2214_1 Redox Regulation, Oxidative Stress and Selenoproteins VT26 - Full
Respondents: 32
Answer Count: 23
Answer Frequency: 71.88%
1. The content of the course was clearly presented in the syllabus.
| The content of the course was clearly presented in the syllabus. | 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 | 11 (47.8%) |
| To a very large extent | 12 (52.2%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The content of the course was clearly presented in the syllabus. | 4.5 | 0.5 | 11.3 % | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
2. I was highly motivated to learn the content of the course.
| I was highly motivated to learn the content of the course. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| To a very small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| To a small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| To some extent | 2 (8.7%) |
| To a large extent | 6 (26.1%) |
| To a very large extent | 15 (65.2%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I was highly motivated to learn the content of the course. | 4.6 | 0.7 | 14.5 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
3. The intended learning outcomes of the course were clearly explained.
| The intended learning outcomes of the course were clearly explained. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| To a very small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| To a small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| To some extent | 1 (4.5%) |
| To a large extent | 5 (22.7%) |
| To a very large extent | 16 (72.7%) |
| Total | 22 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The intended learning outcomes of the course were clearly explained. | 4.7 | 0.6 | 12.1 % | 3.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
4. The course design facilitated achievement of the intended learning outcomes.
| The course design facilitated achievement of the intended learning outcomes. | 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 | 8 (34.8%) |
| To a very large extent | 15 (65.2%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The course design facilitated achievement of the intended learning outcomes. | 4.7 | 0.5 | 10.5 % | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
5. The teaching and learning activities facilitated achievement of the intended learning outcomes.
| The teaching and learning activities facilitated achievement of the intended learning outcomes. | 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 | 9 (40.9%) |
| To a very large extent | 13 (59.1%) |
| Total | 22 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The teaching and learning activities facilitated achievement of the intended learning outcomes. | 4.6 | 0.5 | 11.0 % | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
6. During the course, I have received sufficient feedback from the teachers and/or the other
course participants, when needed.
| During the course, I have received sufficient feedback from the teachers and/or the other course participants, when needed. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| To a very small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| To a small extent | 1 (4.3%) |
| To some extent | 5 (21.7%) |
| To a large extent | 8 (34.8%) |
| To a very large extent | 9 (39.1%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| During the course, I have received sufficient feedback from the teachers and/or the other course participants, when needed. | 4.1 | 0.9 | 22.0 % | 2.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
7. I have actively engaged in the course.
| I have actively engaged in the course. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| To a very small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| To a small extent | 1 (4.3%) |
| To some extent | 2 (8.7%) |
| To a large extent | 8 (34.8%) |
| To a very large extent | 12 (52.2%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I have actively engaged in the course. | 4.3 | 0.8 | 19.1 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
8. I had sufficient prior knowledge to fully participate in the course.
| I had sufficient prior knowledge to fully participate in the course. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| To a very small extent | 1 (4.3%) |
| To a small extent | 2 (8.7%) |
| To some extent | 11 (47.8%) |
| To a large extent | 6 (26.1%) |
| To a very large extent | 3 (13.0%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I had sufficient prior knowledge to fully participate in the course. | 3.3 | 1.0 | 29.3 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
9. During the course, the teachers have been open to students’ ideas and opinions about the course.
| During the course, the teachers have been open to students’ ideas and opinions about the course. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| To a very small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| To a small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| To some extent | 1 (4.3%) |
| To a large extent | 10 (43.5%) |
| To a very large extent | 12 (52.2%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| During the course, the teachers have been open to students’ ideas and opinions about the course. | 4.5 | 0.6 | 13.2 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
10. During the course, I have developed valuable expertise/skills.
| During the course, I have developed valuable expertise/skills. | 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 | 11 (50.0%) |
| To a very large extent | 11 (50.0%) |
| Total | 22 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| During the course, I have developed valuable expertise/skills. | 4.5 | 0.5 | 11.4 % | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
11. During the course, I have developed my ability to critically analyse and evaluate research findings. (If the question is not relevant to this course, select the response option ”Not applicable”)
| During the course, I have developed my ability to critically analyse and evaluate research findings. (If the question is not relevant to this course, select the response option ”Not applicable”) | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| To a very small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| To a small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| To some extent | 3 (13.0%) |
| To a large extent | 7 (30.4%) |
| To a very large extent | 8 (34.8%) |
| Not applicable | 5 (21.7%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| During the course, I have developed my ability to critically analyse and evaluate research findings. (If the question is not relevant to this course, select the response option ”Not applicable”) | 4.3 | 0.8 | 17.6 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
12. The examination adequately assessed the achievement of the intended learning outcomes.
| The examination adequately assessed the achievement of the intended learning outcomes. | 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 | 10 (45.5%) |
| To a very large extent | 12 (54.5%) |
| Total | 22 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The examination adequately assessed the achievement of the intended learning outcomes. | 4.5 | 0.5 | 11.2 % | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
13. I have achieved the intended learning outcomes of the course.
| I have achieved the intended learning outcomes of the course. | 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 | 10 (43.5%) |
| To a very large extent | 13 (56.5%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I have achieved the intended learning outcomes of the course. | 4.6 | 0.5 | 11.1 % | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
14. From my perspective the workload was reasonable in relation to the number of credits.
| From my perspective the workload was reasonable in relation to the number of credits. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| To a very small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| To a small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| To some extent | 5 (21.7%) |
| To a large extent | 9 (39.1%) |
| To a very large extent | 9 (39.1%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| From my perspective the workload was reasonable in relation to the number of credits. | 4.2 | 0.8 | 18.6 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
15. This course has fulfilled my expectations of a high quality course.
| This course has fulfilled my expectations of a high quality course. | 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 | 5 (22.7%) |
| To a very large extent | 17 (77.3%) |
| Total | 22 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This course has fulfilled my expectations of a high quality course. | 4.8 | 0.4 | 9.0 % | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
16. Were there any parts of the course that were excellent? If so, please specify which parts and in what way.
| Were there any parts of the course that were excellent? If so, please specify which parts and in what way. |
|---|
| The poster session, and the lectures were excellent. We had a great opportunity to network, and get to know different scientists in the same research field, not just junior, but senior researchers as well. I really appretiated the joint activities, they were engaginng and really fun. |
| many international lecturers, many different perspectives |
| The diversity of the research and expertise made me confident that the material was at the leading edge of research into the topic. I also appreciated the discussion among the faculty which was informative to observe. The fact that the course provided close and convenient food and housing allowed me to engage maximally with the course, and it being held abroad helped me to give it undistracted attention. It also provided a good balance of rigor while also allowing for decent rest. |
| The spectrum of expertise was quite extensive and helped give backgrounds from a wide range of specialties insight into how redox is relevant in their fields. Very well done. |
| It was great to see that the course organizers were carefully thinking about the student's perspective when they organized the course content. It was a remarkable balance between transporting basic knowledge in the field, recent findings, cutting edge methods, and most importantly development of presentation skills. The opportunity to practice both presenting in front of a larger audience of experts in the field, as well as preparing and presenting a scientific poster was highly useful. Combining that with additional social activities, room for networking, and career discussions made this course the best and most useful one I've ever attended. |
| The lectures, group project, meals, and activities were very well organized. |
| The Wednesday activity was so fun and fabulous. I feel like this course did an okay job and allowing us to have some free time, but the wednesday activity made it so we could get some real-time experience directly. The networking was also excellent. |
| The lectures, particularly by Kenneth Tew and Oleh Khalimonchuk. |
| All of it! Wednesday was amazing and the team-building exercise made a huge difference in how I felt about the course and how I was interacting with my peers/professors and it helped me transition from being a hesitant student who was overwhelmed by the amount of material to feeling like the professors and peers from other institutions were people I could talk to about science, life, and careers. It was a lot of material, but there was an emphasis on facilitating discussion, engaging with our peers and professors, and the networking and career conversations were extremely valuable too. |
| I really loved that the participants are there from all over the world, but we all shared the same motives and thinking, so it was a great place to network, meet other scientists with the same interests, and we could helped each others with our topics. Also the lecturers were great as well, who would happily talk with us during and/or after lectures, answer our questions etc. |
| I really enjoyed the student presentations. It was a perfect task to get to know each other. The food, the accomodation and the excursion were amazing!
