Evaluation Report for Erasmus Intensive Programme (2012): Implementing
Europe’s Future Broadband Infrastructure.
Grant agreement number: IP-2011-13
This document consists of 3 parts:
- Part 1: Lecture evaluations
- Part 2: Student evaluations
- Part 3: Teacher evaluations
Part 1 - Lecture and Project Evaluations
The purpose of this part is to summarize the evaluation forms received from students regarding the
evaluation of lectures and projects during the IP. It does not contain analysis/conclusions, but will be used
when preparing the IP for 2013.
All students were encouraged to fill out the evaluation forms after the lectures, and most students have
done so.
Most lectures receive an average rating between “good” and “excellent”, with a few lectures being rated
just under “good”. The average overall rating of the lectures/project is 3.33. It should be noted that all
grades are given on a scale from 1 to 5, were 1=Bad, 2=Not so good, 3=Good, 4=Excellent.
In summary, the lectures have received the following ratings:
Lecture
Rating
1
2.92
2
3.30
3
3.22
4
2.96
5
3.70
6
3.75
7
3.48
8
3.12
9
2.84
10
3.70
Project
3.65
The remaining pages describe the rating of the individual lectures/project in further detail, and also include
all comments received from the students.
Lecture 1: Understanding the value chain in broadband networks
The lecture overall was rated on average 2.92 on a scale from 1 to 4.
0
3
5
Bad
Not so good
Good
Excellent
18
Not so
good
Bad
The lecture overall
The content of the lecture
The relevance of the lecture
The level of the lecture
Your own contribution/effort
0
1
1
0
0
Good
5
5
4
3
10
18
17
17
19
15
Excellent Average 1-4 total
3 2,923076923
26
3 2,846153846
26
4 2,923076923
26
4 3,038461538
26
1 2,653846154
26
Comments:






Too big amount of information in short period of time.
Slides were a bit messy and confusing.
Pictures taken from "random" websites made it "messy".
Pauses during the lecture
Longer than one minute for talks
Too much new stuff to memorize for an assignment
Lecture 2: Network services – status, trends, and forecasts
The lecture overall was rated on average 3.30 on a scale from 1 to 4.
00
Bad
8
Not so good
Good
19
Excellent
Not so
good
Bad
The lecture overall
The content of the lecture
The relevance of the lecture
The level of the lecture
Your own contribution/effort
0
0
0
0
0
Good
0
3
1
1
1
19
14
14
20
18
Excellent Average 1-4 total
8 3,296296296
27
10 3,259259259
27
12 3,407407407
27
6 3,185185185
27
8 3,259259259
27
Comments:





1 hour group-work to prepare presentation is not enough if it has to be done properly
Very relevant
Interesting
Good opportunity for group work
Good intro to the week
Lecture 3: An overview of network technologies, now and in the future
The lecture overall was rated on average 3.22 on a scale from 1 to 4.
0
5
Bad
11
Not so good
Good
Excellent
11
Not so
good
Bad
The lecture overall
The content of the lecture
The relevance of the lecture
The level of the lecture
Your own contribution/effort
Comments: None.
0
0
0
0
0
Good
5
1
2
2
5
11
17
15
17
16
Excellent Average 1-4 total
11 3,222222222
27
9 3,296296296
27
10 3,296296296
27
8 3,222222222
27
6 3,037037037
27
Lecture 4: An introduction to network architectures and service oriented architectures
The lecture overall was rated on average 2.96 on a scale from 1 to 4.
0
2
3
Bad
Not so good
Good
Excellent
22
Not so
good
Bad
The lecture overall
The content of the lecture
The relevance of the lecture
The level of the lecture
Your own contribution/effort
0
0
1
1
1
Comments:



The task should be explained more clearly
The assignment should be more clear
The exercise was not very clear
Good
3
1
2
2
2
22
20
19
19
20
Excellent Average 1-4 total
2 2,962962963
27
6 3,185185185
27
5 3,037037037
27
5 3,037037037
27
4
3
27
Lecture 5: An introduction to network planning methods
The lecture overall was rated on average 3.70 on a scale from 1 to 4.
00
Bad
8
Not so good
Good
19
Excellent
Not so
good
Bad
The lecture overall
The content of the lecture
The relevance of the lecture
The level of the lecture
Your own contribution/effort
0
0
0
0
0
Good
0
0
1
0
0
8
7
8
8
14
Excellent Average 1-4 total
19 3,703703704
27
20 3,740740741
27
18
3,62962963
27
19 3,703703704
27
13 3,481481481
27
Comments:

Slides had much information. Maybe too much to concentrate about what the lecturer was saying.
It was hard to both listen to the lecturer and keep up with the information in the slides.
Lecture 6: Services and network demands/requirements for future infrastructure
The lecture overall was rated on average 3.75 on a scale from 1 to 4.
00
7
Bad
Not so good
Good
Excellent
21
Not so
good
Bad
The lecture overall
The content of the lecture
The relevance of the lecture
The level of the lecture
Your own contribution/effort
0
0
0
0
0
Good
0
0
0
0
0
7
8
9
8
10
Excellent Average 1-4 total
21
3,75
28
20 3,714285714
28
19 3,678571429
28
20 3,714285714
28
18 3,642857143
28
Comments:




Good with student presentations
Youtube is good
The student presentation was very interesting
Really liked it. All parts were interesting and greatly mixed.
Lecture 7: Cases of network planning and design
The lecture overall was rated on average 3.48 on a scale from 1 to 4.
0
1
Bad
Not so good
14
12
Good
Excellent
Not so
good
Bad
The lecture overall
The content of the lecture
The relevance of the lecture
The level of the lecture
Your own contribution/effort
0
0
0
0
0
Good
1
1
0
2
1
12
10
6
10
13
Excellent Average 1-4 total
14 3,481481481
27
16 3,555555556
27
21 3,777777778
27
15 3,481481481
27
13 3,444444444
27
Comments:




More information for assignment. It should be possible to look up unknown info.
Really nice and interesting, but (as you already know) not enough time for group work - or maybe
there was enough if you don't have more than 20 access points. So maybe next time there should
be a top number of nodes given (a.k.a. upper limit).
Very usefull stuff
Many useful information about network planning and so on.
Lecture 8: Guest Lectures by Lars Yde (Skyline) and Tahir Riaz (NJNF)
The lecture overall was rated on average 3.12 on a scale from 1 to 4.
0
6
3
Bad
Not so good
Good
Excellent
16
Not so
good
Bad
The lecture overall
The content of the lecture
The relevance of the lecture
The level of the lecture
Your own contribution/effort
0
0
1
1
1
Good
3
5
1
5
5
16
15
14
13
16
Excellent Average 1-4 total
6
3,12
25
5
3
25
9
3,24
25
6
2,96
25
3
2,84
25
Comments:






It was a little depressing lecture
(content was rated as "not so good" with comment: "It was sad")
I wish good luck to the guest. It was very sad lesson.
1st guest lecture: maybe too much information
Some topics repeated
Task is quite interesting
Lecture 9: Methods for aligning business and technology
The lecture overall was rated on average 2.84 on a scale from 1 to 4.
4
1
Bad
6
Not so good
Good
Excellent
14
Not so
good
Bad
The lecture overall
The content of the lecture
The relevance of the lecture
The level of the lecture
Your own contribution/effort
1
Good
6
6
7
5
7
14
14
13
16
12
Excellent Average 1-4 total
4
2,84
25
5
2,96
25
5
2,92
25
4
2,96
25
6
2,96
25
Comments:







The stuff was understandable after group work
Assume the students are idiots - offer help
Not sure about the relevance of the lecture for technical students
Maybe some examples help to understand it better
The content was too advanced. Had not seen anything like that before. I sort of gave up
understanding in the middle of the lecture
I didn't hear anything about that topic before...
Too much long
Lecture 10: Introduction to group work
The lecture overall was rated on average 3.70 on a scale from 1 to 4.
0
1
Bad
6
Not so good
Good
Excellent
20
Not so
good
Bad
The lecture overall
The content of the lecture
The relevance of the lecture
The level of the lecture
Your own contribution/effort
0
0
1
0
0
Good
1
1
0
1
2
6
10
7
9
9
Excellent Average 1-4 total
20 3,703703704
27
16 3,555555556
27
19
3,62962963
27
17 3,592592593
27
16 3,518518519
27
Comments:




It was a shame that it was shortened so much. More time would give "good" in the content of the
lecture.
Really nice! The only minus - we didn't have more of it
Would have liked to see the rest
It was an interesting topic which with more time would have been more profitable
Project
The project overall was rated on average 3.65 on a scale from 1 to 4.
00
Bad
9
Not so good
Good
17
Excellent
Not so
good
Bad
The lecture overall
The content of the lecture
The relevance of the lecture
The level of the lecture
Your own contribution/effort
0
0
0
0
0
Good
0
2
0
0
0
9
12
11
6
7
Excellent Average 1-4 total
17 3,653846154
26
12 3,384615385
26
15 3,576923077
26
20 3,769230769
26
19 3,730769231
26
Comments:





