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. 36% (4 st) Easy.
    3. 36% (4 st) Average.
    4. 27% (3 st) Rather difficult.
    5. 0% (0 st) Difficult.

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

    With the labs done in time, it wasn't particularly hard to get a good note on the exam.
    ---
    The most difficult parts were in my opinion "Calcium dynamics" and "The cable equations" because I didn't work on them in the labs. The labs were very helpful to understand the topics.


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

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


  3. Do you find the course interesting and meaningful?

    1. 45% (5 st) Yes, very.
    2. 27% (3 st) Yes.
    3. 18% (2 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:

    There shouldn't be spent so much effort in team building, conflict handling, etc.
    ---
    It was definitely interesting, but at the end, I feel that it would have been better to get 1,5-2,5 times more knowledge/information on the lectures.


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

    1. 82% (9 st) Yes.
    2. 0% (0 st) Not sure.
    3. 9% (1 st) No.

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

    Congratulations to the programme designers, it was a terrific feeling to recognize almost every lecture theme from the lecture in "Intro to Biomedicine" before or right after.
    ---
    it was not enough to understand deeply each content


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

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

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

    1. 9% (1 st) Very good.
    2. 36% (4 st) Good.
    3. 9% (1 st) OK.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 36% (4 st) Did not use it.

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

    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. 64% (7 st) Did not use it.

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

    I liked the book of GENESIS the most, right after Västergård's parts in the kursbunten.


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

    1. 18% (2 st) Very good.
    2. 36% (4 st) Good.
    3. 9% (1 st) OK.
    4. 0% (0 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 27% (3 st) Did not use it.

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

    1. 0% (0 st) Too much.
    2. 82% (9 st) Sufficient.
    3. 9% (1 st) Too little.

    Any comments on the other course material:

    You can get everything sufficiently explained but not boring, and you always have the possibility to get more information from the sources provided.
    ---
    i think it is a collection of material not linked and not very didactic


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

    1. 9% (1 st) Less than 50%.
    2. 27% (3 st) 50-70%.
    3. 27% (3 st) 70-90%.
    4. 27% (3 st) More than 90%.


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

    1. 9% (1 st) Very good.
    2. 9% (1 st) Good.
    3. 55% (6 st) OK.
    4. 18% (2 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 speaker spoke a bit slow, and not too eventful. It was probably because of the unceratin level of understanding on the other side, but there must be a way to get more feedback during the course. It was hard to keep the attention level up.
    ---
    The content explained was clear, but a big amount of content was not explained. I would have doubled the number of lectures!
    ---
    More examples, often it was just some formulas
    ---
    I think there was too much focus on team work. It would have been better if a greater part of the lectures had been about bio modelling.


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

    1. 18% (2 st) Too high level, too much or too difficult material.
    2. 55% (6 st) Good level, adequate and interesting material.
    3. 18% (2 st) Too low level, too little or too simple material.

    Any comments on the level of the lectures:

    I found the lectures a bit slow, and not too informative. Medium amount of information was provided in long time instead of Much information in long time well assessed. I felt that I wanted to know more about each subject, and that attending a particular lecture didn't give much more then the slides/kursbunt. A few practical and interesting examples were mentioned, but we could have taken a lot more. Also one or two extra labs/lectures could have been added for practicing the practical parts of the test.
    ---
    I would have avoided to use so much time to explain the principles of group work and use it to explain more deeply the content. Only a personal preference..


  13. How did you find the labs?

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


  14. 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. 18% (2 st) Acceptable.
    4. 27% (3 st) The information was not quite sufficient.
    5. 0% (0 st) The information was not at all sufficient.

    Any comments on the labs:

    The labs are oriented on the topics covered in the lectures, but the instructions are quite confusing sometimes - especially in lab 5.
    ---
    The labs were sometimes hard, we often got stuck. We ended up reading the same two-three sentences in the kursbunt, because there were a lot of interesting questions, which were not mentioned anywhere, or which weren't exactly clear, wherefrom we should get the information. If we had had a bit more to read, it would have been easier.
    The later labs were maybe too easy to solve, the biggest problem was that you didnt have to understand WHAT you were doing in the bioinformatics, you just could do the informatics part, and get through.

    I liked the review sessions though, a lot of dizzy questions got cleared up, I might have learnt more on those, then during the labs themselves.

    ---
    Sometimes it would be better to have a scheduled labs session with an assistant instead of booking a 'lab help'.. or maybe it would have been enough to read the labs together during the lecture to make some things more clear.
    ---
    The lab instructions for lab 5 were quite bad. I did the lab, but didn't understand much, it felt a bit pointless.


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

    1. 9% (1 st) Very good.
    2. 55% (6 st) Good.
    3. 18% (2 st) OK.
    4. 9% (1 st) Not so good.
    5. 0% (0 st) Bad.
    6. 0% (0 st) Did not do the exam yet.


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

    1. 0% (0 st) Very good.
    2. 27% (3 st) Good.
    3. 45% (5 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:


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

    1. 9% (1 st) One.
    2. 36% (4 st) Two.
    3. 36% (4 st) Three.
    4. 9% (1 st) Four or more.


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

    1. 0% (0 st) Less than 20%.
    2. 45% (5 st) 20-40%.
    3. 45% (5 st) 40-60%.
    4. 0% (0 st) 60-80%.
    5. 0% (0 st) More than 80%.


  19. Any additional comments on the course:

    A good and interesting course. It feels like a good base and introduction to biomodelling, but I suppose the aim would be to give me more then just introduction. If not, then it definitely awakes one's apetite.
    ---
    i think is a very important course, but i don't see specifically where the "mathematical" part is..further, lots of previous knowledge is required. i suggest to spend more time introducing the topic dealt with..maybe improving the slides used during the lectures.
    ---
    I wish there would have been more opportunities to ask questions about the labs. There were often a lot of people wanting to discuss the labs with Erik during the lecture break so there wasn't always that much time and the booking system wasn't very smooth. We never used it.
    ---
    I'm quite happy with this course. I would just add a comment regarding the solutions of the exams. They are confusing sometimes and even wrong few little.


  20. Thank you for filling in the questionare

    thank you for having asked to fill it!


erikf@csc.kth.se

Denna sammanställning har genererats med ACE.