The concept of the poster session was really nice. |
| Course design with a relevant topic to cover within this short period of time was great. Most of the topic was very important content for redox biology. |
| Career Talk session. I have learned a great deal from each faculty member’s experience. It inspires me to follow my own research interests and pursue work that is truly worthwhile. |
| Diverse lecturers.
Great venues and accommodations. |
| I really like the trip to the fort. It was much needed after the dense material both Monday and Tuesday. |
| quality of the lecture and time allotted for questions. I really appreciated the group presentation because it helped reinforce the information I had learned. Team activity at the fort was also great, although I didn't win. Food provided at the fort and hotel was excellent. |
17. Do you have any recommendations as to how the course could be improved? If so, please specify which parts and how.
| Do you have any recommendations as to how the course could be improved? If so, please specify which parts and how. |
|---|
| I highly suggest that each lecture should contain a slide/slides with the learning objectives for that lecture. I believe this would help students when to go back to study the lecture slides.
The air conditioning in the room could also be improved. |
| it is really a lot to learn for only a few days, but of course with so many international participants coming it has to be rather short |
| The first dinner evening in the hotel was quiet formal, I think it would be better to start the cours with something more informal to get to know more people (dinner like on the last day).
|
| Maybe shorten the days a bit, so much times goes by because some lecturers just present their or others recent findings during their speach whis is of course valuable and interesting but sometimes it didnt help understand the core principal of siad topic. So it felt a bit of waste of time, because without these, maybe we would have had more time to study after the day and/or sightseeing etc. The course wouldnt have been that intense. Other then that I think its a great course and I always be happy that i could take part in it, and it was a great experience, where I learned a lot, and met many great people. |
| Shorten the poster session from 5h to 3h.
Explicitly state learning objectives for each lecture. |
| I would reduce the lectures / day to increase lunch time or extend the day to include more lunch. |
| My recomendation would be make the course a bit less intense, elong it with 1 or 2 days and in this case the knowledge would be even deeper. |
| When diving into a heavily specific topic, it may be nice to begin the presentations with an brief refresher on the basic mechanics behind it; some presentations dove right into the research and made it somewhat difficult to follow at times. |
| There was no time for going through those lectures later. It's an issue for the final exam as the topic builds up without reflecting on the previous slides. Maybe at the end of the day, if a worksheet or a potential question idea was provided, students could recall the topic immediately, which would help them understand it more effectively. Please, no points for those worksheets. After a long lecture day, it's hard to give a short test. The idea for those worksheets should be how to frame the information we gathered from lectures and how to apply it. It should just reframe the lectures into retained knowledge |
| Assigned randomized seats at the very first welcome dinner to prevent everyone from only interacting from people from their home program for the first couple days. I also would have maybe liked more feedback on our poster presentations. |
| No further suggestions. The content is already thoughtful and well-polished enough. |
| I am not sure if it possible without sacrificing presentations, but if we are going to have free time, it might be nice to have it around when venues like museums are open. |
| This course is indeed very demanding as it has a lot of content compressed into one single week. Still, it doesn't need improvements. It needs to be continued for many, many years just as it is right now. |
| The poster session could involve students standing at posters for longer such as half the posters for an hour and a half and then swap so people could get a chance to ask questions with people at the posters. |
| It would have been even better if all lecture slides were uploaded in the shared drive before each lecture starts so the students can write notes directly on the slides. |
| Less talks (if possible) |
18. Would you recommend this course to others enrolled in doctoral education? (Answer only if you are a doctoral student, otherwise select the response option ”Not applicable”)
| Would you recommend this course to others enrolled in doctoral education? (Answer only if you are a doctoral student, otherwise select the response option ”Not applicable”) | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Yes | 22 (95.7%) |
| No | 0 (0.0%) |
| Not applicable | 1 (4.3%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Would you recommend this course to others enrolled in doctoral education? (Answer only if you are a doctoral student, otherwise select the response option ”Not applicable”) | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 % | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Course mean | Aggregated mean | Difference of means | Course median | Aggregated median | Course P25 | Aggregated P25 | Course P75 | Aggregated P75 | |
Q1 Course content | 4.52 | 4.41 | 0.12 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Q2 Motivation | 4.57 | 4.39 | 0.18 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Q3 Clear Intended learning outcomes | 4.68 | 4.35 | 0.34 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 4.50 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Q4 Course design | 4.65 | 4.26 | 0.40 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Q5 Teaching and learning activities | 4.59 | 4.27 | 0.32 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Q6 Feedback | 4.09 | 4.22 | -0.14 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 3.50 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Q7 Engagement | 4.35 | 4.37 | -0.03 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Q8 Prior knowledge | 3.35 | 3.96 | -0.61 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 |
Q9 Student input | 4.48 | 4.43 | 0.05 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Q10 Expertise/skills | 4.50 | 4.23 | 0.27 | 4.50 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Q11 Critical analysis | 4.28 | 4.16 | 0.11 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Q12 Examination | 4.55 | 4.28 | 0.27 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Q13 Achieved intended learning outcomes | 4.57 | 4.22 | 0.35 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Q14 Workload | 4.17 | 4.14 | 0.04 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Q15 Fulfilled expectations | 4.77 | 4.28 | 0.49 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
19. This course was a joint course between KI, UNL/RBC, MUSC, the University of Debrecen and additional universities. Was this a good idea?
| This course was a joint course between KI, UNL/RBC, MUSC, the University of Debrecen and additional universities. Was this a good idea? | 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 | 1 (4.3%) |
| To a very large extent | 22 (95.7%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This course was a joint course between KI, UNL/RBC, MUSC, the University of Debrecen and additional universities. Was this a good idea? | 5.0 | 0.2 | 4.2 % | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Comment |
|---|
| Great for networking. |
| It was great to be able to visit a partner campus, have a more focused environment for the course, and have great exposure to diverse research and networking opportunities abroad. |
| Excellent idea. It connects students globally and opens opportunities to meet people in the field and share knowledge. |
| Good for networking, different experts with their own expertise bring color to the field. Transports the feeling of being connected and working together from all over the world in the same field. |
| It was FABULOUS to meet the other universities. |
| It’s been a really rewarding experience to exchange ideas with peers from different countries, institutions and academic backgrounds. |
| I liked connecting with other students and learning about the journey to science and experiences in graduate school. |
20. For traveling students: please give any comments on the travel arrangements and accommodation in Stockholm. Was it OK? Anything that could be improved?
| For traveling students: please give any comments on the travel arrangements and accommodation in Stockholm. Was it OK? Anything that could be improved? |
|---|
| The accommodations were great. |
| The accomodation was perfect. There is no way to improve this. |
| Everything was great. Honestly exceeded my expectations |
| Hotel / food / transportation was great. I think the course could be extended one day to allow the Sunday free day. Arriving with that much jet-lag does not allow for sightseeing easily. Or an extra day following course exam completion, to allow for exploring the town with our new friends! |
| The hotel was very nice |
| Everything was amazing. |
| It was great! |
| Traveling was well coordinated and clear. Accommodation in Stockholm was excellent. |
| Wonderful! |
| The accomodation was perfect, there is no single thing that needs to be improved |
| The ride from the airport to the hotel and the hotel itself were both excellent. |
| I did have to figure out public transportation by myself since I didn't have Apple Pay. It would also be helpful to advise people on which credit cards are commonly taken in a certain country as I had to use my debit card. My uncertainty about public transportation limited how soon I decided to explore the city. |
| Very happy about the accommodation. It was the highest 5 min walk from the hotel to the institute. Nothing could be better. |
| It was perfect |
| It was fantastic. |
21. Please rate the following lecture: Arnér "Redox cycling and basic principles of redox biochemistry"
| Please rate the following lecture: Arnér "Redox cycling and basic principles of redox biochemistry" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| Good | 1 (4.3%) |
| Excellent | 22 (95.7%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Arnér "Redox cycling and basic principles of redox biochemistry" | 5.0 | 0.2 | 4.2 % | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
22. Please rate the following lecture: Khalimonchuk " Oxidative stress, introduction of concepts"
| Please rate the following lecture: Khalimonchuk " Oxidative stress, introduction of concepts" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| Good | 5 (21.7%) |
| Excellent | 18 (78.3%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Khalimonchuk " Oxidative stress, introduction of concepts" | 4.8 | 0.4 | 8.8 % | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
23. Please rate the following lecture: Arnér "Selenoproteins"
| Please rate the following lecture: Arnér "Selenoproteins" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| Good | 3 (13.0%) |
| Excellent | 20 (87.0%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Arnér "Selenoproteins" | 4.9 | 0.3 | 7.1 % | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
24. Please rate the following lecture: Schmidt "The Trx system"
| Please rate the following lecture: Schmidt "The Trx system" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 1 (4.5%) |
| Good | 7 (31.8%) |
| Excellent | 14 (63.6%) |
| Total | 22 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Schmidt "The Trx system" | 4.6 | 0.6 | 12.9 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
25. Please rate the following lecture: Coppo "Glutaredoxins"
| Please rate the following lecture: Coppo "Glutaredoxins" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 1 (4.3%) |
| Good | 7 (30.4%) |
| Excellent | 15 (65.2%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Coppo "Glutaredoxins" | 4.6 | 0.6 | 12.7 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
