Sida 1 av 5
Course analysis template
After the course has ended, the course leader fills in this template. This is an important part of the quality assurance of the programme. The programme director decides whether the
template should be supplemented with further information/questions.
Course code 4BP038
Course title
Theory in bioentrepreneurship
Credits 4 Semester
Fall
Period
August 31 to September 29
Course leader Hanna Jansson
Examiner Madelen Lek Other participating teachers
Cecilie Hilmer
Other participating teachers
Number of registered students 37
Number passed after regular session 27
Response rate for course survey (%) 40,54%
Methods for student influence other than course survey
We had a mid-course survey instead of council due to the online teaching. The students were also asked, especially in the beginning of the course, about specific opinions on how to run the “live sessions” with both online and onsite participants. E.g. how to obtain the best sound etc for all students, how to divide into discussion groups etc.
Note that…
This analysis shall (together with a summary of the quantitative results of the students course survey) be submitted to the LIME educational committee.
This analysis have been submitted to the LIME educational committee on this date:
Sida 2 av 5
1. Description of any implemented changes since the previous course based on previous students' comments
The course is new, but parts of it are taken from the Entrepreneurship in life sciences course (4BP024). The most important change is that the new course fully focuses on
(bio)entrepreneurship theories. Another important change is that the course to a much larger extent follow the coursebook. New assignments have been design, and time was spent on making the instructions more understandable. Self-directed learning was introduced and the reflective questions (used also in the previous course) were slightly updated.
2. A brief summary of the students' evaluations of the course General questions
According to the students’quantitative answers to the course evaluation, all but one thought that the course developed valuable expertise/skills to some or small extent (mean 3.4).
Similar, all but one have achieved all learning outcomes to some, large or very large extent (mean 3.9). The course follows a common theme according to all respondents at least to some extent (mean 4.6). The course promoted a scientific way of thinking and reasoning to some, large or very large extent according to all but one (mean 3.7), and all thought that the teachers had been open to ideas and opinions about the course structure and content (mean 4.2).
Programme questions
According to the course evaluation, all respondents thought that they were given the opportunity to reflect on learnings during the course to a large or very large extent (mean 4.7). However, the replies for the question if the course developed abilities to search for data and scientific evidence is spread among the alternatives (peak for “to some extent”, mean 2.8). The same goes for the question if the course develops abilities to use scientific methods, with 5 respondents each for to a small, some and large extent (mean 3.0). All respondents thought that there was a good atmosphere during the course to some, large or very large extent (mean 4.5). Most respondents thought that the psychosocial environment was good, all but two to a large or very large extent (mean 4.4). Ethical issues were discussed to some, large or very large extent to all but one (mean 3.5). The overall result was similar for the question if the course helped to prepare to deal with ethical considerations, but the replies were distributed a bit different (3.6). When asked to describe how the course could be improved three respondents mentioned time to complete certain ungraded assignments, especially module three.
Course specific questions
Overall the first learning objective seems to be a very positive experience for most
respondents. It was described as a good experience, great, good, challenging, well thought, well structured, interactive etc. The same goes for the second learning objective. It was described as a good experience, great content, good, useful, well though, excellent, very engaging, interesting and valuable. The third learning objective seems to be more of a decent experience to the respondents. It was described by some as a good experience, accomplished, OK, managed, useful, great, excellent and a truly eye-opener but also that there still are questions marks, that it was challenging, decent, that the group assignment could have been created more fun and that it could have been studied more in depth also providing concrete examples. The same goes for the fourth learning objective. It was described as a good experience, helped me a lot, good technique, will be handy, excellent, design thinking is a
Sida 3 av 5 wonderful tool, became a habit, useful, I practiced them hence the good result. But it was also brought up that it was not so good, challenging, that more examples are needed,
overwhelming, a bit intangible first and that more feedback on progress and more tools would have been helpful.
Overall the Reflective learning journal assignment seems to be a positive experience for most of the respondents. It was described as a very good way to think, check/assess the process, help to digest, excellent, helpful (also for future studies), great that it was done over time.
When it comes to the other assignment, the Individual written report, there are some
respondents that argue that the challenge was too open, the instructions too vague, not enough linked to the learning objectives. At the same time, other respondents argue more or less the opposite. That the all learning objectives have been touched upon, triggered to thinking and evaluate the knowledge, allowed to use the knowledge, let us explore, challenge, combine and summarising the learnings.
Web-based learning
According to the course evaluation, most respondents thought that student’s suggestions and ideas regarding the web-based teaching were taken into consideration to a large or very large extent (mean for the question 4.3). The free text comments very positively. All respondents thought that the digital learning environment was adequate to some, large or very large extent (mean 4.2). The free text comments point out that Canvas was set up really well, but that Zoom lectures, e.g. could have been divided into an offline and online cohort. The question on possible changes in content due to the current situation got a mean score of 4.4 and the same question but for examination the mean 4.1. Almost half of the respondents (7/15) thought that they received clear instructions prior to web-based examinations to a very large extent. Overall mean 4.1. The free text comments, however, added that instructions for the assignment as such could have been a bit clearer. The question, if knowledge could be
demonstrated in the web-based examination (just as well as in an ordinary examination) got a mean score of 4.1.
Last but not least, unfortunately, most student report that they have experienced anxiety or had difficulty engaging, as a consequence of the current situation (mean 3.1). Almost half (7/15) of the respondents thought that this was the case to a very large or large extent. In the free-text comment, it was brought up that it is tiring to sit in front of your computer to study without meeting people and that it was difficult to be active, lead a team or control how to speak online when you are not familiar.
Strengths and weaknesses with the digital/web-based teaching and examination was a free text question. Almost all comments brought up the lack of physical presence in one way or another. It was also mentioned that the audio was sometimes difficult to manage and low speed of internet. However, almost all also brought up that the combination of canvas and the present activity was nice. That the web-based teaching worked really well with structured and well-written Canvas modules, even with discussion and teamwork, and that there was time to listen to what online people said (and this way getting to know them better) at the live
sessions. It was also mentioned that you could do it when you have time, very efficient, that you could speak anything without worrying others judgmental expression in a usual
classroom and the comfort of being at home.
Sida 4 av 5
3. The course-responsible reflection on the course implementation and results
Course strengths:
- The course lay a solid foundation for the rest of the programme when it comes to the understanding of the main subject. The students are introduced to bioentrepreneurship as a discipline, illustrating both the very broad definition (different theories) of the same and the general application of social science (no right or wrong, etc.).
- The course lay a solid foundation for the rest of the programme when it comes to the pedagogical model. Based on the theoretical understanding of bioentrepreneurship, the course also introduces the students to pedagogic theories and train generic skills such as entrepreneurial and self-directed learning.
- The mix of theory and application, now in this hybrid edition of the course with
“practice exercises” driving the individual learning processes forward.
Course weaknesses:
- The number of live sessions were limited (due to the pandemic).
- The number of students per live session was limited (due to the pandemic).
4. Other comments
Two of the respondents thought that the course only to a very small extent developed their ability to search for data and scientific evidence. This is unfortunate since one of the tasks in one of the assignments was to build arguments on existing knowledge referencing the
coursebook and/or scientific material (peer-reviewed chapters and articles). But I will clarify this for next year in the assignment. I will also add a discussion on “what science and
scientific method” is already in the first course-module.
In general, the hybrid model with a focus on the online modules supported by a number of
“live sessions” worked well. To make the learning experience as good as possible for both online and onsite students, breakout discussion groups were made with only onsite and/or online participants when possible. And to make the audio and video situation as good as possible for all students, the speakers and projector in the classroom were not used. Instead, everyone had to be on Zoom all the time, also the onsite students. When facilitating the sessions, I repeatedly reminded the onsite students to adapt to the online students (start on time, no small talk if not during the break, etc.). That this was the case was also brought up by some respondents, e.g. one pointed out that they had time to also listen to the online people and in this way got to know them better. Despite this, one course-evaluation
responded brought up that the course was “kinda split” into online and onsite people and that the online people sometimes missed out on information that was said in the classroom during breaks.
5. The course-responsible conclusions and any proposals for changes
(If any changes are proposed, please specify who is responsible for implementing these and a time schedule.)
- The course leader will add a discussion on what “science” is, and “scientific evidence” to module 1, clarifying that social science is also science and qualitative methods are also research.
- The course leader will schedule more time for module 3.
Sida 5 av 5 - The course leader will revise the instruction for the individual written report
assignment. E.g. review how the questions are phrased.
- The course leader will clarify that there is an opportunity to discuss with me in the learning log. I did with some, but most never responded to my comments. Also, push even more towards the FAQ section.
- The course leader will add something short on ethics in module 4 (and add the “Little book of design research ethics” to module 5).
- The course leader will review if it would be possible to make room for individual feedback (at least P2P feedback) on the individual written report before submission.