Our supervisor Jose was really good as a person and as a supervisor and as a support
Jose supervision was very professional
Working on a (multicultural) project was very interesting and from it a lot was learnt
Maybe more project proposals, make it more varied
It is a good idea because it gives you a vision of real problems
Part 2 - Student Evaluations
The purpose of this part is to summarize the evaluation forms received from students regarding the IP. It is
intended to be used for preparing the IP for 2013, and to support the writing of the final report for the
National Agency. Moreover, it might be useful for other IP organizers.
All students have filled out the evaluation forms after the lectures, but in a few cases not all students
answered all questions, which is why the sum of answers is not always 28. In a few cases the students were
contacted afterwards in order to clarify the answers, and the additional information has been used for the
production of this document.
The forms used are those provided by the National Agency. The ratings are given on a scale from 1 to 5.
(1=Poor/not at all, 5=excellent/very much).
The last page of this part contains the evaluations/suggestions/comments from students and teachers
which came up during the evaluation discussions in the last day of the IP.
1. How satisfied were you with the duration of the IP?
Average rating: 4.6. Distribution of ratings, on students from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish students
1 2 3 4 5
1 1
1
AVG
3.3
Latvian students
1 2 3 4 5
2 3
AVG
4.6
Polish students
1 2 3 4 5
3 7
AVG
4.7
Spanish students
1 2 3 4 5
10
AVG
5.0
Comment: The students were generally happy with the duration of the IP. Some of the Danish students
commented that two weeks is very short time for preparing a project, especially when people come
together with different backgrounds.
2. How satisfied were you with the dates of the IP?
Average rating: 4.9. Distribution of ratings, on students from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish students
1 2 3 4 5
1 2
AVG
4.7
Latvian students
1 2 3 4 5
1 4
AVG
4.8
Polish students
1 2 3 4 5
1 9
Comment: The students were happy with the dates of the IP.
AVG
4.9
Spanish students
1 2 3 4 5
8
AVG
5.0
3. Which were the factors which motivated you to participate?
Academic
Cultural
Practice of
foreign lang.
Friends living
abroad
Career plans
European
Experience
Avg. rating
(Danish stud)
3.7
3.7
2.67
Avg. rating
(Latvian stud)
4.6
4.4
4.2
Avg. rating
(Polish stud)
4.0
5.0
4.9
Avg. rating
(Spanish stud)
3.8
4.3
4.2
Avg. rating
All students
4.0
4.5
4.3
1.3
3.6
1.2
2.6
2.1
2.3
2.7
4
4.6
3.9
4.7
3.7
4.6
3.7
4.4
Comment: We see a broad range of motivations, but especially Cultural, Language and European
Experience receive high ratings for students from all the countries. Danish and Latvian students are rate the
academic factors relatively high.
4. Where did you hear about the IP?
Home
institution
Host
institution
Other
students
Former
participants
Internet
Other
Percentage of
Danish stud.
100
Percentage of
Latvian stud.
100
Percentage of
Polish stud.
100
Percentage of
Spanish stud.
100
Percentage of
all students.
100
67
20
40
0
25
0
0
60
30
32
0
0
30
10
14
0
0
0
0
30
0
22
0
19
0
Comment: We see that all students heard about it from their home institution. 4 of 10 Polish students also
heard about it from the host institution, which is likely because it was promoted during an Erasmus Teacher
mobility stay earlier in 2012.
5. Did you receive adequate support from your home institution and from the host institution before and
during the IP?
Home institution – average: 4.7. Distribution of ratings, on students from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish students
1 2 3 4 5
1 2
AVG
4.7
Latvian students
1 2 3 4 5
5
AVG
5.0
Polish students
1 2 3 4 5
10
AVG
5.0
Spanish students
1 2 3 4 5
1 1 3 5
AVG
4.2
Host institution – average: 4.9. Distribution of ratings, on students from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish students
1 2 3 4 5
1 2
AVG
4.7
Latvian students
1 2 3 4 5
5
AVG
5.0
Polish students
1 2 3 4 5
1 9
AVG
4.9
Spanish students
1 2 3 4 5
2 8
AVG
4.8
Comment: The students were generally happy with the support from the home and host institutions.
6. Type of accommodation in the host country?
No. Danish students
University accom.
Apartment or house
Private housing
Other
1
2
No. Latvian students
4
1
No. Polish students
No.Spanish students
3
4
6
2
7
Comment: All visiting students (From Lativa, Poland and Spain) stayed in apartments in the same building
(“Aalborg Sportshøjskole”), but since it it was arranged by the university, and since it is privately run, the
question might have caused some confusion.
7. Were you satisfied with the accommodation?
Average rating: 4.5. Distribution of ratings, on students from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish students
1 2 3 4 5
3
AVG
5.0
Latvian students
1 2 3 4 5
5
AVG
4.0
Polish students
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 7
AVG
4.6
Spanish students
1 2 3 4 5
2 2 6
AVG
4.4
Comment: The students were generally happy with the accommodation. It was not luxury housing, and
some would have liked private showers etc. However, the students expressed that keeping the IP free of
charge for students had a much higher priority than better accommodation.
8. Will you gain recognition for your IP by your home institution?
All students responded “Yes” to the question, except for two Polish students (one writing “no”, the other
writing “Don’t know”). This must be due to a misunderstanding, since all students are awarded 3 ECTS
(recognized at the home institution) for participation in the IP.
9. If yes, how will it be recognized?
All Danish and Latvian students answered “ECTS”. All polish students (except for the two mentioned in
question 8, who did not answer) also answered “ECTS”. Among the Spanish students 7 answered ECTS, 2
answered “Free Election Credits”, and 1 answered “ALE credits”.
Comment: It is agreed among the partners that all students will have the credits from the IP recognized as
ECTS.
10. Did you encounter any problems concerning recognition of your IP?
This question caused some confusion, since the students would not at this time know if any problems
would occur with the recognition. The students responded as follows (specified per country).
Country
Rating
Count
Danish students
1 2 3 4 5
3
AVG
1.0
Latvian students
1 2 3 4 5
5
AVG
1.0
Polish students
1 2 3 4 5
4
3
1
AVG
2.25
Spanish students
1 2 3 4 5
6
2
Comment: The replies reflect that the question could not be answered just at the end of the IP.
10b. Please speciy
Most students did not reply to the question, with a few exceptions:



