Analytisk kemi, HT25, KE306G

Antal respondenter: 32
Antal svar: 7
Svarsfrekvens: 21,88 %

Course coordinator's own overall view of the course 
Overall, the course is academically strong and highly relevant to the program, particularly in its integration of analytical theory with hands-on laboratory work. Student engagement was high, and the course content aligns well with the intended learning outcomes. At the same time, the course is demanding in terms of workload and pace, which places high requirements on students' time management and on the clarity and coordination of teaching activities. This highlights the importance of continuous pedagogical refinement to ensure effective learning without compromising academic standards.

Comment on the results of the students' course evaluation 
The course evaluation indicates that students generally perceive the course as acceptable to good, with strong engagement and appreciation of the laboratory components. The response rate was low, and results should therefore be interpreted with caution; however, the feedback is consistent across responses and provides useful insight into both strengths and areas for improvement. Students report high participation and motivation and consider that the course contributes to the achievement of the learning outcomes.

A summary of the course evaluation free text answers  
The free-text responses highlight several recurring themes. Students particularly value the laboratory exercises (LC, GC, and ICP-MS) and the commitment and availability of engaged teachers. At the same time, students point to challenges related to the pace of the course, workload associated with laboratory reports, and clarity of instructions for certain laboratory and calculation sessions. Some tutorials and seminars were perceived as less effective, and students noted variability in teaching approaches across different course components.

Any events during the course that affected the outcome of the course evaluation 
The course is intensive and delivered over a five-week period, combining lectures, laboratory sessions, tutorials, seminars, and examination. The compressed schedule, particularly in the first part of the course, likely contributed to the perception of high workload. In addition, the sequencing of theoretical lectures before laboratory sessions, while pedagogically intended to provide sufficient background, may have increased the perceived intensity early in the course.

Comment on examination results 
The examination results (approximately 80% of the student passed the exam) indicate that most students achieved the intended learning outcomes, supporting the alignment between course content, teaching activities, and assessment. Performance in laboratory-based components suggests that students developed practical analytical competence, although the demanding workload may have influenced individual performance. The results confirm the academic level of the course while also highlighting the importance of balancing the challenge with adequate support.

Comments on other forms of evaluation that took place during the course, for example of individual learning activities 
In addition to the formal course evaluation, informal feedback was collected continuously during tutorials, laboratory sessions, and practical activities.

Other comments 
Overall, the evaluation suggests that the course is conceptually strong and highly relevant, but would benefit from improvements in workload balance, instructional clarity, and pedagogical consistency.As part of ongoing course development, laboratory instructions, particularly for the shrimp laboratory and calculation sessions, will be revised to improve clarity. Measures have already been introduced to increase flexibility in laboratory reporting, allowing students to choose between longer and shorter report formats for selected laboratory exercises. Tutorials will continue to be used to strengthen integration of theoretical content across the course, and teaching staff will be reminded of the importance of constructive and supportive communication to foster a positive learning environment.

Planned price development 
 

Analytisk kemi, HT25, KE306G

Antal respondenter: 32
Antal svar: 7
Svarsfrekvens: 21,88 %

I vilken utsträckning har kursens innehåll och upplägg (t.ex. läraktiviteter, kursmaterial och examinationsuppgifter) hjälpt dig att nå kursens mål?

Vad tycker du har varit särskilt bra i kursen? 

Finns det något som bör förändras eller utvecklas i kursen, i så fall vad?

Vilket omdöme vill du ge kursen som helhet? 

Hur många timmar per vecka har du i genomsnitt lagt på kursen?

Vad har du lagt din tid på? Vilka moment har tagit mycket eller lite tid?

I hur stor utsträckning har du tagit del av undervisningen? 

Hur hade kursen kunnat förändras för att öka ditt engagemang?

Hur nöjd är du med laboratorieutrustningen?

Hur nöjd är du med gruppstorleken?

Är den avsatta tiden tillräcklig för laboratorieövningarna?

I vilken utsträckning är kunskaperna från gymnasiet eller tidigare kurser av betydelse för denna kurs?

Vilken laboration har varit den bästa?

Hur många dagar har du behövt i genomsnitt för att skriva och revidera en laboratorierapport? (utan väntetid på rättning av lärare)