Aktuella utvärderingar

Visa resultat

Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.

Research by Design, ADM140

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2008-09-24 - 2008-11-10
Antal svar: 41
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 87%
Kontaktperson: Saddek Rehal»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers

Goals and fullfilment of goals

The learning outcomes are given in the course programme, that is the knowledge, understanding, skills and perspectives you are expectd to reach. Notify for each outcome how well they have been fulfilled.

1. Where the aims and objectives of the course clearly formulated?

41 svarande

Very bad»1 2%
Rather Bad»2 4%
Neither bad nor well»15 36%
Rather Well»16 39%
Very well»7 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

- learning outcomes are given in the course programme, that is the knowledge, understanding, skills and perspectives you are expectd to reach. Notify for each outcome » (Neither bad nor well)
- Was the abstract as a preparation for an examwork or not? Was this reseachidea more something to be a forskarstudent and do even later than the examwork- basic intensions could have been clearer.» (Neither bad nor well)
- I entered the course late, making it very hard forme to judge that.» (Neither bad nor well)
- Though first I didn"t find out what should we do, step by step, it turned out quite clearly.» (Rather Well)
- The introduction presentation the first day could have been a little more clear, but in all it was good and gave us an idea of the goals. » (Rather Well)
- The targetgroup and the aim of the conference was a bit unclear as well as we did"nt know there was a postercompetition until two days before....» (Rather Well)
- At first, it was not really clear, what we were going to do, but as we kept going it became more clear.» (Rather Well)
- It worked very well with the aims!» (Very well)
- The intentions of professors was clearly communicated.» (Very well)
- i really like the creative approach» (Very well)

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

41 svarande

No, the goals are to elementar»2 5%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»33 89%
No, the goals are too ambitious»2 5%
No opinion»4

Genomsnitt: 2

- It was not a very clear course but in defense of it, it had something very teasing/ intressting in it. The connection to examwork or research later on could be made clearer.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- The goals allow for people to go to which extremes they want too, within the given frame.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- and objectives of the course clearly formulated? Very bad » (No opinion)


3. Did you find workshop 1 (exploring a situation + staging experiments) relevant?

40 svarande

Very much irrelevant»4 10%
Rather irrelevant»1 2%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»2 5%
Rather relevant»20 50%
Very much relevant»13 32%

Genomsnitt: 3.92

- A good coming together in a group and managing a first little presentation. It was good.» (Very much irrelevant)
- Very creative/intuitive excersize with the necessary academic subtext.» (Very much irrelevant)
- workshop 1 (exploring a situation + staging experiments» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- I would say it was the "RESEARCH" in the term "RESEARCH by DESIGN"!» (Rather relevant)
- since the rest of the workshop is based on the explored situation, it is a relavant part.» (Very much relevant)
- I"ve heard about this way of working earlier, and I"ve red some litterature on it. To me it is very relevant.» (Very much relevant)

4. Did you find workshop 2 (Critical modeling, staging problem situations) relevant?

41 svarande

Very much irrelevant»4 9%
Rather irrelevant»2 4%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»6 14%
Rather relevant»16 39%
Very much relevant»13 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.78

- It was relevant. My group rushed a head and had a solution of which we did nothing later on.» (Very much irrelevant)
- An important and necessary continuation of WS1.» (Very much irrelevant)
- erna som visas är totalpriser och inkluderar alla skatter och a» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- Since the original idea is not strong enough, we always found we were investigating meaningless idea and sounded silly to stage them out.» (Rather relevant)

5. Did you find workshop 3 (Structuring the research problem, Focusing goals) relevant?

41 svarande

Very much irrelevant»2 4%
Rather irrelevant»5 12%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»3 7%
Rather relevant»19 46%
Very much relevant»12 29%