One Danish student replied “Not yet”.
One Latvian student replied “Not yet”, and another student “No problems”.
Two Spanish students replied “Not yet”.
AVG
1.5
11. Total approximate personal contribution to the costs of the IP (EUR)? (the students were also asked to
indicate the costs they contributed to : Travel to host institution, Accommodation, Field visits, Materials
used during the IP, Social programmes, Other).
The students responded as follows:



All Danish, Latvian and Polish students stated the cost contribution as “0”, and wrote “No” to all the
mentioned kind of costs. So did 7 of the 10 Spanish students.
One Spanish student stated the cost contribution as “0”, but indicated that he had contributed to
the “Travel to host institution costs”. Upon contacting the student, he explained that he lives
around 300 km from Barcelona, and that he paid the trip from his home village to Barcelona
himself (25 Euro each trip).
Two Spanish students indicated the cost contribution to “250”, and indicated that he had
contributed to “Field visits”. Upon contacting the students, it was clarified that these costs where
related to “vacation activities” during the IP. One of these students write: “in my case, it is just a
mistake. I thought "Field visits" was the "situation" where i spent my money on during the
vacations. I want to clarify that all i spent was never related due to a lack of services given by the
organizers. And finally i would like to specify that i more or less spent 170 euro, not 250 as i
thought in first approximation.”
Comment: The IP was held without asking students for contributions to the costs. However, travel expenses
were only covered from the city of the university where the students are studying. Also, the IP did not
cover not centrally organized spare times activities, disco visits, shopping etc.
12. Judgement of (your own) academic/learning outcomes of the IP?
Average rating: 3.8. Distribution of ratings, on students from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish students
1 2 3 4 5
1 1 1
AVG
2
Latvian students
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 2
AVG
4.2
Polish students
1 2 3 4 5
3
7
AVG
4.4
Spanish students
1 2 3 4 5
4 6
AVG
3.6
Comment: The rating of academic outcomes varies a lot among the students from different countries.
Some students expressed afterwards that with the focus on solving problems involving different disciplines,
they learned more about working together across nationalities/disciplines than gaining in-depth technical
knowledge. This might also partly explain the low rating by the Danish students, who are used to the
Problem Based Learning model.
13. Judgement of (your own) personal outcomes of the IP?
Average rating: 4.5. Distribution of ratings, on students from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish students
1 2 3 4 5
2
1
AVG
3.7
Latvian students
1 2 3 4 5
3 2
Polish students
1 2 3 4 5
1 9
AVG
4.4
Spanish students
1 2 3 4 5
5 5
AVG
4.9
AVG
4.5
Comment: The rating shows that especially among the students travelling to the IP, the personal outcome
is very high. None of the travelling students gives a rating below 4. The lower scores for the Danish students
could be related to the fact that the Danish students were not sleeping at Sportshøjskolen, and thus did not
participate fully in all the after-hour social activities and interactions with the other students.
14. Did you encounter any serious problems during the IP?
All students from Denmark, Latvia and Spain answered “1” to this question, i.e. no problems. So did 8 of the
Polish students. The two other Polish students answered “2” and “4”. The student answering “4” later
indicated that he had by mistake reversed the scale.
14. How satisfied were you with the academic activities and the pedagogical aspects of the IP in terms of
the following aspects?
The number of hours taught
The equipment used
The capabilities and expertise of the professors
The overall quality of teaching
The expected learning outcomes
The activities beside the general course
Avg. rating
(Danish)
3.3
3.3
3.7
3.7
3.0
4.7
Avg. rating
(Latvian)
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.0
4.8
Avg. rating
(Polish)
3.9
3.8
4.7
4.6
4.3
4.9
Avg. rating
(Spanish)
3.5
4.3
4.2
4.0
3.9
4.9
Avg. rating
All students
3.9
4.1
4.4
4.3
4.0
4.9
15. Do you think the participation in the IP will help you in your further studies/career?
Average rating: 3.8. Distribution of ratings, on students from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish students
1 2 3 4 5
2 1
AVG
2.3
Latvian students
1 2 3 4 5
1
4
AVG
3.6
Polish students
1 2 3 4 5
6 4
AVG
4.4
Spanish students
1 2 3 4 5
1 4 3 2
AVG
3.6
16. Do you think the participation in the IP will help you in finding a job?
Average rating: 3.0. Distribution of ratings, on students from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish students
1 2 3 4 5
1 1 1
AVG
2.0
Latvian students
1 2 3 4 5
3 1 1
AVG
2.6
Polish students
1 2 3 4 5
4 5 1
AVG
2.7
Spanish students
1 2 3 4 5
2 3 1 4
AVG
2.7
Spanish students
1 2 3 4 5
3 7
AVG
4.7
17. Overall evaluation of the IP?
Average rating: 4.5. Distribution of ratings, on students from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish students
1 2 3 4 5
1 1 1
AVG
4.0
Latvian students
1 2 3 4 5
1 4
AVG
4.8
Polish students
1 2 3 4 5
6 4
AVG
4.3
Comment: The rating shows that the students were generally highly satisfied with the IP. This is particularly
so for the students travelling to Denmark (all these students rated the overall evaluation as 4 or 5). It is
somewhat interesting that the Latvian and Spanish students give higher ratings than the Polish students,
even though the Polish students were those rating the both academic and personal outcomes the highest.
18. Recommendations to the organizers
From Danish students:

If the participants should experience the strengths and benefits of Problem Based Learning, then
more time is needed for the main project, along with supervisors who are familiar with this.
From Latvian students:

IP was organized excellent!
From Polish students:

No comments
From Spanish students:







Wi-Fi connectivity was not so good at Sportshøjskolen
Food was not as good as expected. Specially of the fruit was still too green
Arrive to an agreement concerning the food timing and composition from the first or second day of
the program
A recommendation is to follow doing the IP because it is a very recommendable personal
experience. It is not only for the academics - the personal skills are very developed.
Excellent IP, continue with it
It's a great multicultural experience
In general the course was excellent. Maybe the lectures were too long. The idea of making a project
was great. I also enjoyed a lot the social activities. I really don't see any problem in the IP. I am very
satisfied.
Comments from teachers and students given at the IP evaluation meeting by the end of the IP:
















