Visa resultat

Lp 4 ARK465 V13 Sustainable Building, ARK465

Learning outcomes and fullfilment of goals

1. Learning outcome 1: Cooporate across disciplinary boundaries in design processes.

Very insufficiently»		1		14%
Insufficiently»		4		57%
Sufficiently»		1		14%
Excellently»		1		14%
No opinion»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.28

- No transdiciplinary dialogs, only focus on the architectural design» (Very insufficiently)
- Only architects in the group...» (Insufficiently)
- Only architects within the group...» (Insufficiently)
- There were not enough engineers in the course.» (Insufficiently)
- most students where architects, so the most "across" where with AT-students and A-students, which worked well. » (Sufficiently)

2. Learning outcome 2: Define her/his specific contribution in a design team and synthesize program issues into a competition entry.

Very insufficiently»		0		0%
Insufficiently»		2		28%
Sufficiently»		3		42%
Excellently»		2		28%
No opinion»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Had a feeling of competition within the group (8 student groups), hardly no collaboration and just interest in doing your own thing without presenting what you are working with to the others. It was hard to have a clear role in the group because of this.» (Insufficiently)
- A great experience that taught me a lot of working in and organizing a team. » (Excellently)
- the journal was very good» (Excellently)

3. Learning outcome 3: Visualize and communicate the performance of a building concerning energy, environment and indoor climate (for a wide public audience).

Very insufficiently»		1		14%
Insufficiently»		2		28%
Sufficiently»		3		42%
Excellently»		1		14%
No opinion»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.57

- More lectures/knowledge needed.» (Very insufficiently)
- You need to have more knowledge about what to present and visualize before communicating it.» (Insufficiently)
- Would have been great to have more workshops around Ecotect, Diva etc. And that, when we had a workshop, the software should be installed on the School computers or at least we should have gotten the information that it wasn"t (The computers don"t have Ecotect) » (Sufficiently)
- Complicated area and we could have been supported earlier in the course. » (Sufficiently)

4. Learning outcome 4: Describing and analyzing the main features of sustainable building.

Very insufficiently»		1		14%
Insufficiently»		0		0%
Sufficiently»		6		85%
Excellently»		0		0%
No opinion»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.71

- Sorry, but I really feel that all I"ve learned during this course is what I"ve googled myself. It"s good to make students responsible for their education, but three lectures in 22,5hp?? Way to little!!» (Very insufficiently)

5. Learning outcome 5: Designing integrated systems for healthy indoor climate and resource efficiency.

Very insufficiently»		2		28%
Insufficiently»		2		28%
Sufficiently»		3		42%
Excellently»		0		0%
No opinion»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.14

- More examlples needed, more lectures.» (Very insufficiently)
- See previous comments. » (Very insufficiently)
- Max and Angela should have been introduced earlier in the design process. Feels like we didn"t learn as much or had the possiblity to integrate their knowledge in a good way in the design, since they gave feedback quite late. No feedback on resource efficiency.» (Insufficiently)
- This is a complicated field that we could have gotten more support in earlier in the process. » (Sufficiently)

6. Learning outcome 6: Designing and promoting sustainable architecture.

Very insufficiently»		0		0%
Insufficiently»		2		28%
Sufficiently»		2		28%
Excellently»		3		42%
No opinion»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- See previous comments. I wanted a solid knowledge-foundation within sustainable architecture but didn"t get it trough this course.» (Insufficiently)

7. Learning outcome 7: Using a diverse range of tools (digital and physical models) in order to cooperate in team work and communicate ideas and solutions to a wide public.

Very insufficiently»		0		0%
Insufficiently»		1		14%
Sufficiently»		4		57%
Excellently»		2		28%
No opinion»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- Like mentioned before, no cooperative team work. The ones who had previous knowledge around the digital tools for example, got to do the main work with it,» (Insufficiently)
- Good intro to many tools, but not enough time to really learn about them. And when thinking of the course in whole, I think it was too much focus on the digital tools. Time that could have been spend in learning about sustainable buildings instead.» (Sufficiently)
- between some group member, great, with others the difference in prior knowledge too big» (Sufficiently)

8. Learning outcome 8: Understanding of the implications of design for sustainable architecture.

Very insufficiently»		0		0%
Insufficiently»		1		14%
Sufficiently»		4		57%
Excellently»		1		14%
No opinion»		1		14%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- Good with the fabricational-approach, not only material is important.» (Sufficiently)

9. Learning outcome 9: Broad understanding of various and diverse approaches to resource efficiency

Very insufficiently»		0		0%
Insufficiently»		3		42%
Sufficiently»		4		57%
Excellently»		0		0%
No opinion»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.57

- Even though TIME and lack of it was a main issue a seminar and suggested compulsory literature could have contributed to this.» (Sufficiently)

10. Learning outcome 9: Insights into particular disciplinary frameworks commonly used in sustainable design projects

Very insufficiently»		0		0%
Insufficiently»		4		57%
Sufficiently»		2		28%
Excellently»		0		0%
No opinion»		1		14%

Genomsnitt: 2.71

- Same as previous question.» (Insufficiently)

11. Are the aims and goals reasonable in relation to your pre-knowledge?

No, the goals are to elementary»		0		0%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»		5		71%
No, the goals are too ambitious»		1		14%
No opinion»		1		14%

