DD2435 Mathematical modeling of biological systems AND DD2436 Modeling of processes in cell biology

Result of course evaluation


    Evaluation of both DD2435 and DD2436. If you have attended DD2436 Modeling of processes in cell biology, choose the alternatives labeled DD2436 in questions concerning the other course DD2435 Mathematical modeling of biological systems.


  1. How do you percieve the course?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very easy.
    2. 9% (1 st) Easy.
    3. 27% (3 st) Average.
    4. 27% (3 st) Rather difficult.
    5. 36% (4 st) Difficult.

    Any comments, e.g. on specific parts of the course:

    The lectures were very cryptic, we just saw equations, but the parameters, their behavior and their usage was usually excluded. In my case, having no background in thermodynamics, ion gates and all the other "basic" requirements of the course I found that the first 4 weeks of lectures were too complex for me to assimilate on time. After studying some of these subjects more in depth I was able to start understanding further lectures a little bit better.
    ---
    The contents were medium difficult, but it was hard to learn since there was so much information from different sources and it took so long to compile the information.
    ---
    lots of different things from different subject that I didn't know at all (thermodynamics, electricity...)
    ---
    Labs are easy, final test a bit tricky in some parts.


  2. Was is from the start clear what the goal of the course was?

    1. 55% (6 st) Yes.
    2. 27% (3 st) Not sure.
    3. 18% (2 st) No.


  3. Do you find the course interesting and meaningful?

    1. 45% (5 st) Yes, very.
    2. 55% (6 st) Yes.
    3. 0% (0 st) Neutral.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not particularly.
    5. 0% (0 st) No.

    Any comments, e.g. on specific parts of the course that are missing or could be excluded:

    All topics were extremely interesting, I believe that at the end I did understand the main methodology in modeling.
    ---
    Real lab oppertunities, where you can get assistant help (not just book ten minutes, but get 2 hours or so)
    ---
    interesting, but I would like to understand better where are the equations from.


  4. Do you think your preexising knolwedge was sufficient when the course started?

    1. 45% (5 st) Yes.
    2. 9% (1 st) Not sure.
    3. 45% (5 st) No.

    Any comments, e.g. on specific parts of the course:

    Not at all, moreover I suggest a much more extensive background reference compendium for students that are not familiar with these types of problems.
    ---
    I am from computer science, and the thermodynamics and electricity part ask me really lots of work...


  5. How do you find the the pile of printed material (kursbunten)?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very good.
    2. 45% (5 st) Good.
    3. 18% (2 st) OK.
    4. 27% (3 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 9% (1 st) Did not used it.

  6. How did you find the course book Johnston and Wu: Foundations of Cellular Neurophysiology?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very good.
    2. 18% (2 st) Good.
    3. 9% (1 st) OK.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 73% (8 st) Did not used it.

  7. How did you find the course book Fall et al:Computational Cell Biology?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very good.
    2. 9% (1 st) Good.
    3. 9% (1 st) OK.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 73% (8 st) Did not used it.

    Any comments on the book (write first Course pile, JW or Fall):

    Many of the equations in the Westmark compendium had errors.
    ---
    course pile.
    good in general, but as i mentioned before a bit to much information. I started to read through them (from the beginning of the course), but in the end i realized that there was no time to finish..

    ---
    about kursbunten : in the whole clear, but
    I found some mistakes (a least in math calculation), and contradictions between some different parts, which confuse me.


  8. How did you find the reading directions for the course pile and the books?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very good.
    2. 55% (6 st) Good.
    3. 9% (1 st) OK.
    4. 9% (1 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 27% (3 st) Did not used it.

  9. What do you think about the other course material?

    1. 0% (0 st) Too much.
    2. 73% (8 st) Sufficient.
    3. 18% (2 st) Too little.

    Any comments on the other course material:

    Again, it is necessary to create a flow chart of how each topic is tied together to give the student a sense of direction.
    ---
    what other course material?
    ---
    Tell at the beginning that we have this reading directions, because it took me a long times to realised it... And as there is a lot, maybe tell to exchange student that we are supposed to read lots of things at the beginning. In france it is not the case, so I think I begin to read too late...
    ---
    more on calcium dynamics would be helpful


  10. How large fraction of the lectures did you attend?

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 50%.
    2. 18% (2 st) 50-70%.
    3. 27% (3 st) 70-90%.
    4. 55% (6 st) More than 90%.


  11. How did you find the lecturers lectures? (Is the content explained well? Does the teacher speak and write clearly, etc?)

    1. 0% (0 st) Very good.
    2. 45% (5 st) Good.
    3. 27% (3 st) OK.
    4. 27% (3 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 0% (0 st) Did not attend/attended very little.

    Any comments on the lectures:

    The level was too high, we barely did any examples, and most of the equations were run through. In most cases the equations were not explained thoroughly and rarely we would go through the parameters and how each of them would affect the behavior of the system.
    ---
    the lectures was basically listing of formulas and the big picture was lost. However the practicle examples on the black board was usally very rewarding.
    ---
    Lecturer is well-educated undoubtly, but may be not well-experienced enough. So, understanding the topic during lectures was difficult.
    ---
    I really like the subject. Teacher listen to students, and is here for help. But sometimes unclear, at least for me... I think what could have help me, could be to have all the parameters of the equation well defined, and with the units... And maybe explain more what we are doing, what we are modelling, what is the goal of what we are doing. Because sometimes it was ok, but sometimes I was totally lost.


