulness of lab projects: 4.0; structuring and instructions for lab projects: 4.0, 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 very 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 4.3 (on a scale from 1 (no, not at all) to 6 (yes, completely)).
Comments and reflections from the teachers
All the teachers were satisfied with the course taking into account the fact that it had to be performed as a distance course via Zoom again.
Evaluation of changes since last time the course was given
As the considerable changes that had already been incorporated in the 2019 course based on the 2018 course feedback (additional double lecture on general scattering theory; better coordination and harmonization between lectures and computer lab exercises; more time to hand in experimental reports) had been very well received in 2019, 2020 and 2022, no major changes related to course content had been made in 2022 compared to the years before. However, the special circumstances (safety regulations due to the pandemic) had i.a. an enormous impact on the student-teacher interactions during lectures (online) and the computer lab exercises (online). The scattering lab exercises were performed in person in very small groups.
Suggested changes until the next time the course is given
We plan to react on the comments given by the students in the comment section, where they state that there was “Too little time for discussions” under “What has been bad”, and suggest to “Pre-record the lectures and have seminars instead”
under “How can we improve?”. We will thus pre-record some of the introductory lectures and add a double lecture for discussions only to the schedule for 2023.
3. 8. 2022, sammanställningen är gjord av 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 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