3136 Biomimetic Systems - Modelling Human Physiology in Infection Biology VT19

Respondents: 30
Answer Count: 17
Answer Frequency: 56.67%

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	2 (11.8%)
To a large extent	9 (52.9%)
To a very large extent	6 (35.3%)
Total	17 (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.	4.2	0.7	15.7 %	3.0	4.0	4.0	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	3 (17.6%)
To a large extent	10 (58.8%)
To a very large extent	4 (23.5%)
Total	17 (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.	4.1	0.7	16.2 %	3.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	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	3 (17.6%)
To a large extent	7 (41.2%)
To a very large extent	7 (41.2%)
Total	17 (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.	4.2	0.8	17.8 %	3.0	4.0	4.0	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	9 (52.9%)
To a large extent	5 (29.4%)
To a very large extent	3 (17.6%)
Total	17 (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.	3.6	0.8	21.5 %	3.0	3.0	3.0	4.0	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	1 (5.9%)
To some extent	4 (23.5%)
To a large extent	9 (52.9%)
To a very large extent	3 (17.6%)
Total	17 (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.	3.8	0.8	21.2 %	2.0	3.0	4.0	4.0	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	1 (5.9%)
To a small extent	3 (17.6%)
To some extent	5 (29.4%)
To a large extent	4 (23.5%)
To a very large extent	4 (23.5%)
Total	17 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
I have received relevant feedback during the course.	3.4	1.2	36.0 %	1.0	3.0	3.0	4.0	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 (5.9%)
To some extent	1 (5.9%)
To a large extent	9 (52.9%)
To a very large extent	6 (35.3%)
Total	17 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
I have actively engaged in the course.	4.2	0.8	19.4 %	2.0	4.0	4.0	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 (5.9%)
To a small extent	4 (23.5%)
To some extent	4 (23.5%)
To a large extent	5 (29.4%)
To a very large extent	3 (17.6%)
Total	17 (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	1.2	36.8 %	1.0	2.0	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	0 (0.0%)
To a large extent	6 (35.3%)
To a very large extent	11 (64.7%)
Total	17 (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.	4.6	0.5	10.6 %	4.0	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	1 (5.9%)
To a small extent	0 (0.0%)
To some extent	8 (47.1%)
To a large extent	5 (29.4%)
To a very large extent	3 (17.6%)
Total	17 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
During the course, I have developed valuable expertise/skills.	3.5	1.0	28.5 %	1.0	3.0	3.0	4.0	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	1 (5.9%)
To a small extent	0 (0.0%)
To some extent	2 (11.8%)
To a large extent	6 (35.3%)
To a very large extent	3 (17.6%)
Not applicable	5 (29.4%)
Total	17 (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”)	3.8	1.1	29.1 %	1.0	3.5	4.0	4.5	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	3 (17.6%)
To a large extent	5 (29.4%)
To a very large extent	9 (52.9%)
Total	17 (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.	4.4	0.8	18.1 %	3.0	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	5 (29.4%)
To a large extent	7 (41.2%)
To a very large extent	5 (29.4%)
Total	17 (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.	4.0	0.8	19.8 %	3.0	3.0	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	1 (5.9%)
To a small extent	3 (17.6%)
To some extent	4 (23.5%)
To a large extent	7 (41.2%)
To a very large extent	2 (11.8%)
Total	17 (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.	3.4	1.1	33.2 %	1.0	3.0	4.0	4.0	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	5 (29.4%)
To a large extent	8 (47.1%)
To a very large extent	4 (23.5%)
Total	17 (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.	3.9	0.7	19.0 %	3.0	3.0	4.0	4.0	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	12 (70.6%)
No	0 (0.0%)
Not applicable	5 (29.4%)
Total	17 (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. To what extent did each of the following lectures fulfill your expectations?