Genomsnitt: 3.82

- Yes, we had a turbulent period since two groups were put together and it took a while until we found out in which direction we could continue. It was hard groupwork direction towards teamwork» (Very much irrelevant)
- Part A was extremely usefull and interesting, part B seemed a bit superfluous given this writer"s background knowledge.» (Rather irrelevant)
- erna som vkljklöjklöisas är totalplöjlöjklöriser och inkluderar alla skatter och a» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- dont know» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- It became relevant and clear after talking to Saddak and the consultation with him.» (Rather relevant)

Literatur seminar

6. Are the literature seminar 1 relevant?

41 svarande

Very much irrelevant»4 9%
Rather irrelevant»5 12%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»5 12%
Rather relevant»14 34%
Very much relevant»13 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.65

7. Are the literature seminar 2 relevant?

41 svarande

Very much Irrelevant»3 7%
Rather irrelvant»4 9%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»8 19%
Rather relevant»13 31%
Very much relevant»13 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.7

- Literature seminar 3 was not relevant AND scheduled without any regards to the timeframe available.» (Very much Irrelevant)
- It is always good to talk and meet other students in discussing. Had the coruse too many small moments????» (Rather irrelvant)
- Literature seminars in general are an important part of our training and should regularly be held throughout the education. The connection with the course wasn"t always there, but this is not necessarily bad.» (Rather irrelvant)
- Too difficult texts..» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- It would be more helpful if the teachers had read the required text before coming to the seminar. And it would be more provoking if we have different seminar group every time.» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- dont know» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- I think since it was just a little part of a book, it was a little bit difficult to follow everything, but after the discussion in group, it became clear. I would say the txt about CRITICAL ARCHITECTURE was not critical at all! » (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- It would have been better with some easier texts. Also, I think it is more interesting to maybe have one literature seminar and one discussion about issues in the course. We had a lot of interesting discusses in our group, but I´,m not sure we would have needed so many texts...» (Rather relevant)
- It gives a broather dimension to the course to hear voices from outside. But I think the language in many of the text was hard to catch. Having more time for to reading, might have helped. » (Rather relevant)
- Good litterature and good with different roles! Also very much appreciated that the teachers take part in these seminars, as some of the text were quite difficult.» (Very much relevant)


8. Are the lectures in general relevant?

40 svarande

Very much irrelevant»2 5%
Rather irrelevant»1 2%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»3 7%
Rather relevant»27 67%
Very much relevant»7 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.9

- Do know, I guess you have a lots of materials to choose from and these are only examples of what is there.I liked the different scales of difficulty in the texts.» (?)
- The lectures were an important part of stearing the work of the groups. They seemed to have done so very well.» (Very much irrelevant)
- Few are, the rest are unfortunately not.» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- Some lectures, for example the one with Cristel Copp didn"t really give anything more to the project/assignment than I already knew.» (Rather relevant)
- I think since we are going to be architects, so some texts about the process of thinking and designing in architectural/artistic processing would be useful to be adjacent to the current seminars.» (Rather relevant)

9. Lecture (Sept. 03) Research by Design methods (Lisbeth Birgersson)

Grade the lecture on a scale 1 - 5, (1=lowest/very bad, 5=highest/very good, 3=average).

38 svarande

1 2%
1 2%
20 52%
15 39%
1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

- Do I have to grade it?» (?)
- erna som visas är totalpriser och inkluderar alla skatter och a» (3)
- Good.» (3)
- vague memory » (3)
- No comment.» (3)

10. Lecture (Sept. 03) Research by Design methods (Catarin Dyrssen)

Grade the lecture on a scale 1 - 5, (1=lowest/very bad, 5=highest/very good, 3=average).

39 svarande

0 0%
1 2%
17 43%
17 43%
4 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

- Do I have to grade it?» (?)
- Interesting» (4)

11. Lecture (Sept. 04) Inquiry & Design Methods (Fredrik Nilsson)

Grade the lecture on a scale 1 –,, 5 (1=lowest/very bad, 5=highest/very good, 3=average)

39 svarande

1 2%
5 12%
18 46%
11 28%
4 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.3

- I like lectures of Fredrik Nilsson» (?)
- Harder to understand, to much information in general.» (2)
- Could not follow completely. Too dense in info and points. Maybe pictures, examples or metaforics could have helped me to catch the message.» (2)
- Difficult to understand» (3)
- works well in combination with the following lecture» (3)

12. Lecture (Sept. 04) Framing Architecture - on Jan de Cock (Jo Liekens)

Grade the lecture on a scale 1 - 5, (1=lowest/very bad, 5=highest/very good, 3=average).