Great organization
Perfect social activities
Good enough food, quite convenient
Good lectures, well organized
Pizza Friday was great
Sandwiches were OK, but small – good with 2nd sandwich
Name tags from day 1 would be good
Good with written project proposals (not just video)
All project information in English
Easy access to university and living close to center was good
More focused project proposals, and more project proposals
Don’t like common showers, but ok prioritization
Good with gym access
Maybe more technical projects, maybe more problem based projects
Good with multicultural experience
6 hours between meals too much, but solved in 2nd week...
We discussed whether the IP could be held purely as a ICT-based distance course. It was agreed that the
physical presence during working hours, social activities and “spare time” was crucial for both academic
and personal outcomes. However, some lectures with introduction to the subjects could be given via a
video-based system.
Part 3 - Teacher Evaluations
The purpose of this partis to summarize the evaluation forms received from teachers regarding the IP. The
document is intended to be used for preparing the IP for 2013, and to support the writing of the final
report for the National Agency. Moreover, it might be useful for other IP organizers.
All teachers have filled out the evaluation forms after the lectures. The questionnaires are based on the
student questionnaires provided by the National Agency, with some questions being modified or removed
so that it fits to evaluate the teacher’s experience. The ratings are given on a scale from 1 to 5. (1=Poor/not
at all, 5=excellent/very much).
All 11 teachers responded to all questions. Most of the questions show a generally high satisfaction, and
are not further commented.
1. How satisfied were you with the duration of the IP?
Average rating: 4.8. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
3
AVG
5.0
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2 2
AVG
4.5
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 1 2
AVG
4.3
Comment: The teachers were happy with the duration of the IP.
2. How satisfied were you with the dates of the IP?
Average rating: 4.7. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
3
AVG
5.0
Comment: The teachers were generally happy with the dates of the IP. However, it is placed during a time
of year where many people are having vacations.
3. How would you rate the overall organization of the IP (by home and host institutions)?
Home institution – average: 4.6. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 1
AVG
4.5
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
3
AVG
5.0
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 1 2
AVG
4.3
Host institution – average: 4.7. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
3
AVG
5.0
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 1 2
AVG
4.3
4. Did you receive adequate and timely information about the IP before and during the IP (at home and
host institutions)?
Home institution – average: 4.6. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 1
AVG
4.5
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 2
AVG
4.5
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1
3
AVG
4.5
Host institution – average: 4.8. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
3
AVG
5.0
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1
3
AVG
4.5
5. Did you receive adequate support from your home institution and from the host institution before and
during the IP?
Home institution – average: 4.8. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 1
AVG
4.5
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 2
AVG
4.5
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1
3
AVG
4.5
Host institution – average: 4.8. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
3
AVG
5.0
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1
3
AVG
4.5
6. Were you satisfied with the technical/scientific content of the IP?
Overall average: 4.7. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 2
AVG
4.5
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2 2
AVG
4.5
Comment: The teachers were generally satisfied with the technical/scientific content of the IP. An
observation is that all teachers present during 2nd week (with project work) rate the technical/scientific
content “5”.
7. Were you satisfied with your accommodation?
Overall average: 4.6. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1
AVG
4.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 1
AVG
4.5
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
3
AVG
5.0
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2 2
AVG
4.5
Comment: One Danish teacher did not fill out this form, as he was living at home during the IP.
8. Were you satisfied with the organization of meals?
Overall average: 4.6. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 1
AVG
4.5
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 1
AVG
4.5
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
3
AVG
5.0
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2 2
AVG
4.5
9. Were you satisfied with other activities organized during the IP?
Overall average: 4.9. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
3
AVG
5.0
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 3
AVG
4.8
10. Judgement of (your own) learning/didactical outcomes of the IP?
Overall average: 4.7. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 2
AVG
4.7
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2 2
AVG
4.5
11. Judgement of (your own) personal outcomes of the IP?
Overall average: 4.7. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
1 1
AVG
4.5
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
3
AVG
5.0
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2 2
AVG
4.5
12. Did you encounter any serious problems during the IP?
All respondents answered “1” to this question, i.e. “not at all”.
13. Overall evaluation of the IP?
Overall average: 4.8. Distribution of ratings, on teachers from the different countries:
Country
Rating
Count
Danish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Latvian teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2
AVG
5.0
Polish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
3
AVG
5.0
Spanish teachers
1 2 3 4 5
2 2
AVG
4.5
14. Recommendations and ideas for the IP organisers:



I am impressed with how the IP was perfectly prepared.
Proposals of the projects should be documented and supplementary materials should be in English.
To focus the definition of the projects to be carried out by the different group of students to more
specific problems. In this edition the topics of the projects were too broad and similar.