26. How did you find the welcome dinner?
| How did you find the welcome dinner? | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| Good | 1 (4.3%) |
| Excellent | 22 (95.7%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How did you find the welcome dinner? | 5.0 | 0.2 | 4.2 % | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Any further comments |
|---|
| The food was incredible. For the first evening I would have prefered something more informal to mingle around and talk to more people. |
| I wish we had been forced to sit randomly/mix more at the welcome dinner to help us start getting to know other students from the other institutions sooner. |
27. Please rate the following lecture: Becker "Redox switching of protein function"
| Please rate the following lecture: Becker "Redox switching of protein function" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 1 (4.8%) |
| Good | 9 (42.9%) |
| Excellent | 11 (52.4%) |
| Total | 21 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Becker "Redox switching of protein function" | 4.5 | 0.6 | 13.4 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
28. Please rate the following lecture: Levonen-Harju "The NRF2/KEAP-1 system"
| Please rate the following lecture: Levonen-Harju "The NRF2/KEAP-1 system" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 1 (4.3%) |
| Fair | 2 (8.7%) |
| Good | 7 (30.4%) |
| Excellent | 13 (56.5%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Levonen-Harju "The NRF2/KEAP-1 system" | 4.4 | 0.8 | 19.1 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
29. Please rate the following lecture: Khalimonchuk "Mitochondria and their quality control"
| Please rate the following lecture: Khalimonchuk "Mitochondria and their quality control" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| Good | 3 (13.0%) |
| Excellent | 20 (87.0%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Khalimonchuk "Mitochondria and their quality control" | 4.9 | 0.3 | 7.1 % | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
30. Please rate the following lecture: Townsend "Nitric Oxide Signaling"
| Please rate the following lecture: Townsend "Nitric Oxide Signaling" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 1 (4.3%) |
| Good | 3 (13.0%) |
| Excellent | 19 (82.6%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Townsend "Nitric Oxide Signaling" | 4.8 | 0.5 | 10.8 % | 3.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
31. Please rate the following lecture: Schmidt "Mouse models for redox studies"
| Please rate the following lecture: Schmidt "Mouse models for redox studies" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| Good | 5 (21.7%) |
| Excellent | 18 (78.3%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Schmidt "Mouse models for redox studies" | 4.8 | 0.4 | 8.8 % | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
32. Please rate the following lecture: Kipp "Selenoproteins and Trace elements in mouse physiology”
| Please rate the following lecture: Kipp "Selenoproteins and Trace elements in mouse physiology” | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 3 (13.0%) |
| Good | 4 (17.4%) |
| Excellent | 16 (69.6%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Kipp "Selenoproteins and Trace elements in mouse physiology” | 4.6 | 0.7 | 15.9 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
33. Please rate the following lecture: Scholzen "Fluorescent tools for use in redox biology"
| Please rate the following lecture: Scholzen "Fluorescent tools for use in redox biology" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 1 (4.3%) |
| Good | 6 (26.1%) |
| Excellent | 16 (69.6%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Scholzen "Fluorescent tools for use in redox biology" | 4.7 | 0.6 | 12.3 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
34. Please rate the following lecture: Cheng "Recent developments in recombinant selenoprotein studies"
| Please rate the following lecture: Cheng "Recent developments in recombinant selenoprotein studies" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 2 (9.1%) |
| Good | 5 (22.7%) |
| Excellent | 15 (68.2%) |
| Total | 22 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Cheng "Recent developments in recombinant selenoprotein studies" | 4.6 | 0.7 | 14.5 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
35. Please rate the following lecture: Tew "Glutathione homeostasis and GST”
| Please rate the following lecture: Tew "Glutathione homeostasis and GST” | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| Good | 7 (30.4%) |
| Excellent | 16 (69.6%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Tew "Glutathione homeostasis and GST” | 4.7 | 0.5 | 10.0 % | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
36. Please rate the following lecture: Dagnell "Redox regulation of growth factor signaling and PTP functions"
| Please rate the following lecture: Dagnell "Redox regulation of growth factor signaling and PTP functions" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 2 (8.7%) |
| Good | 4 (17.4%) |
| Excellent | 17 (73.9%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Dagnell "Redox regulation of growth factor signaling and PTP functions" | 4.7 | 0.6 | 13.9 % | 3.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
37. Please rate the following lecture: Deegan "Redox Enrivonment and Epigenetics"
| Please rate the following lecture: Deegan "Redox Enrivonment and Epigenetics" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 2 (8.7%) |
| Good | 4 (17.4%) |
| Excellent | 17 (73.9%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Deegan "Redox Enrivonment and Epigenetics" | 4.7 | 0.6 | 13.9 % | 3.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
38. Please rate the following lecture: Virág "Poly-ADP-ribosylation in oxidative stress signaling"
| Please rate the following lecture: Virág "Poly-ADP-ribosylation in oxidative stress signaling" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 1 (4.3%) |
| Good | 7 (30.4%) |
| Excellent | 15 (65.2%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Virág "Poly-ADP-ribosylation in oxidative stress signaling" | 4.6 | 0.6 | 12.7 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
39. Please rate the following event: Student presentations
| Please rate the following event: Student presentations | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 4 (17.4%) |
| Good | 7 (30.4%) |
| Excellent | 12 (52.2%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following event: Student presentations | 4.3 | 0.8 | 17.8 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Any further comments |
|---|
| Our "day-of" work time got condensed to about 30min due to scheduling delays, and I think the hour would have been beneficial. Nothing can change about interpersonal group issues - that is okay. |
| Too little time to go through the presentations in great detail, but enough time to have something presentable. Good idea to implement repetition as a booster of memorialization. Also great to get to know each other better. |
| While preparing for my presentation helped me review my specific topics, I didn't find the rest of the student presentations to be helpful for my learning. |
| A few presentations went very over time (they added superfluous information that was not included in the question list). It would help to have a rubric to guide quality of the presentations. |
| We didn't get 1 hour of preparation properly |
40. How did you find the idea of having an off-site program in the archipelago on the Wednesday?
| How did you find the idea of having an off-site program in the archipelago on the Wednesday? | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| Good | 0 (0.0%) |
| Excellent | 23 (100.0%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How did you find the idea of having an off-site program in the archipelago on the Wednesday? | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 % | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Any further comments |
|---|
| the best!! |
| AMAZING - loved every minute of it (especially the group activity!) |
| This was spectacular |
| one of the highlights for the course |
| The only thing I would suggest is to have the joint activity earlier scheduled. |
| The off-site programme was amazing, I hope in the future, the others will also arrange something similar for the future students. |
| THE BEST DAY |
| The joint activity was a lot of fun. The ride to the castle was beautiful! |
| Great experience |
| very important as it provides a great counterpart to scientific course content and physical inactivity during lectures! |
| It was amazing |
| It was so much fun and a great programme! |
41. Please rate the following lecture: Tew "Reductive stress”
| Please rate the following lecture: Tew "Reductive stress” | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| Good | 3 (13.0%) |
| Excellent | 20 (87.0%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Tew "Reductive stress” | 4.9 | 0.3 | 7.1 % | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
42. Please rate the following lecture: Dóka "Hydrogen sulfide biology and cysteine persulfidation control"
| Please rate the following lecture: Dóka "Hydrogen sulfide biology and cysteine persulfidation control" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 1 (4.3%) |
| Good | 4 (17.4%) |
| Excellent | 18 (78.3%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Dóka "Hydrogen sulfide biology and cysteine persulfidation control" | 4.7 | 0.5 | 11.4 % | 3.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
43. Please rate the following lecture: Wilson "Cysteine Chemistry and Protein Crystallography in Redox Biology"
| Please rate the following lecture: Wilson "Cysteine Chemistry and Protein Crystallography in Redox Biology" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| Good | 4 (17.4%) |
| Excellent | 19 (82.6%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Wilson "Cysteine Chemistry and Protein Crystallography in Redox Biology" | 4.8 | 0.4 | 8.0 % | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
44. Please rate the following event: “Career Discussions”
| Please rate the following event: “Career Discussions” | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 4 (17.4%) |
| Good | 8 (34.8%) |
| Excellent | 11 (47.8%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following event: “Career Discussions” | 4.3 | 0.8 | 17.8 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Any further comments |
|---|
| I just wish there could have been even more conversation about what options exist and are out there besides the couple presented (but I realize there were time constraints) |
| I appreciate that the lecturers were open minded, and absolutely honest. |
| Well thought to invite also people with different career paths. |
45. Please rate the following event: Poster session
| Please rate the following event: Poster session | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 1 (4.3%) |
| Fair | 1 (4.3%) |
| Good | 11 (47.8%) |
| Excellent | 10 (43.5%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following event: Poster session | 4.3 | 0.8 | 17.8 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Any further comments |
|---|
| most professors (with a few exceptions!) were interested for like 20 minutes and then either left or started gathering in the corner to have coffee |
| Could have been 3h, and more people at their posters at one time. Otherwise great - snack bar was FABULOUS! everyones posters were great. |
| Very important to gain hands-on experience in preparing and presenting scientific content in a poster session. |
| The session could be shortened, I think the last few timeslots did not receive enaugh attention/energy. |
| I felt that students were more interested in each others posters and topics then the lecturers. Onyl 3 lecturers came to my poster and asked about it, even though i stood there almost the whole poster session not just in my designated 30 minutes. |
| Too long, and many students’ posters were not visited by any lecturers. |
46. Please rate the Written exam
| Please rate the Written exam | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 1 (4.3%) |
| Good | 9 (39.1%) |
| Excellent | 13 (56.5%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the Written exam | 4.5 | 0.6 | 13.1 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Any further comments |
|---|
| very fair concept |
| Very fair, especially dividing the exam into a basic part, that is needed to pass the course, and a "bonus" part to test your extended knowledge. |
| Many people did not see the question on the first page until the end of the exam period and one person missed the whole first page of the exam. Just a title page would help or discussing the order of the test to make sure no one misses anything. |
| One more day to study would be great, but we passed, so maybe this is good how it is. |
47. How did you find the concluding Drinks and awards event?
| How did you find the concluding Drinks and awards event? | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Very Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| Fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| Good | 4 (17.4%) |
| Excellent | 19 (82.6%) |
| Total | 23 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How did you find the concluding Drinks and awards event? | 4.8 | 0.4 | 8.0 % | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Any further comments |
|---|
| Great way to celebrate the week in a peak event. |
| So sweet and thoughtful. I really enjoyed having some dedicated time to talk to my new friends/connections. |
| Qing is the best organizer ever |
48. Any further final comments regarding this course?
| Any further final comments regarding this course? |
|---|
| it was a great chance to connect with many students from the field, also outside of the lectures. Can definitely recommend |
| I had a very good time! |
| Thank you all SO MUCH! |
| Maybe provide the squishy corns directly at the beginning of the course. Otherwise, keep it as is! Strongly recommend to not change a single part of it. |
| Keep going, I hope a lot of student can have this wonderful experience in the future. |
| Thank you very much for the opportunity to learn something new and for being so welcoming. |
| Hope the redox course will continue and keep inspiring more people. |
| :)) |
| Overall, an amazing and well planned event to get the next generation of scientists into the field of redox biology. |
| It was an intense yet unforgettable experience with the students and professors. I would recommend taking such challenging courses for a great experience, networking, and novel ideas. |
| I feel so incredibly lucky to have participated in this program. I learned so much, but I also had an amazing experience. Seeing how the professors all interacted with each other was incredibly wholesome and made me hope that one day I can find connections like that, no matter what specific field I end up in. It was cool seeing the fruits of y'alls networking while you taught us/reminded us how important it is if we want to have connections like that throughout our careers. Also, you guys got me to like redox biology and selenoproteins by the end of the week when I started out pretty scared of the subject. |