39 svarande

1 2%
1 2%
13 33%
19 48%
5 12%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- Missed it» (?)
- Interesting with someone coming from outside the "Chalmers box".» (4)
- quite clear. A littele confusing with the 2 screens... would have prefered 1.» (4)
- Very interesting to see an approach very foreign to chalmers-tradition integrated.» (4)

13. Lecture (Sept. 09) Formulating research problems (Gunilla Gårdfeldt)

Grade the lecture on a scale 1 - 5,(1=lowest/very bad, 5=highest/very good, 3=average

37 svarande

1 2%
1 2%
12 32%
20 54%
3 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.62

- Do I have to grade it?» (?)
- Too much acting, too little knowledge. Confidence-training is interesting and advisable but holds no relevant connection to this course.» (1)
- It is refreshing to hear people from other diciplines. » (4)
- I just love her! Very Good!!!» (5)

14. Lecture (Sept. 09) Formulating research problems (Lisbeth Birgersson)

Grade the lecture on a scale 1 - 5, (1=lowest/very bad, 5=highest/very good, 3=average).

40 svarande

1 2%
2 5%
18 45%
17 42%
2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- I do not remember clearly my impressions sorry» (?)
- Not very exciting, but ok.» (3)

15. Lecture (Sept. 09) Formulating reserch problems (Catharin Dyrssen)

Grade the lecture on a scale 1 - 5, (1=lowest/very bad, 5=highest/very good, 3=average).

39 svarande

1 2%
3 7%
14 35%
15 38%
6 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.56

- Lisbeth, Catharina and Saddeks lectures works very well as structuring lectures in the course. To tell what this course is about. To understand what is the point and the goal.» (4)

16. Lecture (Sept. 09) Design dialog, perception and language (Saddek Rehal)

Grade the lecture on a scale 1 - 5, (1=lowest/very bad, 5=highest/very good, 3=average).

40 svarande

1 2%
5 12%
14 35%
16 40%
4 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- ok» (3)

17. Lecture (Sept. 16) Text-Image-Model: Inquery and representation (Fredrik Nisson)

Grade the lecture on a scale 1 - 5, (1=lowest/very bad, 5=highest/very good, 3=average).

39 svarande

0 0%
5 12%
17 43%
13 33%
4 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.41

- Not needed (in my opinion)» (2)
- Difficult to understand» (3)

18. Lecture (Sept. 16) Visual Communication 1&2 (Christel Copp)

Grade the lecture on a scale 1 - 5, (1=lowest/very bad, 5=highest/very good, 3=average).

39 svarande

0 0%
4 10%
9 23%
10 25%
16 41%

Genomsnitt: 3.97

- It was very good to take part of her knowledge from Graphical design, but it would have been good to have her earlier at least in the forth grade.» (?)
- it was very basic. I think it was more useful if the students in first or second year had it.» (3)
- Fun with som basic perception knowledge. I think it is very profitibly to keep it in mind.» (4)
- Very good!» (5)
- Great! Very useful! Should have been more about this already in first year of architecture.» (5)
- Important topic, well brought. Strange that we haven"t heared about this earlier in the education when it now seems so easy to be trained in it.» (5)
- Very knowledgeable person with great comments and very professional critique.» (5)
- what if we had in in the first year as well!» (5)

19. Lecture (Sept. 18) Rhizom (Johan Olsson)

Grade the lecture on a scale 1 - 5, (1=lowest/very bad, 5=highest/very good, 3=average).

39 svarande

2 5%
3 7%
14 35%
16 41%
4 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.43

- Interesting» (3)
- It would be more useful if the lecturer can explain how he designed a workshop.» (3)
- Interesting example, but with little importance to the course. (Much like the guest lectures)» (3)
- good with a concrete example of how the research by design concept could be realized.» (4)


20. How do you rate the conference?

36 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»1 2%
Neither bad nor well»10 27%
Rather well»20 55%
Very well»5 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- The feeling of a conference was not there, did Sten Gromark know about the approach of a conference at all?» (?)
- did not participate (I"m one of the NASA students)» (?)
- did not participate, was in houston» (?)
- Writer did not attend all.» (Neither bad nor well)
- The problem here was that we did"nt really know who was coming to this conferenece and who the target group was - "selling"/commercial or academic. The invited teachers also seemed to be confused by this... With clearer information and goal/aim of the conference, we will get more from this!» (Neither bad nor well)
- Fun that so many teachers could come, but it would have been better if some of them knew what the course was about, before making remarks...if you know what I mean.» (Rather well)
- Good way to finish and summarize a course.» (Rather well)
- Some of them were perfect! I get a lot of knowledge in the one about critical architecture (but not from the txt, form others.)» (Very well)

Education and course administration

21. What support have you got from learning staff?

39 svarande

Very little»0 0%
Rather little»4 10%
Neither big nor little»11 28%
Rather big»17 43%
Very big»7 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.69

- I guess you more or less had to look for support in case it was needed, which I think is all fine since the course is on masters level.» (Neither big nor little)
- as much support as we needed we could also get.» (Rather big)
- Good feedback, and constructive advice.» (Rather big)
- We had good support when we needed it. » (Very big)
- i am a erasmus student, and i learn a lot thanks to the mix of cultures, and the staff really listen what we said» (Very big)
- good feedback, and good support, interresting input» (Very big)

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

40 svarande

Very bad»2 5%
Rather bad»4 10%
Neither well nor bad»11 27%
Rather well»16 40%
Very well»7 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

- Ever-changing schedule, often resulting in shorter time to finish a task. Not useful when learning - better to put other way around in preliminary schedule. Seems like a common problem for the whole faculty I"m afraid. Don"t know why really but this way it causes unnecessary stress and worries. Catharina did great in informing us as best as possible though.» (Very bad)
- Too late information» (Rather bad)
- Items & information such as regarding the literature should be available much sooner to allow for time-planning.» (Rather bad)
- Sometimes we got information rather late...» (Neither well nor bad)
- Execpt for the aim of the conference, see abow.» (Rather well)
- We had no major problems with information in this course. It worked!» (Very well)

Work environment

23. How do you rate the possibilities to get assistance and ask questions? (Workshop consultation).

39 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»2 5%
Neither well nor bad»7 17%
Rather good»17 43%
Very good»13 33%

Genomsnitt: 4.05

- Limited but sufficient.» (Neither well nor bad)
- Worked well.» (Very good)
- I think it is very very important to have some consultation since most of groups got stock!» (Very good)

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

40 svarande

Very bad»1 2%
Rather bad»2 5%
Neither good nor bad»5 12%
Rather good»15 37%
Very good»17 42%

Genomsnitt: 4.12

- people in groups were in our case gather totaly random. it"s difficult to have a good work group if you work with somebody first time and if they work complietly in the different way of understanding. » (Very bad)
- Different thoughts on ambition and ways to work. Some aimed for results, others got lost in processes.» (Rather bad)
- Hard to work in a group of 8. I suggest smaller groups.» (Neither good nor bad)
- Our group was too big (8 pers).There were some slight problems, but we worked them out.» (Rather good)
- we were quite a large group, which always makes it a bit more difficult to keep things together. But all the group members contributed in a nice way. » (Rather good)
- Extremely well overall communication, failure to communicate of one member who simply dissapeared after a week without any notice.» (Rather good)
- We were all confused and a bit frustrated at times, but I reckon everyones opinions were listened to and that we enjoyed the company.» (Rather good)
- I had to leave for Houston, so I did not finnish the project with my group, besides from that it worked well.» (Rather good)
- I am satisfied with the result and that everybody was active in the end. We putted to much emphazis upon words and discussions and these were sometimes tiring.» (Very good)
- at the beginning, some guys did not talk or participate a little bit but it was perfect at the end, I mean I really saw how a nice cooperation we have! » (Very good)

Concluding questions

25. What is your overall opinion of the course?

40 svarande

Very bad»1 2%
Rather Bad»2 5%
Neither bad nor good»5 12%
Rather good»22 55%
Very good»10 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.95

- Not really useful for anyone aiming to be a practicing architect and not any real course alternatives either making some more or less "forced" to take this course. Might suit researching architects better. Either way, better placed in third or second year. Fifth is way to late. Overall not enough time and too much distraction, i.e. text seminars.» (Rather Bad)
- Afterwards I can understand the course but not during it» (Neither bad nor good)
- Intressting. Too many course elements.» (Rather good)
- But I think since this course is very useful for our way of thinking and designing, thus it would be better if to be considered in second or third year not the last year. Maybe in last year it could be repeated in another way, another curriculum,..» (Rather good)
- The best course at Chalmers! I´,ve been longing to say that! It was great in every sense! » (Very good)
- Extremely valuable course, given at good timing within the currriculum.» (Very good)
- A fun and important course, that perhaps could be given at an earlier stage in our education. » (Very good)

26. What was best and should be preserved next year?

- The last workshop, I found it is quite interesting and to be a challenge for the sutdents.And the visual communication lecture, it"s great. »
- Christel Copps lecture!»
- the part on entrepreneurs how to act how to speak»
- Christel Copp, Gunilla Gårdenfeldt. Helena Kovacs. Workshops. »
- the parallell groupwork is important to make theory in to practice. The entrepenuership course was also very fruitful.»
- the process of the course»
- Lectures by Christel Copp, Gunilla Gårdfeldt and Workshop 4a and 4b »
- the open spirit»
- The concept. Abstract, formulating an idea without solution, making of poster and broshyr.»
- the literature and seminars related to them.»
- All the group work and workshops are very interactive between students.»
- Entrepeneurship workshop, creativity in WS1, variation in approaches of each WS, order of WSs.»
- entreprenureship »
- Christel Copp»
- The field experience was very exiting and useful, so we got a lots of fun and see the connection to real life not only theoretical.»
- Entrepreneurship-workshop Visuell communication Gunilla Gårdfelt»
- The entrepreneurship workshop!»
- That the course attempts to bridge the gap between design and research an shows how that may be a useful approach to both activities.»
- The encouragement to form aour own researchmethods after having existing ones presented.»
- The workshop with Helena about entrepreneurship.»
- Drama and visual presentation exercises. Lengthen time with Christel Copp.»
- Litterature seminars, very relevant and goog discussions. That it is a groupwork! The part about entrepenurship, but maybe put this part more in the beginning... Make it be even more about the methods/tools and underline that the reslut/research idea is secondary.»
- should be started ealier»
- intensive work, short time for delivery, easy and fast way of working with new material instead of spending days for beautifull photoshop pictures. cooperation of guests teachers, specialist from different subjects(very helpful)»
- The lecture about designing a poster, The time to pose/ present ourselves, and the consultations.»
- Literature seminars and the workshops!»
- The literature seminars and the Entrepreneurship workshop.»

