VT25 Chemical Biology

Respondents: 67
Answer Count: 37
Answer Frequency: 55.22%

In my view, I have developed valuable expertise/skills during the course.

In my view, I have developed valuable expertise/skills during the course.	Number of responses
to a very small extent	4 (10.8%)
to a small extent	2 (5.4%)
to some extent	12 (32.4%)
to a large extent	15 (40.5%)
to a very large extent	4 (10.8%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
In my view, I have developed valuable expertise/skills during the course.	3.4	1.1	33.1 %	1.0	3.0	4.0	4.0	5.0

In my view, I have achieved all the intended learning outcomes of the course.

In my view, I have achieved all the intended learning outcomes of the course.	Number of responses
to a very small extent	2 (5.4%)
to a small extent	6 (16.2%)
to some extent	14 (37.8%)
to a large extent	11 (29.7%)
to a very large extent	4 (10.8%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
In my view, I have achieved all the intended learning outcomes of the course.	3.2	1.0	32.0 %	1.0	3.0	3.0	4.0	5.0

In my view, there was a common theme running throughout the course – from learning outcomes to examinations.

In my view, there was a common theme running throughout the course – from learning outcomes to examinations.	Number of responses
to a very small extent	3 (8.1%)
to a small extent	13 (35.1%)
to some extent	9 (24.3%)
to a large extent	11 (29.7%)
to a very large extent	1 (2.7%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
In my view, there was a common theme running throughout the course – from learning outcomes to examinations.	2.8	1.0	36.7 %	1.0	2.0	3.0	4.0	5.0

In my view, the course has promoted a scientific way of thinking and reasoning (e.g. analytical and critical thinking, independent search for and evaluation of information).

In my view, the course has promoted a scientific way of thinking and reasoning (e.g. analytical and critical thinking, independent search for and evaluation of information).	Number of responses
to a very small extent	1 (2.7%)
to a small extent	9 (24.3%)
to some extent	11 (29.7%)
to a large extent	12 (32.4%)
to a very large extent	4 (10.8%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
In my view, the course has promoted a scientific way of thinking and reasoning (e.g. analytical and critical thinking, independent search for and evaluation of information).	3.2	1.0	32.0 %	1.0	2.0	3.0	4.0	5.0

In my view, during the course, the teachers have been open to ideas and opinions about the course’s structure and content.

In my view, during the course, the teachers have been open to ideas and opinions about the course’s structure and content.	Number of responses
to a very small extent	3 (8.1%)
to a small extent	8 (21.6%)
to some extent	15 (40.5%)
to a large extent	7 (18.9%)
to a very large extent	4 (10.8%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
In my view, during the course, the teachers have been open to ideas and opinions about the course’s structure and content.	3.0	1.1	36.1 %	1.0	2.0	3.0	4.0	5.0

To what extent do you feel that the workload during the course was reasonable in relation to the extent of the course/number of credits awarded?

To what extent do you feel that the workload during the course was reasonable in relation to the extent of the course/number of credits awarded?	Number of responses
To a very small extent	8 (21.6%)
To a small extent	13 (35.1%)
To some extent	12 (32.4%)
To a large extent	3 (8.1%)
To a very large extent	1 (2.7%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
To what extent do you feel that the workload during the course was reasonable in relation to the extent of the course/number of credits awarded?	2.4	1.0	42.8 %	1.0	2.0	2.0	3.0	5.0

The course structure and methods used (e.g. lectures, exercises, seminars, assignments etc.) were relevant in relation to the learning outcomes.

The course structure and methods used (e.g. lectures, exercises, seminars, assignments etc.) were relevant in relation to the learning outcomes.	Number of responses
to a very small extent	2 (5.4%)
to a small extent	7 (18.9%)
to some extent	12 (32.4%)
to a large extent	15 (40.5%)
to a very large extent	1 (2.7%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
The course structure and methods used (e.g. lectures, exercises, seminars, assignments etc.) were relevant in relation to the learning outcomes.	3.2	1.0	30.3 %	1.0	3.0	3.0	4.0	5.0

The examination was relevant in relation to the learning outcomes.

The examination was relevant in relation to the learning outcomes.	Number of responses
to a very small extent	5 (13.5%)
to a small extent	11 (29.7%)
to some extent	11 (29.7%)
to a large extent	9 (24.3%)
to a very large extent	1 (2.7%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
The examination was relevant in relation to the learning outcomes.	2.7	1.1	39.2 %	1.0	2.0	3.0	4.0	5.0

I took responsibility for my own learning during this course.

I took responsibility for my own learning during this course.	Number of responses
to a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
to a small extent	0 (0.0%)
to some extent	4 (10.8%)
to a large extent	13 (35.1%)
to a very large extent	20 (54.1%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
I took responsibility for my own learning during this course.	4.4	0.7	15.5 %	3.0	4.0	5.0	5.0	5.0

When/if I had questions or problems with the course content, I felt that I could turn to my teacher/supervisor for guidance.

When/if I had questions or problems with the course content, I felt that I could turn to my teacher/supervisor for guidance.	Number of responses
to a very small extent	2 (5.4%)
to a small extent	7 (18.9%)
to some extent	14 (37.8%)
to a large extent	8 (21.6%)
to a very large extent	6 (16.2%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
When/if I had questions or problems with the course content, I felt that I could turn to my teacher/supervisor for guidance.	3.2	1.1	34.4 %	1.0	3.0	3.0	4.0	5.0

The feedback that I have received has been important for my development and learning.

The feedback that I have received has been important for my development and learning.	Number of responses
to a very small extent	7 (18.9%)
to a small extent	8 (21.6%)
to some extent	13 (35.1%)
to a large extent	7 (18.9%)
to a very large extent	2 (5.4%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
The feedback that I have received has been important for my development and learning.	2.7	1.2	42.6 %	1.0	2.0	3.0	3.0	5.0

What is your overall opinion of the course?

What is your overall opinion of the course?	Number of responses
very poor	6 (16.2%)
poor	6 (16.2%)
OK	17 (45.9%)
good	6 (16.2%)
very good	2 (5.4%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
What is your overall opinion of the course?	2.8	1.1	38.9 %	1.0	2.0	3.0	3.0	5.0

In my view, there was a common theme running throughout the course – from learning outcomes to examinations.

In my view, there was a common theme running throughout the course – from learning outcomes to examinations.	Number of responses
to a very small extent	2 (5.4%)
to a small extent	7 (18.9%)
to some extent	20 (54.1%)
to a large extent	6 (16.2%)
to a very large extent	2 (5.4%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
In my view, there was a common theme running throughout the course – from learning outcomes to examinations.	3.0	0.9	30.2 %	1.0	3.0	3.0	3.0	5.0

Rate the following aspects of the course (the more stars, the better)

Number of lectures

Number of lectures	Number of responses
poor	1 (2.7%)
	2 (5.4%)
	15 (40.5%)
	8 (21.6%)
good	11 (29.7%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Number of lectures	3.7	1.1	28.4 %	1.0	3.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Length of lectures

Length of lectures	Number of responses
poor	1 (2.7%)
	1 (2.7%)
	12 (32.4%)
	11 (29.7%)
good	12 (32.4%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Length of lectures	3.9	1.0	26.0 %	1.0	3.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Number of seminars

Number of seminars	Number of responses
poor	2 (5.6%)
	5 (13.9%)
	11 (30.6%)
	6 (16.7%)
good	12 (33.3%)
Total	36 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Number of seminars	3.6	1.3	34.9 %	1.0	3.0	3.5	5.0	5.0

Amount of practical work

Amount of practical work	Number of responses
poor	5 (13.5%)
	2 (5.4%)
	8 (21.6%)
	12 (32.4%)
good	10 (27.0%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Amount of practical work	3.5	1.3	37.4 %	1.0	3.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Number of project work meetings

Number of project work meetings	Number of responses
poor	3 (8.1%)
	8 (21.6%)
	5 (13.5%)
	9 (24.3%)
good	12 (32.4%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Number of project work meetings	3.5	1.4	38.9 %	1.0	2.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Project work group

Project work group	Number of responses
poor	2 (5.4%)
	8 (21.6%)
	2 (5.4%)
	12 (32.4%)
good	13 (35.1%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Project work group	3.7	1.3	35.4 %	1.0	2.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Rate the following teaching modules.

Lectures

Lectures	Number of responses
very poor	1 (2.8%)
poor	10 (27.8%)
OK	14 (38.9%)
good	9 (25.0%)
very good	2 (5.6%)
Total	36 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lectures	3.0	0.9	31.1 %	1.0	2.0	3.0	4.0	5.0

Seminars

Seminars	Number of responses
very poor	3 (8.8%)
poor	7 (20.6%)
OK	9 (26.5%)
good	9 (26.5%)
very good	6 (17.6%)
Total	34 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Seminars	3.2	1.2	38.1 %	1.0	2.0	3.0	4.0	5.0

Computer lab

Computer lab	Number of responses
very poor	3 (8.1%)
poor	7 (18.9%)
OK	12 (32.4%)
good	9 (24.3%)
very good	6 (16.2%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Computer lab	3.2	1.2	36.7 %	1.0	2.0	3.0	4.0	5.0

Inhibitor (wet) lab

Inhibitor (wet) lab	Number of responses
very poor	0 (0.0%)
poor	4 (10.8%)
OK	9 (24.3%)
good	12 (32.4%)
very good	12 (32.4%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Inhibitor (wet) lab	3.9	1.0	26.0 %	2.0	3.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Project work

Project work	Number of responses
very poor	2 (5.4%)
poor	2 (5.4%)
OK	13 (35.1%)
good	9 (24.3%)
very good	11 (29.7%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Project work	3.7	1.1	30.8 %	1.0	3.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Lab manuals

Lab manuals	Number of responses
very poor	2 (5.4%)
poor	5 (13.5%)
OK	8 (21.6%)
good	11 (29.7%)
very good	11 (29.7%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lab manuals	3.6	1.2	33.1 %	1.0	3.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

For the entire course rate the attitude of the people (staff) you have been in contact with the MBB on the course.

Course director (Bernhard Lohkamp)

Course director (Bernhard Lohkamp)	Number of responses
very poor	1 (2.9%)
poor	2 (5.9%)
OK	3 (8.8%)
good	9 (26.5%)
very good	19 (55.9%)
Total	34 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Course director (Bernhard Lohkamp)	4.3	1.1	24.7 %	1.0	4.0	5.0	5.0	5.0

Lecturers

Lecturers	Number of responses
very poor	1 (2.9%)
poor	3 (8.8%)
OK	15 (44.1%)
good	7 (20.6%)
very good	8 (23.5%)
Total	34 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lecturers	3.5	1.1	29.8 %	1.0	3.0	3.0	4.0	5.0

Seminar/Workshop teachers

Seminar/Workshop teachers	Number of responses
very poor	2 (6.5%)
poor	3 (9.7%)
OK	8 (25.8%)
good	9 (29.0%)
very good	9 (29.0%)
Total	31 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Seminar/Workshop teachers	3.6	1.2	32.9 %	1.0	3.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Lab teachers

Lab teachers	Number of responses
very poor	1 (3.0%)
poor	5 (15.2%)
OK	6 (18.2%)
good	8 (24.2%)
very good	13 (39.4%)
Total	33 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lab teachers	3.8	1.2	31.7 %	1.0	3.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Course administrator (Anurupa Nagchowdhury)

Course administrator (Anurupa Nagchowdhury)	Number of responses
very poor	0 (0.0%)
poor	0 (0.0%)
OK	3 (9.1%)
good	7 (21.2%)
very good	23 (69.7%)
Total	33 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Course administrator (Anurupa Nagchowdhury)	4.6	0.7	14.3 %	3.0	4.0	5.0	5.0	5.0

Course lab (Margareta Kling Pilström and Joseph Bruton )

Course lab (Margareta Kling Pilström and Joseph Bruton )	Number of responses
very poor	0 (0.0%)
poor	1 (2.9%)
OK	4 (11.8%)
good	8 (23.5%)
very good	21 (61.8%)
Total	34 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Course lab (Margareta Kling Pilström and Joseph Bruton )	4.4	0.8	18.5 %	2.0	4.0	5.0	5.0	5.0

Did you do the Labster Simulation about NMR?

Did you do the Labster Simulation about NMR?	Number of responses
Yes	5 (13.5%)
No	32 (86.5%)
Total	37 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Did you do the Labster Simulation about NMR?	1.9	0.3	18.6 %	1.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0

Any particular reason why you did not do the Labster simulation about NMR?

Any particular reason why you did not do the Labster simulation about NMR?	Number of responses
Didnt know about it.	15 (46.9%)
No time	13 (40.6%)
Didnt think it was important.	9 (28.1%)
Other	3 (9.4%)
Total	40 (125.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Any particular reason why you did not do the Labster simulation about NMR?	2.0	1.0	48.0 %	1.0	1.0	2.0	3.0	4.0

Did you have any technical problems with Labster/digital lab? Yes/No. If yes, describe the problems.

Did you have any technical problems with Labster/digital lab? Yes/No. If yes, describe the problems.	Number of responses
Yes	0 (0.0%)
No	5 (100.0%)
Total	5 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Did you have any technical problems with Labster/digital lab? Yes/No. If yes, describe the problems.	2.0	0.0	0.0 %	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.0

Labster/Digital lab increased my interest towards the course content.

Labster/Digital lab increased my interest towards the course content.	Number of responses
to a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
to a small extent	0 (0.0%)
to some extent	1 (25.0%)
to a large extent	1 (25.0%)
to a very large extent	2 (50.0%)
Total	4 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Labster/Digital lab increased my interest towards the course content.	4.2	1.0	22.5 %	3.0	3.5	4.5	5.0	5.0

Labster/Digital lab increased my understanding of the course content.

Labster/Digital lab increased my understanding of the course content.	Number of responses
to a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
to a small extent	0 (0.0%)
to some extent	0 (0.0%)
to a large extent	2 (50.0%)
to a very large extent	2 (50.0%)
Total	4 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Labster/Digital lab increased my understanding of the course content.	4.5	0.6	12.8 %	4.0	4.0	4.5	5.0	5.0

Visualising in Labster/digital lab increased my ability to integrate theory and practice.

Visualising in Labster/digital lab increased my ability to integrate theory and practice.	Number of responses
to a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
to a small extent	0 (0.0%)
to some extent	1 (25.0%)
to a large extent	1 (25.0%)
to a very large extent	2 (50.0%)
Total	4 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Visualising in Labster/digital lab increased my ability to integrate theory and practice.	4.2	1.0	22.5 %	3.0	3.5	4.5	5.0	5.0