Lecture 1: The need for in vitro system Compared to human physiology. Anna Herland and Ben Maoz

Lecture 1: The need for in vitro system Compared to human physiology. Anna Herland and Ben Maoz	Number of responses
To a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
To a small extent	0 (0.0%)
To some extent	3 (18.8%)
To a large extent	6 (37.5%)
To a very large extent	7 (43.8%)
Total	16 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lecture 1: The need for in vitro system Compared to human physiology. Anna Herland and Ben Maoz	4.2	0.8	18.2 %	3.0	4.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Lecture 2: In vitro cell culture – an overview. Dimtris Voulgaris

Lecture 2: In vitro cell culture – an overview. Dimtris Voulgaris	Number of responses
To a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
To a small extent	2 (12.5%)
To some extent	5 (31.2%)
To a large extent	5 (31.2%)
To a very large extent	4 (25.0%)
Total	16 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lecture 2: In vitro cell culture – an overview. Dimtris Voulgaris	3.7	1.0	27.5 %	2.0	3.0	4.0	4.5	5.0

Lecture 3: The cellular microenvironment Anna Herland

Lecture 3: The cellular microenvironment Anna Herland	Number of responses
To a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
To a small extent	0 (0.0%)
To some extent	1 (6.7%)
To a large extent	7 (46.7%)
To a very large extent	7 (46.7%)
Total	15 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lecture 3: The cellular microenvironment Anna Herland	4.4	0.6	14.4 %	3.0	4.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Lecture 4: Microfluidics. Thomas Winkler

Lecture 4: Microfluidics. Thomas Winkler	Number of responses
To a very small extent	3 (20.0%)
To a small extent	1 (6.7%)
To some extent	4 (26.7%)
To a large extent	2 (13.3%)
To a very large extent	5 (33.3%)
Total	15 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lecture 4: Microfluidics. Thomas Winkler	3.3	1.5	46.3 %	1.0	2.5	3.0	5.0	5.0

Lecture 5: Organ on a Chip. Ben Maoz and Anna Herland

Lecture 5: Organ on a Chip. Ben Maoz and Anna Herland	Number of responses
To a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
To a small extent	0 (0.0%)
To some extent	1 (6.2%)
To a large extent	4 (25.0%)
To a very large extent	11 (68.8%)
Total	16 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lecture 5: Organ on a Chip. Ben Maoz and Anna Herland	4.6	0.6	13.4 %	3.0	4.0	5.0	5.0	5.0

Lecture 6: Artificial organs. Tal Dvir

Lecture 6: Artificial organs. Tal Dvir	Number of responses
To a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
To a small extent	1 (6.2%)
To some extent	2 (12.5%)
To a large extent	7 (43.8%)
To a very large extent	6 (37.5%)
Total	16 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lecture 6: Artificial organs. Tal Dvir	4.1	0.9	21.5 %	2.0	4.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Lecture 7: Organoids. Mukesh Varshney

Lecture 7: Organoids. Mukesh Varshney	Number of responses
To a very small extent	1 (6.2%)
To a small extent	3 (18.8%)
To some extent	4 (25.0%)
To a large extent	3 (18.8%)
To a very large extent	5 (31.2%)
Total	16 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lecture 7: Organoids. Mukesh Varshney	3.5	1.3	37.6 %	1.0	2.5	3.5	5.0	5.0

Lecture 8: Infection models: Keira Melican

Lecture 8: Infection models: Keira Melican	Number of responses
To a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
To a small extent	2 (12.5%)
To some extent	3 (18.8%)
To a large extent	1 (6.2%)
To a very large extent	10 (62.5%)
Total	16 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lecture 8: Infection models: Keira Melican	4.2	1.2	27.9 %	2.0	3.0	5.0	5.0	5.0

Lecture 9: Sensors for in vitro use. Susanne Löffler

Lecture 9: Sensors for in vitro use. Susanne Löffler	Number of responses
To a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
To a small extent	1 (6.2%)
To some extent	5 (31.2%)
To a large extent	6 (37.5%)
To a very large extent	4 (25.0%)
Total	16 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lecture 9: Sensors for in vitro use. Susanne Löffler	3.8	0.9	23.9 %	2.0	3.0	4.0	4.5	5.0

