VT2024-Chemical Biology
Respondents: 50
Answer Count: 32
Answer Frequency: 64.00%
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 | 0 (0.0%) |
| to a small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| to some extent | 10 (31.2%) |
| to a large extent | 17 (53.1%) |
| to a very large extent | 5 (15.6%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 3.8 | 0.7 | 17.6 % | 3.0 | 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 | 0 (0.0%) |
| to a small extent | 1 (3.1%) |
| to some extent | 7 (21.9%) |
| to a large extent | 22 (68.8%) |
| to a very large extent | 2 (6.2%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 3.8 | 0.6 | 16.1 % | 2.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 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 | 2 (6.2%) |
| to a small extent | 4 (12.5%) |
| to some extent | 5 (15.6%) |
| to a large extent | 14 (43.8%) |
| to a very large extent | 7 (21.9%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 3.6 | 1.2 | 31.9 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 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 | 0 (0.0%) |
| to a small extent | 2 (6.2%) |
| to some extent | 4 (12.5%) |
| to a large extent | 13 (40.6%) |
| to a very large extent | 13 (40.6%) |
| Total | 32 (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). | 4.2 | 0.9 | 21.3 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 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 | 0 (0.0%) |
| to a small extent | 1 (3.1%) |
| to some extent | 9 (28.1%) |
| to a large extent | 10 (31.2%) |
| to a very large extent | 12 (37.5%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 4.0 | 0.9 | 22.3 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 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 | 4 (12.5%) |
| To a small extent | 8 (25.0%) |
| To some extent | 14 (43.8%) |
| To a large extent | 3 (9.4%) |
| To a very large extent | 3 (9.4%) |
| Total | 32 (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? | 2.8 | 1.1 | 39.5 % | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 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 | 0 (0.0%) |
| to a small extent | 1 (3.1%) |
| to some extent | 7 (21.9%) |
| to a large extent | 18 (56.2%) |
| to a very large extent | 6 (18.8%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 3.9 | 0.7 | 18.8 % | 2.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 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 | 1 (3.2%) |
| to a small extent | 1 (3.2%) |
| to some extent | 8 (25.8%) |
| to a large extent | 19 (61.3%) |
| to a very large extent | 2 (6.5%) |
| Total | 31 (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. | 3.6 | 0.8 | 21.9 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 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 | 2 (6.2%) |
| to some extent | 3 (9.4%) |
| to a large extent | 16 (50.0%) |
| to a very large extent | 11 (34.4%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 4.1 | 0.8 | 20.2 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 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 | 1 (3.1%) |
| to a small extent | 2 (6.2%) |
| to some extent | 4 (12.5%) |
| to a large extent | 16 (50.0%) |
| to a very large extent | 9 (28.1%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 3.9 | 1.0 | 24.9 % | 1.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 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 | 1 (3.1%) |
| to a small extent | 4 (12.5%) |
| to some extent | 10 (31.2%) |
| to a large extent | 9 (28.1%) |
| to a very large extent | 8 (25.0%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 3.6 | 1.1 | 30.7 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 |
What is your overall opinion of the course?
| What is your overall opinion of the course? | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 1 (3.1%) |
| poor | 5 (15.6%) |
| OK | 12 (37.5%) |
| good | 9 (28.1%) |
| very good | 5 (15.6%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What is your overall opinion of the course? | 3.4 | 1.0 | 30.8 % | 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 | 1 (3.1%) |
| to a small extent | 3 (9.4%) |
| to some extent | 10 (31.2%) |
| to a large extent | 14 (43.8%) |
| to a very large extent | 4 (12.5%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 3.5 | 0.9 | 26.9 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 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 (3.1%) |
| 1 (3.1%) | |
| 5 (15.6%) | |
| 13 (40.6%) | |
| good | 12 (37.5%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of lectures | 4.1 | 1.0 | 24.2 % | 1.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Length of lectures
| Length of lectures | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| 2 (6.2%) | |
| 7 (21.9%) | |
| 12 (37.5%) | |
| good | 11 (34.4%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length of lectures | 4.0 | 0.9 | 22.9 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Number of seminars
| Number of seminars | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| 6 (18.8%) | |
| 3 (9.4%) | |
| 11 (34.4%) | |
| good | 12 (37.5%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of seminars | 3.9 | 1.1 | 28.6 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Amount of practical work
| Amount of practical work | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 1 (3.1%) |
| 2 (6.2%) | |
| 8 (25.0%) | |
| 13 (40.6%) | |
| good | 8 (25.0%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount of practical work | 3.8 | 1.0 | 26.6 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 |
Number of project work meetings
| Number of project work meetings | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 1 (3.2%) |
| 0 (0.0%) | |
| 9 (29.0%) | |
| 7 (22.6%) | |
| good | 14 (45.2%) |
| Total | 31 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of project work meetings | 4.1 | 1.0 | 25.4 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Project work group
| Project work group | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 1 (3.1%) |
| 1 (3.1%) | |
| 3 (9.4%) | |
| 11 (34.4%) | |
| good | 16 (50.0%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project work group | 4.2 | 1.0 | 23.1 % | 1.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Rate the following teaching modules.
