Course analysis (course evaluation) Course code
1BI040
Course title Tissue Biology
Credits 4
Semester (spring/autumn) Autumn
Period
2019-09-19 till 2019-10-07
Course coordinator Sara Windahl
Examiner Sara Windahl
Teacher in charge of component Sara Windahl
Other participating teachers
Agata Wasik – Responsible for the lab project
Number of registered students during the three week check 63
Number approved on the last course date
45
Response frequency course valuation survey
34%
Other methods for student influence (in addition to concluding course valuation) Course evaluation council with 3 student representatives.
Feedback reporting of the course valuation results to the students Uploaded on the open course site in PingPong 2019-11-05
Note that...
The analysis should (together with a summarising quantitative summary of the students’
course evaluation) be communicated to the education committee at the department responsible for the course and for programme courses also the programme coordinating committee.
The analysis was communicated to the education committee on the following date:
2019-11-06
The analysis was communicated to the programme coordinating committee on the following date:
2019-11-06
1. Description of any conducted changes since the previous course occasion based on the views of former students
• The compendium for the experimental plan was be re-visited and improved.
• The grading criteria for the experimental plan was clarified further during the lecture and in the compendium.
• PPT of the video lectures were uploaded with the video lectures in Canvas.
• Feedback from the supervisors was clarified as being major, minor or anecdotal.
2. Brief summary of the students’ valuations of the course
We have to keep in mind that only 34% of the class answered the KI survey.
Strengths:
The tour at the clinic was very much appreciated by the students.
The tissue demonstrations were appreciated by the students.
The microscopy sessions were appreciated by the students.
The digital microscope program (WebMicroscope) was appreciated by the students.
Suggestions for improvements:
Improve the support for the lab project.
Improve the lecture slides with clearer information on what is important to learn.
Add scripts to the video lectures.
Perform the lab.
Summary from “Course evaluation council”
Strengths:
The students found that the overall content of the lectures was good.
The students also found that the lab project was good in general and should be kept.
Students were very pleased with the tour of the clinic and found it interesting to see how it works in real life.
The demonstration lectures were very appreciated and should be kept as they are.
Suggestions for improvements:
There are some minor issues with the lab project that was addressed for example, some students wanted more support during the lab project.
The students suggested that questions could be provided for the microscopy self-studies.
3. The course coordinator’s reflections on the implementation and results of the course
Strengths of the course:
• The overall content of the lectures is good.
• The lab project is good in general.
• The tour of the clinic is very good.
• The demonstration lectures were very appreciated.
Weaknesses of the course:
• The support during the lab project could be improved.
4. Other views
5. Course coordinator’s conclusions and any suggestions for changes
• Consider making the Q&A session for the lab project on campus instead of online.
• Clarify the learning outcomes for the microscopy sessions.
• Provide scripts to the videos.
Appendices: KI Survey: “Report for Tissue Biology Autumn 2019”.