Lecture 10: Electrochemical sensors. Yosi Schacham

Lecture 10: Electrochemical sensors. Yosi Schacham	Number of responses
To a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
To a small extent	3 (18.8%)
To some extent	2 (12.5%)
To a large extent	6 (37.5%)
To a very large extent	5 (31.2%)
Total	16 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lecture 10: Electrochemical sensors. Yosi Schacham	3.8	1.1	29.1 %	2.0	3.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Lecture 11: PKPD and IVIVE. Ben Maoz

Lecture 11: PKPD and IVIVE. Ben Maoz	Number of responses
To a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
To a small extent	0 (0.0%)
To some extent	3 (18.8%)
To a large extent	6 (37.5%)
To a very large extent	7 (43.8%)
Total	16 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lecture 11: PKPD and IVIVE. Ben Maoz	4.2	0.8	18.2 %	3.0	4.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

Lecture 12: Translation to industry and basic research and course summary. Anna Herland

Lecture 12: Translation to industry and basic research and course summary. Anna Herland	Number of responses
To a very small extent	0 (0.0%)
To a small extent	1 (6.7%)
To some extent	2 (13.3%)
To a large extent	6 (40.0%)
To a very large extent	6 (40.0%)
Total	15 (100.0%)

	Mean	Standard Deviation	Coefficient of Variation	Min	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Max
Lecture 12: Translation to industry and basic research and course summary. Anna Herland	4.1	0.9	22.1 %	2.0	4.0	4.0	5.0	5.0

20. Did you feel the group work seminar provided a good learning opportunity? How could it be improved?

Did you feel the group work seminar provided a good learning opportunity? How could it be improved?
Yes. Maybe groups of 4 are enough
I think local groups are more efficient, rather a division between 3 institutions. Seminars BEFORE lectures would be best. After a very good lecture, is very low efficient get attention in seminars by students still in training. It would speedup the timing for the seminars, optimizing.
smaller groups and present seminar for smaller groups. 1 hour was too long for the seminar.
It is good. but the length of 60min could be too long. maybe 40min is better.
yes
Not so much. It is very difficult to find papers that a non biological student will understand and that is greatly related to the topic. Moreover the communication between all parties wasn’t ideal, we didn’t really work together each one had his own part and at the end we just put it together. So some parts were more elaborate and some a lot less
The group seminar is a very good opportunity to communicate with teammates. One hour presentation is a little bit too long, which is hard to get other students to be involved in the presentations. Shorter slides and more discussion would be better.
Yes, but the groups were too large; they should be smaller (2-3 people) with appropriately shorter seminar time (20-30 minutes, respectively).
It's hard to force people to interact more, divided the task into 6 parts and put it all in a ppt just before the seminar. I'm not sure the way we handled it really allows it to be classified as group work.
Yes. Preparing the seminar gives the opportunity to take a deeper look at the course main topics and improve the understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of such novel technologies. The main issue is related to the length, I would suggest to give a more strict time or to lower the number of group members: it was almost impossible to ask questions or raise doubts, it could have been more useful and entertaining.
I feel it wasn't really a group work, but individual work put together at the very end. Distance and different schedules made it difficult to really work together as a group. However, due to the nature of the course and the fact it's in three different locations make it difficult for improvement in this regard.
Choosing group topics and/or topic distribution should be done more clearly. Either make the groups and then let the groups choose a topic on their own or have a list of topics for the groups to choose from where the topics are more clear and somewhat detailed in advanced. I would also suggest encouraging groups not to present just one person at a time because it defeats the purpose of getting people from each site to work collaboratively.
The group presentations and reviews could be organised better. Having groups of 6 spanning 3 universities is pretty cumbersome. Since the topics could easily be split between the people, it didn't really encourage interaction as intended, but rather only created logistical complications.
The group seminar was a good idea. Maybe the presentations could be a bit shorter to allow some time for discussion.
I think that it was quite hard to do the presentation and review with people from 3 different universities. It worked, but the end product might be better if you discuss in person.

21. Did you gain knowledge from the written review (where appropriate)? How could it be improved?

Did you gain knowledge from the written review (where appropriate)? How could it be improved?
Yes
N/a
yes, but it could be mandatory to write about something else than what was presented during the seminar. But then only 30 min for seminar and 2.5-5 pages of review, but for 2 different subjects.
Yes. By preparing for the exam I have reviewed some knowledge we learned.
yes much relevant knowledge
Not so much, as said before each one did his own part and that’s it. It was very difficult to fill the parts of the review for the people that didn’t need to participate. I honestly didn’t understand almost anything from his paper that I needed to write in the review instead of him. It was to biological than what I can understand
Yes, it is beneficial.
I believe the knowledge gained in the seminar is sufficient, and the review is unnecessary.
Didn't have to do it
Yes, but our topic was less clear, which is making it hard to give our written review proper direction.
The process of finding material for the review was helpful in acquiring information about the subject. However, the limit on the length of the review forced us to be brief. Since our topic was very broad, it meant that we could only write a couple of sentences per sub-topic, use case, or example.
It was good to read papers which I learned from

22. Was the timing of the lectures optimal? How could the logistics be improved?

Was the timing of the lectures optimal? How could the logistics be improved?
No complaints
It was very good. I just want to thanks this innovative way of teaching using technology. I hope next time the IT people fix some issues of internet connections and find a way to allows the presenter use a pointer to narrow a specific part of presentation or lecture in all presentations, TelAviv, KTH, and KI. This year, only the locals were able to see the pointer used by the lecturer, which makes challenging for others "not locals" to follow.
shorten the course period and skip the break we had in between
The length of the student seminar is too long. I think instead of 60min, 30-40 min would be better.
yes optimal
I think it would help if there were written lectures attached to each lecture because the difference in accents made it hard to understand a lot of the times, adding to this the non ideal sound quality. So if there were notes that accompanied the lecture I believe it would really help
The lectures are quite nice scheduled and it should stay what it was this time.
The timing was okay (but breaks should be given after each 50 minutes); the communication with other universities worked well.
For me the timing was not optimal because my most productive lab time is typically 14:00 onwards. But I understand this is a balancing act and overall it probably was optimal.
Lectures of 45-60 minutes are good, if longer better to have a useful break.
I personally prefer blocked courses that happen over a week or two, but this is just personal preference.
Timing was fine (maybe have it a bit earlier so we don't finish at 19:00)
The lecture schedule and timing was very good. The communication quality has been continuously improving throughout the semester, but there still is scope for improvement. Maybe the course should be live streamed, or students who cannot attend the class should have the option to be added as extra participants in the conference call. This would've been nice, for example, in the case of the lecture on the Israeli Election Day.
The lectures should be shorter, but the number does not have to be reduced.
Maybe a break more could be good. It was sometimes hard to stay focused in the long blocks of presentations.

23. Was the format/length of the exam appropriate? How could this improved?

Was the format/length of the exam appropriate? How could this improved?
If it is just a formailty it could be done together in the class and whoever answers correctly can get some candy.
NA. I think exams are useless at PhD level.
good
I think doing both the seminar and the written exam is a bit too much as we do not get too much credit in KI for this course
yes,it is approprite
It was difficult to study for this exam because the whole course was in the form of different topics like a seminar course. So for a lot of the material there was no repetition which results in low retention of the information passed in each lecture. All this means that it was necessary to memorize as much information before the exam and not to truly understand. I believe it would be better to write a summary of some sort of the course instead
Yes, the exam is appropriate.
Yes, a fitting format to assess the important points learned in the course.
Format/length was fine. It was riddled with typos and poorly formatted/worded text though.
I believe the exam questions were balanced and well thought. The length was enough to finish it without rush.
Format and length of the exam were appropriate and I would not change anything here.
Yes
The format of the exam was perfectly suited for the goal of the course. It didn't require one to remember technical details, but rather focussed on a general understanding of the material.
It was good.