Genomsnitt: 2.42

- The goals are great but not the means to reach them.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- The aims are reasonable but the structure of the course must be better structured to fulfill them, we didn"t really have the time we needed. » (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- Not sure of what the goals were, would have been good to have an individual follow-up on them during the semester.» (No opinion)

12. Are the goals reasonable in relation to the scope and amount of credits?

The scope is too small in relation to credits»		0		0%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»		4		57%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»		1		14%
No opinion»		2		28%

Genomsnitt: 2.71

- Again, time should have been spent more wisely. With good organization a lot of time consuming confusions could have been spared!» (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)
- Same as last question.» (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)
- We (not only our group, but our entire studio) worked alot of over-time. Working during weekends and evenings was the norm rather than the exception. Personally I set down the foot not to work after 22.00 o"clock, but some continued until the very next morning/forenoon (this most extreme kind of dedication was only prevalent ~7 days prior to deadlines, but still not OK in order to get ideas across, sure one might say "Don"t make such ambitious projects then", but the counter argument to that is that we want to become better, without the knowledge of how things are done, things takes time, and it felt like the tutors expected high results from us, I understand ofcourse it is their job to encourage us to reach further into new territories whenever possible and that it our own job to decide what we can cope with - All in all I realize it was only the students fault for why things were as they were).» (Too wide scope in relation to credits)

Education and course administration

13. What support have you got for your learning from course literature and other material?

Very little»		1		16%
Rather little»		4		66%
Rather big»		1		16%
Very big»		0		0%
No opinion»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- I"m sorry but I didn"t read the course litterature.» (?)
- Did we have course literature?» (Very little)
- Suggested seminar, compulsory literature. With the amount of work load we had it was hard to prioritize reading. » (Rather little)
- due to my own lack of reading them» (Rather little)

14. What support have you got for your learning from lectures?

15. How did the organisation, memoranda, direct information etc. function?

Very bad»		2		28%
Rather bad»		3		42%
Rather well»		0		0%
Very well»		1		14%
No opinion»		1		14%

Genomsnitt: 2.42

- Last minute.. Unorganized. The written detailed feedback from pinups (that was good to get!) shouldn"t be given in last minute before hand-in.» (Very bad)
- Organization within this course was a joke! Sorry to be this harsch but it was really bad, and not only common "Chalmers-bad".» (Very bad)
- Medium. Would be much better if the course assistant could be more active in the course, now difficult to know who to ask when things came up. And please, do not hand out paper and briefs that are not up to date, they do nothing but confuse us.» (Rather bad)
- Unstructured. » (Rather bad)
- it was a bit unclear at times» (Rather bad)

Work environment

16. How do you rate the possibilities to get assistance and ask questions?

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		2		33%
Rather well»		2		33%
Very well»		2		33%
I have not asked for assistance»		0		0%
I did not seek help»		1

Genomsnitt: 3

- The consultations were good and useful but the asked questions didn"t got answered.» (Rather bad)
- Most of my personal questions went through Anna-Sofia, and she was a true saint when it came to replying to e-mails or phone calls. If it was late in the evening, early in the morning or a weekend, she was there. GREAT WORK !» (Very well)

17. How has the cooperation between you and students in your group been?

Very bad»		2		33%
Rather bad»		0		0%
Rather good»		1		16%
Very good»		3		50%
I have not tried to cooperate»		0		0%
I did not seek cooperation»		0

Genomsnitt: 2.83

- At first it was fine... but then really bad! Some of the groupmembers didn"t have a say AT ALL and almost got bullied.» (Very bad)
- ipants.» (Rather good)
- The fact that we got to work with people from different backgrounds has been very useful in learning how to "speak a new language". Especially so in terms of how to get ideas to flow across different diciplines. How to mediate and enthuse conversations between such different co-participants.» (Rather good) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- But I know some groups really had issues, which they didn"t want to mention to the teachers...» (Very good)
- Challenging but good. » (Very good)

18. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		2		28%
High»		3		42%
Too high»		2		28%

Genomsnitt: 4

- Hard to answer because it really became up to you, since it was so hard to know what needed to be done. » (Adequate)
- As a student, you made the course and workload into what you wanted it to be.» (High)
- High and sometimes too high. » (High)

19. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

At most 15 hours/week»		0		0%
Around 20 hours/week»		0		0%
Around 25 hours/week»		0		0%
Around 30 hours/week»		2		33%
At least 35 hours/week»		4		66%

Genomsnitt: 4.66

- at least 50 hours a week, much more at the end» (?)
- A lot more than 35hours/week, especially in the end.» (At least 35 hours/week)
- More about 45-50h/week and even more close to hand-in.» (At least 35 hours/week)
- Mostly 40-50 hours / week. » (At least 35 hours/week)

20. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		1		14%
High»		4		57%
Too high»		2		28%

Genomsnitt: 4.14

- But I like the total workload to be high!» (High)
- High sometimes too high. » (High)

Summarizing questions

21. What is your overall opinion of the course?

Very bad»		1		14%
Bad»		1		14%
Passed»		2		28%
Good»		0		0%
Very good»		3		42%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

22. What should be preserved to next year?

23. What should be changed to next year?

24. Additional comments