Lectures
| Lectures | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| poor | 1 (3.1%) |
| OK | 10 (31.2%) |
| good | 15 (46.9%) |
| very good | 6 (18.8%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lectures | 3.8 | 0.8 | 20.5 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
Seminars
| Seminars | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 1 (3.2%) |
| poor | 1 (3.2%) |
| OK | 8 (25.8%) |
| good | 12 (38.7%) |
| very good | 9 (29.0%) |
| Total | 31 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seminars | 3.9 | 1.0 | 25.6 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Computer lab
| Computer lab | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 4 (12.5%) |
| poor | 4 (12.5%) |
| OK | 7 (21.9%) |
| good | 10 (31.2%) |
| very good | 7 (21.9%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Computer lab | 3.4 | 1.3 | 38.9 % | 1.0 | 2.5 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
Inhibitor (wet) lab
| Inhibitor (wet) lab | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| OK | 10 (31.2%) |
| good | 12 (37.5%) |
| very good | 10 (31.2%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inhibitor (wet) lab | 4.0 | 0.8 | 20.1 % | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Project work
| Project work | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 1 (3.1%) |
| poor | 1 (3.1%) |
| OK | 7 (21.9%) |
| good | 11 (34.4%) |
| very good | 12 (37.5%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project work | 4.0 | 1.0 | 25.4 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Lab manuals
| Lab manuals | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 1 (3.1%) |
| poor | 6 (18.8%) |
| OK | 2 (6.2%) |
| good | 11 (34.4%) |
| very good | 12 (37.5%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lab manuals | 3.8 | 1.2 | 31.8 % | 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 (3.2%) |
| poor | 1 (3.2%) |
| OK | 4 (12.9%) |
| good | 8 (25.8%) |
| very good | 17 (54.8%) |
| Total | 31 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Course director (Bernhard Lohkamp) | 4.3 | 1.0 | 24.2 % | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Lecturers
| Lecturers | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| OK | 5 (16.7%) |
| good | 12 (40.0%) |
| very good | 13 (43.3%) |
| Total | 30 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lecturers | 4.3 | 0.7 | 17.3 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Seminar/Workshop teachers
| Seminar/Workshop teachers | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| poor | 1 (3.4%) |
| OK | 2 (6.9%) |
| good | 14 (48.3%) |
| very good | 12 (41.4%) |
| Total | 29 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seminar/Workshop teachers | 4.3 | 0.8 | 17.6 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Lab teachers
| Lab teachers | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| OK | 4 (12.9%) |
| good | 17 (54.8%) |
| very good | 10 (32.3%) |
| Total | 31 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lab teachers | 4.2 | 0.7 | 15.6 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Course administrator (Anurupa Nagchowdhury)
| Course administrator (Anurupa Nagchowdhury) | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 1 (4.0%) |
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| OK | 2 (8.0%) |
| good | 8 (32.0%) |
| very good | 14 (56.0%) |
| Total | 25 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Course administrator (Anurupa Nagchowdhury) | 4.4 | 1.0 | 21.8 % | 1.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Course lab (Annika Olsson and Joseph Bruton )
| Course lab (Annika Olsson and Joseph Bruton ) | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| very poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| OK | 3 (11.1%) |
| good | 11 (40.7%) |
| very good | 13 (48.1%) |
| Total | 27 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Course lab (Annika Olsson and Joseph Bruton ) | 4.4 | 0.7 | 15.7 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
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 | 4 (22.2%) |
| to a small extent | 4 (22.2%) |
| to some extent | 5 (27.8%) |
| to a large extent | 3 (16.7%) |
| to a very large extent | 2 (11.1%) |
| Total | 18 (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. | 2.7 | 1.3 | 48.5 % | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 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 | 4 (21.1%) |
| to a small extent | 2 (10.5%) |
| to some extent | 5 (26.3%) |
| to a large extent | 5 (26.3%) |
| to a very large extent | 3 (15.8%) |
| Total | 19 (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. | 3.1 | 1.4 | 45.6 % | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 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 | 4 (22.2%) |
| to a small extent | 4 (22.2%) |
| to some extent | 3 (16.7%) |
| to a large extent | 4 (22.2%) |
| to a very large extent | 3 (16.7%) |
| Total | 18 (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. | 2.9 | 1.5 | 50.2 % | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
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 | 2 (11.1%) |
| No | 16 (88.9%) |
| Total | 18 (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. | 1.9 | 0.3 | 17.1 % | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |