NINA
|
|
Please state your opinion on the following matters concerning the course
|
Prior information |
Options |
Distribution |
Mean score |
|
Amount
& Quality |
Very
poor |
0 |
3,7 |
|
Comments: 2.
It was very successful to combine all the different aspects of the
subject, giving us an adequate knowledge of the area. 10. Keep it up! 11.
Good to receive the books in good time. 12. First it was said that
everything is paid like travel costs, but later you could found that it
really was not like that. 19. Good service to send us the books
beforehand. 20. Personal projects were not well introduced nor explained. |
|||
|
Work
load |
Options |
Distribution |
Mean score |
|
Preparation
|
Far
too high |
1 |
2,9 |
|
During
the course |
Far
too high |
0 |
3,0 |
|
Comments: 2.
The preparation was very professional, giving the impression of caring.
During the course Gerhard was also very helpful and friendly. 3 The books
were not really understandable when you have not heard about the topics
before. And it didn’t seem that we really needed to read them in advance
to be able to follow the course. But it is very good to have them as
lecture after the course to repeat and recall the topics! 9. To have the
books beforehand – very good! Information about “the project”
beforehand – what and why? – very poor. 10 Number of days should be
increased. 14. But many times to hurried. 19. The sessions were hard, but
we didn’t work very long hours. |
|||
|
Number
of sessions, relatively |
Options |
Distribution |
Mean score |
|
Lectures
|
Far
too many |
0 |
3,1 |
|
Computer
exercises |
Far
too many |
0 |
3,2 |
|
Individual
project |
Far
too many |
0 |
3,7 |
|
Comments: 1.
More exercises are needed. How to go through is more important. 3.
Computer exercises: Generally too less supervising, to less explanations,
too less discussions of the results, far too much problems with the
software. Actually, we spend more time on starting the program or
searching for the working files than on solving the exercises and you
can’t make this up with night work when there is no supervising at all
– and you don’t know how to work with the unknown programs. 5. A lot
of work was put into preparing/collecting data for the individual project.
We got too few sessions and too little help with the problems encountered
when using the software, partly due to the ScanGis conference. The
lecturers were not available neithere in daytime nor in the evening. 6.
The time for the individual project was to little! 9. Individual project
– reasonable since didn’t do anything – far to few if one would
actually have produced something. 10. More time is needed. 14. More
resources should be allocated for each pupils individual projects at this
level. A good aim for a course like this is to get some analysis don (and
later published?) 16. The computer exercises were not to few, but there
was too little time for them. 17. Good distribution between lectures,
exercises. 19. I have not got much out of it for my own project, as the
emphasis on individual project was almost absent. |
|||
|
Your
benefit |
Options |
Distribution |
Mean score |
|
Professional/Scientific
|
Very
low |
0 |
3,2 |
|
Expectation
fulfillment |
Very
low |
0 |
2,9 |
|
Personal/Social |
Very
low |
0 |
3,6 |
|
Comments: 3.
I got a good overview of the topics and a lot of new ideas for my own
projects So I can say I am rally happy that I could take this course. 4.
Too theoretical, some of the lessons, you didn’t understand if you
didn’t know a lot of it beforehand. 5. The new subjects (for my part)
were ran through too fast. The course was a little bit too theoretical. 9.
A broad scale of topics resulted in relatively little time for each, but
that was OK since you need every once in a while the “general”
courses. 10. I think everything was balanced. 11. Variogram and
possibilities very beneficial. 16. A lot of topics were squeezed into a
little amount of time. The disadvantage was that you did not really get a
good understanding of the topics. 17. The title included agriculture,
which was missing at the course. 19. Project work was not good. |
|||
|
The
course facilities |
Options |
Distribution |
Mean score |
|
Your
room |
Very
bad |
0 |
3,5 |
|
General
facilities |
Very
bad |
0 |
3,6 |
|
The
food |
Very
bad |
0 |
3,3 |
|
Lecture
rooms |
Very
bad |
2 |
3,2 |
|
Comments: 3.
We should have quit the dinner and prepared dinner in our common kitchens
instead. Very bad computer desks! Poor students of Ås. I really missed an
a:drive, too. 4. Are Norwegians very small people? The chairs are to
small. For the sake of future students I hope you will improve the
computer room, otherwise you will end up with people with hurting
shoulders, arms etc. Instead of having so early dinner, it might have been
nicer to cook by yourselves. Food could have been bought and different
groups could have cooked for others. That would also have improved the
social contact. 5. The auditorium was OK, but the computer lab was too
small and too warm. Lectures should not be in the computer room. 6. Using
the computer lab as a lecture room was not a good idea (part of the first
week). 9. Lecture room uncomfortable. Computer exercises: In a course like
this where there are several lectures you really have to check that
everything works beforehand – otherwise things don’t work as we could
see here. 11. The new auditorium has too little space between the rows. 12
Lecture room and computer room too hot, too much CO2. In student house
could have had some equipment. 14. Sometimes it was hard to hear and see
in the PC-lab, at least from the back. 15. Lecture rooms were too hot. 18.
All facilities were good. 19. Many technical problems with the computers
made the exercises even more stressful than they needed to be. 20.
Computer lab is not suitable for lectures. The seats in auditorium to
small. Otherwise good facilities. |
|||
|
Basic
introduction |
Options |
Distribution |
Mean score |
|
Lectures
|
Very
bad |
0 |
3,6 |
|
Hand-outs |
Very
bad |
0 |
3,6 |
|
Computer
exercises |
Very
bad |
0 |
3,3 |
|
Comments: 9.
Too steep learning curve for those with no knowledge in beforehand.10.
More time. |
|||
|
Models
with space and time |
Options |
Distribution |
Mean score |
|
Lectures
|
Very
bad |
3 |
2,8 |
|
Hand-outs |
Very
bad |
1 |
2,9 |
|
Computer
exercises |
Very
bad |
2 |
2,6 |
|
Comments: 3.
Too fast and made for “insiders”, but not for newcomers. We should
have had the same software as in the talk or she should have used the same
as ours. 4. I did not understand the lecture. 9. And now the “not into
this topic” were completely lost… 10. Reasonably done. 11. It seemed
like they did not adjust to the level of pupils. 12. Too difficult, too
fast. 13. Difficult accent, hard to understand. 14. Too hurried. 19. This
probably depends on background. My background was very poor. 20. Too
little time for this part. All lectures should use the same notation in
conceptual modeling. |
|||
|
Spatial
algebra |
Options |
Distribution |
Mean score |
|
Lectures
|
Very
bad |
3 |
2,7 |
|
Hand-outs |
Very
bad |
1 |
3,0 |
|
Computer
exercises |
Very
bad |
2 |
2,6 |
|
Comments: 3.
The same as for Models with space and time. 4. I did not understand the
lecture. 9. There was no spatial algebra here, was there? 10. More time
needed. 11. Need to adjust the level to the audience. Lecture interesting.
12. Too difficult, too fast. 14. Too hurried. 19. This probably depends on
background. My background was very poor. 20. Too little time for exercise
and too little attention from teachers. All students were not on that
level. |
|||
|
Fuzzy
objects |
Options |
Distribution |
Mean score |
|
Lectures
|
Very
bad |
0 |
3,4 |
|
Hand-outs |
Very
bad |
0 |
3,4 |
|
Computer
exercises |
Very
bad |
0 |
3,3 |
|
Comments: 5.
The exercises were of little relevance. 10. More time needed. 11. Was not
able to explain the topic so I understood it. 12. Exercise very easy to
use. 14. Good, clear presentation, experienced teacher. 19. General for
most computer exercises: Too little time. |
|||
|
Error
propagation |
Options |
Distribution |
Mean score |
|
Lectures
|
Very
bad |
0 |
3,4 |
|
Hand-outs |
Very
bad |
0 |
3,3 |
|
Computer
exercises |
Very
bad |
0 |
3,4 |
|
Comments: 14.
Very good, clear, easy enough. |
|||
|
Random
field statistics |
Options |
Distribution |
Mean score |
|
Lectures
|
Very
bad |
0 |
3,8 |
|
Hand-outs |
Very
bad |
0 |
3,4 |
|
Computer
exercises |
Very
bad |
0 |
3,4 |
|
Comments: 3.
Too fast – give the students time to think about what you explain.
Otherwise you should not be surprised when they ask a lot of questions. 4.
It started out very good and then I got lost. 9. Except that the pace of
the lectures was too high. 11. Enthusiastic and good to explain the topic.
14. Very good in the beginning, too hurried in the end. 20. Hand-written
hand-outs? |
|||
|
Spatial
statistics |
Options |
Distribution |
Mean score |
|
Lectures
|
Very
bad |
0 |
4,8 |
|
Hand-outs |
Very
bad |
missing |
? |
|
Computer
exercises |
Very
bad |
0 |
4,0 |
|
Comments: 3.
The two best and most effective days of the course! 4. She explained very
well, and the computer exercise was followed up well. 5. It was
frustrating not getting the programs/software to work properly. 11. This
topic I know and remember and can start working with it. 12. Could have
checked for bugs in the programs. Lectures excellent but too quickly. The
best thing in the course! 13. More time should be spent on this topic
(both lectures and exercises). 14. Experienced teacher. 19. Good with some
summing up of the computer exercises. 20. Definitely the best part of this
course. |
|||
|
ScanGis
Conference |
Options |
Distribution |
Mean score |
|
Lectures
|
Very
bad |
0 |
3,4 |
|
Hand-outs |
Very
bad |
0 |
3,6 |
|
General
benefit |
Very
bad |
2 |
2,9 |
|
What
do you in general feel about the idea of integrating a scientific
conference in a PhD-course? |
Very
bad |
0 |
3,7 |
|
Comments: 1.
More area should be covered. 2. Good to know what is going on about the
research area of geostatistics. 3. I didn’t attend many sessions but
worked on my project instead, but I am sure that there are many other
students who really had a benefit of the conference. 4. The problem with
the conference was that to understand most of the lectures it required a
lot of prior knowledge, that I think many of us did not have. To combine
it with a more applied conference might be better. 6. Whether it is a good
idea will of course depend on the individual background of the student. 8.
In general it is a good idea to integrate conference in the course, but
the conference split a little course. 10. The level should come down. 12.
No link between the subjects in conference and course. 16. Should be
possible to choose the conference. 19. The conference was mainly about
informatics, while I more want to apply GIS. 20. In this course I would
have appreciated more database modeling instead of the conference. Course
topics should match with the topics of the conference. |
|||
|
Other
comments.
You may for instance mention some positive circumstances (if you need more
paper just ask for it) and some negative circumstances concerning the
course: |
