2214 Redox Regulation, Oxidative Stress and Selenoproteins VT22 - Short
Respondents: 36
Answer Count: 32
Answer Frequency: 88.89%
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 | 10 (31.2%) |
| To a very large extent | 22 (68.8%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 4.7 | 0.5 | 10.0 % | 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 | 1 (3.1%) |
| To a large extent | 11 (34.4%) |
| To a very large extent | 20 (62.5%) |
| Total | 32 (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 | 0.6 | 12.2 % | 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 | 1 (3.1%) |
| To some extent | 2 (6.2%) |
| To a large extent | 13 (40.6%) |
| To a very large extent | 16 (50.0%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 4.4 | 0.8 | 17.2 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 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 | 5 (15.6%) |
| To a large extent | 11 (34.4%) |
| To a very large extent | 16 (50.0%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 4.3 | 0.7 | 17.2 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 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 | 1 (3.1%) |
| To a large extent | 14 (43.8%) |
| To a very large extent | 17 (53.1%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 4.5 | 0.6 | 12.6 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
6. I have received relevant feedback during the course.
| I have received relevant feedback during the course. | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| To a very small extent | 0 (0.0%) |
| To a small extent | 1 (3.1%) |
| To some extent | 5 (15.6%) |
| 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I have received relevant feedback during the course. | 4.2 | 0.8 | 19.6 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 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 | 0 (0.0%) |
| To some extent | 5 (15.6%) |
| To a large extent | 9 (28.1%) |
| To a very large extent | 18 (56.2%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I have actively engaged in the course. | 4.4 | 0.8 | 17.2 % | 3.0 | 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 | 0 (0.0%) |
| To a small extent | 6 (18.8%) |
| To some extent | 8 (25.0%) |
| To a large extent | 9 (28.1%) |
| 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I had sufficient prior knowledge to fully participate in the course. | 3.7 | 1.1 | 30.0 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 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 | 3 (9.4%) |
| To a large extent | 12 (37.5%) |
| To a very large extent | 17 (53.1%) |
| Total | 32 (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. | 4.4 | 0.7 | 15.1 % | 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 | 1 (3.1%) |
| To some extent | 2 (6.2%) |
| To a large extent | 12 (37.5%) |
| To a very large extent | 17 (53.1%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| During the course, I have developed valuable expertise/skills. | 4.4 | 0.8 | 17.2 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 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 | 7 (21.9%) |
| To a large extent | 12 (37.5%) |
| To a very large extent | 10 (31.2%) |
| Not applicable | 3 (9.4%) |
| Total | 32 (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”) | 4.1 | 0.8 | 18.8 % | 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 | 1 (3.1%) |
| To a large extent | 22 (68.8%) |
| 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The examination adequately assessed the achievement of the intended learning outcomes. | 4.2 | 0.5 | 12.0 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 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 | 2 (6.2%) |
| To a large extent | 18 (56.2%) |
| 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I have achieved the intended learning outcomes of the course. | 4.3 | 0.6 | 13.7 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 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 | 1 (3.3%) |
| To some extent | 5 (16.7%) |
| To a large extent | 16 (53.3%) |
| To a very large extent | 8 (26.7%) |
| Total | 30 (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. | 4.0 | 0.8 | 19.0 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 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 | 13 (41.9%) |
| To a very large extent | 18 (58.1%) |
| Total | 31 (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. | 4.6 | 0.5 | 11.0 % | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
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 | 31 (100.0%) |
| No | 0 (0.0%) |
| Not applicable | 0 (0.0%) |
| Total | 31 (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 |
19. This course was a joint course between KI, UNL/RBC, MUSC and additional universities. Was this a good idea?
| This course was a joint course between KI, UNL/RBC, MUSC 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 | 1 (3.1%) |
| To a large extent | 5 (15.6%) |
| To a very large extent | 26 (81.2%) |
| Total | 32 (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 and additional universities. Was this a good idea? | 4.8 | 0.5 | 10.3 % | 3.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
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 |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| good | 0 (0.0%) |
| very good | 5 (15.6%) |
| excellent | 27 (84.4%) |
| Total | 32 (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" | 4.8 | 0.4 | 7.6 % | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
22. Please rate the following lecture: Becker " Oxidative stress, introduction of concepts"
| Please rate the following lecture: Becker " Oxidative stress, introduction of concepts" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| good | 2 (6.2%) |
| very good | 17 (53.1%) |
| excellent | 13 (40.6%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Becker " Oxidative stress, introduction of concepts" | 4.3 | 0.6 | 13.8 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
23. Please rate the following lecture: Schmidt "Grx and Trx systems"
| Please rate the following lecture: Schmidt "Grx and Trx systems" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| good | 3 (9.4%) |
| very good | 10 (31.2%) |
| excellent | 19 (59.4%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Schmidt "Grx and Trx systems" | 4.5 | 0.7 | 14.9 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
24. Please rate the following lecture: Arnér "Selenoproteins"
| Please rate the following lecture: Arnér "Selenoproteins" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 1 (3.1%) |
| good | 0 (0.0%) |
| very good | 9 (28.1%) |
| excellent | 22 (68.8%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Arnér "Selenoproteins" | 4.6 | 0.7 | 14.3 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
25. Please rate the following lecture: Kipp "Nrf2 signaling in redox effects of trace elements"
| Please rate the following lecture: Kipp "Nrf2 signaling in redox effects of trace elements" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 1 (3.1%) |
| good | 1 (3.1%) |
| very good | 15 (46.9%) |
| excellent | 15 (46.9%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Kipp "Nrf2 signaling in redox effects of trace elements" | 4.4 | 0.7 | 16.2 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
26. How did you find the welcome dinner at the Arnér residence?
| How did you find the welcome dinner at the Arnér residence? | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| good | 0 (0.0%) |
| very good | 5 (16.1%) |
| excellent | 26 (83.9%) |
| Total | 31 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How did you find the welcome dinner at the Arnér residence? | 4.8 | 0.4 | 7.7 % | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
27. Please rate the following lecture: Townsend "Peroxiredoxins and sulfiredoxin"
| Please rate the following lecture: Townsend "Peroxiredoxins and sulfiredoxin" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| good | 1 (3.1%) |
| very good | 11 (34.4%) |
| excellent | 20 (62.5%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Townsend "Peroxiredoxins and sulfiredoxin" | 4.6 | 0.6 | 12.2 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
28. 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 |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| good | 4 (12.5%) |
| very good | 16 (50.0%) |
| excellent | 12 (37.5%) |
| Total | 32 (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" | 4.2 | 0.7 | 15.8 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
29. Please rate the following lecture: Khalimonchuk "Mitochondrial quality control"
| Please rate the following lecture: Khalimonchuk "Mitochondrial quality control" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 1 (3.1%) |
| fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| good | 5 (15.6%) |
| very good | 15 (46.9%) |
| excellent | 11 (34.4%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Khalimonchuk "Mitochondrial quality control" | 4.1 | 0.9 | 21.8 % | 1.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
30. Please rate the following lecture: Larsson "The questionable connection between mitochondrial dysfunction, ROS and mutations of mtDNA "
| Please rate the following lecture: Larsson "The questionable connection between mitochondrial dysfunction, ROS and mutations of mtDNA " | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 4 (12.5%) |
| good | 7 (21.9%) |
| very good | 9 (28.1%) |
| excellent | 12 (37.5%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Larsson "The questionable connection between mitochondrial dysfunction, ROS and mutations of mtDNA " | 3.9 | 1.1 | 27.1 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 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 |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 1 (3.1%) |
| good | 5 (15.6%) |
| very good | 10 (31.2%) |
| excellent | 16 (50.0%) |
| Total | 32 (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" | 4.3 | 0.9 | 19.9 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
32. Please rate the following lecture: Sayin "Redox control of tumor progression"
| Please rate the following lecture: Sayin "Redox control of tumor progression" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 3 (9.4%) |
| fair | 7 (21.9%) |
| good | 10 (31.2%) |
| very good | 6 (18.8%) |
| excellent | 6 (18.8%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Sayin "Redox control of tumor progression" | 3.2 | 1.2 | 39.5 % | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
33. Please rate the following lecture: Wickström "Redox control of antitumoral immunity"
| Please rate the following lecture: Wickström "Redox control of antitumoral immunity" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 1 (3.2%) |
| good | 5 (16.1%) |
| very good | 13 (41.9%) |
| excellent | 12 (38.7%) |
| Total | 31 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Wickström "Redox control of antitumoral immunity" | 4.2 | 0.8 | 19.7 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
34. How did you find the burning ball competition?
| How did you find the burning ball competition? | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 3 (16.7%) |
| fair | 1 (5.6%) |
| good | 7 (38.9%) |
| very good | 3 (16.7%) |
| excellent | 4 (22.2%) |
| Total | 18 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How did you find the burning ball competition? | 3.2 | 1.4 | 42.0 % | 1.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
35. Please rate the following lecture: Townsend "Glutathione homeostasis and GST"
| Please rate the following lecture: Townsend "Glutathione homeostasis and GST" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| good | 0 (0.0%) |
| very good | 13 (40.6%) |
| excellent | 19 (59.4%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Townsend "Glutathione homeostasis and GST" | 4.6 | 0.5 | 10.9 % | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
36. Please rate the following lecture: Dagnell "Redox regulation of PTP functions”
| Please rate the following lecture: Dagnell "Redox regulation of PTP functions” | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 1 (3.1%) |
| good | 4 (12.5%) |
| very good | 15 (46.9%) |
| excellent | 12 (37.5%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Dagnell "Redox regulation of PTP functions” | 4.2 | 0.8 | 18.6 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
37. Please rate the following lecture: Holmdahl "Immune regulation through oxidative bursts and NOX2 functions”
| Please rate the following lecture: Holmdahl "Immune regulation through oxidative bursts and NOX2 functions” | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 1 (3.2%) |
| good | 6 (19.4%) |
| very good | 12 (38.7%) |
| excellent | 12 (38.7%) |
| Total | 31 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Holmdahl "Immune regulation through oxidative bursts and NOX2 functions” | 4.1 | 0.8 | 20.5 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
38. Please rate the following lecture: Sun "Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) in redox biology”
| Please rate the following lecture: Sun "Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) in redox biology” | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 8 (25.8%) |
| good | 7 (22.6%) |
| very good | 10 (32.3%) |
| excellent | 6 (19.4%) |
| Total | 31 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Sun "Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) in redox biology” | 3.5 | 1.1 | 31.6 % | 2.0 | 2.5 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
39. Please rate the following event: Student presentations
| Please rate the following event: Student presentations | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 1 (3.1%) |
| good | 4 (12.5%) |
| very good | 18 (56.2%) |
| excellent | 9 (28.1%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following event: Student presentations | 4.1 | 0.7 | 17.9 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
41. Please rate the following event: Poster session
| Please rate the following event: Poster session | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| good | 2 (6.2%) |
| very good | 16 (50.0%) |
| excellent | 14 (43.8%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following event: Poster session | 4.4 | 0.6 | 13.9 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
43. Please rate the following lecture: Townsend "Nitric oxide signaling"
| Please rate the following lecture: Townsend "Nitric oxide signaling" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| good | 2 (6.5%) |
| very good | 14 (45.2%) |
| excellent | 15 (48.4%) |
| Total | 31 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Townsend "Nitric oxide signaling" | 4.4 | 0.6 | 14.0 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
44. Please rate the following lecture: Zeisel "Chemical imaging probes for assessment of Trx system activities"
| Please rate the following lecture: Zeisel "Chemical imaging probes for assessment of Trx system activities" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 1 (3.1%) |
| good | 0 (0.0%) |
| very good | 6 (18.8%) |
| excellent | 25 (78.1%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Zeisel "Chemical imaging probes for assessment of Trx system activities" | 4.7 | 0.6 | 13.4 % | 2.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
45. Please rate the following lecture: Hall "High-throughput screening for novel drug leads targeting redox active enzymes"
| Please rate the following lecture: Hall "High-throughput screening for novel drug leads targeting redox active enzymes" | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| good | 0 (0.0%) |
| very good | 12 (37.5%) |
| excellent | 20 (62.5%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following lecture: Hall "High-throughput screening for novel drug leads targeting redox active enzymes" | 4.6 | 0.5 | 10.6 % | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
46. Please rate the following event: “Career discussions”
| Please rate the following event: “Career discussions” | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 1 (3.1%) |
| fair | 2 (6.2%) |
| good | 5 (15.6%) |
| very good | 9 (28.1%) |
| excellent | 15 (46.9%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the following event: “Career discussions” | 4.1 | 1.1 | 26.6 % | 1.0 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
48. How did you find the visit to the Nobel museum?
| How did you find the visit to the Nobel museum? | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 1 (3.3%) |
| good | 4 (13.3%) |
| very good | 11 (36.7%) |
| excellent | 14 (46.7%) |
| Total | 30 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How did you find the visit to the Nobel museum? | 4.3 | 0.8 | 19.4 % | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
50. Please rate the Written exam
| Please rate the Written exam | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 2 (6.2%) |
| good | 8 (25.0%) |
| very good | 15 (46.9%) |
| excellent | 7 (21.9%) |
| Total | 32 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Please rate the Written exam | 3.8 | 0.8 | 22.0 % | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
52. How did you find the concluding dinner and awards?
| How did you find the concluding dinner and awards? | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| poor | 0 (0.0%) |
| fair | 0 (0.0%) |
| good | 1 (3.2%) |
| very good | 8 (25.8%) |
| excellent | 22 (71.0%) |
| Total | 31 (100.0%) |
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Coefficient of Variation | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How did you find the concluding dinner and awards? | 4.7 | 0.5 | 11.6 % | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |