118
I. Jaisli et al.
However, thematic and methodological inputs were generally perceived as being
too long, too many, and not interactive or participatory enough. According to overall
student opinions, more time could have been dedicated to discussions and group
work, including more interactions with FVC stakeholders, in order to gain a deeper
understanding of their key challenges and come up with better solutions. More guidance in the creative process to find solutions would also have been appreciated. Additionally, some participants suggested a better integration of students’ backgrounds
and experiences into the programme to improve joint learning. This was intended by
the mini case studies but could have been more intense and integrative.
Apart from these overall evaluations, in 2017, students highlighted the inputs of
more practical relevance and the introduction of practical tools. They also appreciated the flexibility that was given in the excursion programme. On the other hand,
although they valued the mini case study poster presentations (“The presentations
were really nice, the variety of cases from different countries and backgrounds pretty
impressive. I think, we have all learnt a lot from them.”), they criticised them as being
at the end of the day, and also underrated the unsustainable food provided (“Why
should we have meat every day? Why are rather unsustainable products like cheese,
chocolate and coffee heavily promoted by the staff? Why are we not preparing food
together?”). A student also commented on the different cultural contexts (“Please
take into consideration that the context of India for both education and living is so
different from Switzerland. The expectations of Indian students/lecturers might be
very different from that of European and global students.”).
In 2018, the programme was evaluated as being too densely packed, which
prevented more time from being used for interaction and exchange among the participants. The input lectures were also assessed as being not interactive enough. Participants highlighted the group cases (“It was an amazing experience and my favourite
part of the summer school. It was great to work in a multicultural team and we could
really incorporate all the knowledge in our group”), the field excursions (“They
were by far the most valuable activities of the summer school. Seeing things in the
field enabled you to learn practical things that nobody ever teaches you in a lecture
theatre”) and the exchange among students (“The most memorable and helpful inputs
for me actually came from the other participants”).
In 2019, a few students raised their concerns about the internationality and sustainability of the programme due to flight emissions. This topic was discussed very
controversially with other participants emphasizing that “this experience was one
of the most important ones for me. Having people from all around the world was
incredibly important and a most valuable experience.”, or “for me, particularly the
exchange with foreign students was very valuable.”
I. Jaisli et al.
However, thematic and methodological inputs were generally perceived as being
too long, too many, and not interactive or participatory enough. According to overall
student opinions, more time could have been dedicated to discussions and group
work, including more interactions with FVC stakeholders, in order to gain a deeper
understanding of their key challenges and come up with better solutions. More guidance in the creative process to find solutions would also have been appreciated. Additionally, some participants suggested a better integration of students’ backgrounds
and experiences into the programme to improve joint learning. This was intended by
the mini case studies but could have been more intense and integrative.
Apart from these overall evaluations, in 2017, students highlighted the inputs of
more practical relevance and the introduction of practical tools. They also appreciated the flexibility that was given in the excursion programme. On the other hand,
although they valued the mini case study poster presentations (“The presentations
were really nice, the variety of cases from different countries and backgrounds pretty
impressive. I think, we have all learnt a lot from them.”), they criticised them as being
at the end of the day, and also underrated the unsustainable food provided (“Why
should we have meat every day? Why are rather unsustainable products like cheese,
chocolate and coffee heavily promoted by the staff? Why are we not preparing food
together?”). A student also commented on the different cultural contexts (“Please
take into consideration that the context of India for both education and living is so
different from Switzerland. The expectations of Indian students/lecturers might be
very different from that of European and global students.”).
In 2018, the programme was evaluated as being too densely packed, which
prevented more time from being used for interaction and exchange among the participants. The input lectures were also assessed as being not interactive enough. Participants highlighted the group cases (“It was an amazing experience and my favourite
part of the summer school. It was great to work in a multicultural team and we could
really incorporate all the knowledge in our group”), the field excursions (“They
were by far the most valuable activities of the summer school. Seeing things in the
field enabled you to learn practical things that nobody ever teaches you in a lecture
theatre”) and the exchange among students (“The most memorable and helpful inputs
for me actually came from the other participants”).
In 2019, a few students raised their concerns about the internationality and sustainability of the programme due to flight emissions. This topic was discussed very
controversially with other participants emphasizing that “this experience was one
of the most important ones for me. Having people from all around the world was
incredibly important and a most valuable experience.”, or “for me, particularly the
exchange with foreign students was very valuable.”