  12. How did you find the level of the lectures? Were the knowledge level of your preexisting knowledge taken inte account? Did the lectures give you anything in terms of knowledge?

    1. 27% (3 st) Too high level, too much or too difficult material.
    2. 64% (7 st) Good level, adequate and interesting material.
    3. 9% (1 st) Too low level, too little or too simple material.

    Any comments on the level of the lectures:

    The level is too high, it was also very hard to connect the dots, how did everything fit in, what was all this material going to help us do. As motivation I would have shown a schema that connects enzymatic reactions, Ion gate operation, Diffusion, etc etc etc and how all these theories can be combined to finally solve a specific set of problems, maybe show some of the animations we saw on the last class but as a first step, then the lecturer can refer back to a visual image so that the student can fit the theory in a specific problem. The lecturer would jump into the specifics before explaining the whole picture first. It was very tasking to reverse engeneer the problem from the lecture.


  13. The lectures were given in english. Did that affect your learning and your final knowledge?

    1. 73% (8 st) It worked very well.
    2. 18% (2 st) It worked well.
    3. 9% (1 st) It worked satisfactory.
    4. 0% (0 st) It worked less well.
    5. 0% (0 st) It did not work well.


  14. How did you find the labs?

    1. 27% (3 st) Very good.
    2. 55% (6 st) Good.
    3. 18% (2 st) OK.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 0% (0 st) Did not do the labs.


  15. Was the information you needed to complete the labs sufficient? E.g. was the labinstructions and the information given during lectures sufficient?

    1. 9% (1 st) The information was very good.
    2. 36% (4 st) The information was good.
    3. 36% (4 st) Acceptable.
    4. 18% (2 st) The information was not quite sufficient.
    5. 0% (0 st) The information was not at all sufficient.

    Any comments on the labs:

    The course topics are great, and the labs will help you a lot.
    First lab is extremely difficult, as a first task it is very easy to turn many students down. I would suggest creating an "easy" version of Lab1 where the student is guided through the lab. I don't suggest you change the tasks of Lab 1 but I would suggest to add more "intermediate" steps to the Lab, that guide you through the process, and in other labs you can progressively eliminate steps in other labs. In general I think the first labs should be more guided and then as one gets a hold of the material, the labs should become more and more tasking where the student is asked to think for himself rather than follow a list of steps.

    ---
    some things were really good, other things not so good. Lab 2 was really good and you learned a lot. Lab 1 was good but there could of been a little bit of "warm up" questions to get you started easily. Lab 4 (both a and b) are impossible to start without assistance with the existing lab instructions. I have so far wasted 3 hours on getting the simulators working (and 4b is still not working). 1st of all there should say somewhere on the lab instructions that you need to download the files from the homepage (i know it says so on the homepage, but it wouldn't hurt to be in the instructions aswell) 2ndly the command to start the program in the terminal is wrong. The problem with 4b I cant explain yet since i havn't figured it out... These sort of problems would however not be an issue if there where lab occations with assistent help.
    ---
    maybe put some time available for help. Lab very interesting, but it takes me really lots of times... And some difficulties to make the simulators work (swim and genesis(which dont work one every computers... not in gron for example)), which is a loss of lots of times, and so annoying.


  16. How did you find the exam, did it reflect the content of the course and the goal of the course?

    1. 18% (2 st) Very good.
    2. 27% (3 st) Good.
    3. 27% (3 st) OK.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 27% (3 st) Did not do the exam yet.


  17. How did you find the project and the project presentation (only DD2435)?

    1. 0% (0 st) Very good.
    2. 55% (6 st) Good.
    3. 18% (2 st) Acceptable.
    4. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    5. 18% (2 st) Did not do it, or took part in DD2436.

    Any comments on the project:

    I would have preferred to have the option to further one of the labs and present it as a project because I really enjoyed doing the projects and I developed some functionality.
    ---
    not done yet
    ---
    too little time for the presentations


  18. How many courses did you study in parallel this period (period 1)?

    1. 9% (1 st) One.
    2. 64% (7 st) Two.
    3. 18% (2 st) Three.
    4. 9% (1 st) Four or more.


  19. How large fraction of your total study time during period 1 did you spend on this course?

    1. 9% (1 st) Less than 20%.
    2. 27% (3 st) 20-40%.
    3. 27% (3 st) 40-60%.
    4. 27% (3 st) 60-80%.
    5. 9% (1 st) More than 80%.


  20. Any additional comments on the course:

    I think the course is good as an introduction to the subject. On the other hand, I would like a course with deeper material and more hands on advanced modelling.
    ---
    During the first month of lectures I felt that I did not understand the purpose of the course, everything seemed disconnected, it would have been nice in the course plan to describe the main point of the course and how it lecture and topic gets you a step closer to be able to solve a specific type of problem.
    ---
    *Very interesting. Very good introduction to computational biology.
    *It covers lot of interesting subjects.
    *As far as I am concerned, I think that the calcium dynamics part is difficult, it would be nice to include some introductory material.


  21. Thank you for filling in the questinare


erikf@csc.kth.se

Denna sammanställning har genererats med ACE.