27. What worst and should be changed the nest year?

- the seminar, people are always missing it.»
- Update the schedule and tell us that in time! »
- some lectures litterature seminars to high level»
- Too many lectures. You don´,t need so many lectures and maybe just one literature seminar.»
- A4H should not be used until the blinking fluorescent lamp is changed. »
- too much lectures, should have more time for group work»
- the first lecture by Fredrik Nilsson was difficult to understand»
- The course of entrepreneur was a little tight a nice workshop but could be made different for higher quality»
- the workshops are too long and not really deep. and it wasnt also so clear for the teachers or for the juries for example at the end. I think the jury where themselves so confused. they didnt even know what are the values they should consider.»
- The seminar literature could be more even in the difficulties and length of the text. And students are supposed to read both of the texts every time. Dividing students into different roles led to students only reading the required text only.»
- Acting class, availability of documents (lecturers presentations, literature info,..) Teachers leading seminars should read the literature (makes a bad example!).»
- less dramatic course ( presentation )»
- Everything but Copp»
- I was missing the teaching of abilities how to communicate and visualize knowledge during the communication process in groupwork. Otherwise it could be also a topic of research.»
- The connection between the different elements of the course could have been better. In our group of 8 it became hard to take the project further from week to week. Tungrott! »
- The entire Cristel Copp part was for me unnecessary. Perhaps this could be changed by for example introducing her at either an earlier stage or at the end. The way it worked now, it only gave another element of confusion in the midst of trying to formulate our research.»
- In my opinion, there was a divide between the first parts that were all about developing a research idea and the later workshops that turned this more into an exercise in selling the project to an audience. This is not necesserilly something bad but I think that contibuted to Sten Gromarks comments about many of us almost playing theater with little substance to support our claims. I think these two parts could be better integrated to create a stronger whole.»
- The order of lectures and information what the conference was about.»
- Nothing»
- Dump the lit. seminars and fewer workshops. More focus on usability and non-clouded goals. »
- Maybe the part about visualization should take less part, many of us have already worked with this a lot during the previous education, and this is not really knew (the lecture by Christel). Put it more to the end and maybe invite Christel for the final presentation or poster-competion to give critic!»
- focus on master thesis, if you want this to be a preparation course.»
- missunderstanding with last work for conferance, talking about poster and brochure. we didn"t know that it should keep the same style, and also teachers who made comments and gave prizes didn"t know it. »
- more clarifying in the workshops papers, plz!»
- Clear information»
- Cristel Copps lecture seemed misplaced and not very relevant.»
- I am glad I could be a part of the course allthough I had to leave it early to go to NASA. How ever, maybe this could be solved in a better way for future students in the same situation, so that the courses don"t overlap. »
- the information and ability to get quick feedback»

28. What can be improved?

- shift the last work shop to earlier date, we will get more from that.»
- More quickly information and aviable teachers»
- intensity no what so ever control of attendence the foreign students do what ever they want »
- The knowledge between courses in the course. The goal in the end, could be better outspoken for the konferens. More time for investigation, less lectures. Thank you for a very good month!»
- Maybe it could help to have a schedule that gives an idea about how it will all end up. And how it will be presented. Soo that students better can grasp the whole process while they are in it.»
- .better organisation .define more clearly the assigment. .have a bit more time about the formulation of the research question and the tools. »
- to get information more in advance»
- Fewer small tasks. The course is divided into many segments and this could be looked over and valuated from the teachers.»
- being more organised. more interesting lectures. maybe inviting guests from somewhere else not just in Sweden. The most important problem of chalmers is that it keeps into a very small society not going beyon the borders.»
- Oral presentation workshop should be for 4th year students or even the bachelor students. Not for the final year while they have been presentating their projects for 5 years. Some students missed some of the workshop led to different level/ completeness in the final presentation. »
- perhaps a bit smaller groups. 4 people is reasonable. »
- CourseEvaluationInquiry: no questions about workshops, no questions about the inquiry itself, too detailed on lectures (near-to-impossible to remember).»
- More time »
- It can be helpful to formulate reseachproblems more exactly for tasks because 1 month is not enough time to do research. If the problem will be better formulated we have more time to develop a concept and don"t use so mutch to find a task for the reseach field. »
- The focus of the tools. Maybe also to think of the end product. »
- Focusing more on the tools rather than the result. This course, at least for me, was more of an introduction on how to think about research, sort of an eye opener, rather than actually tying me down to one specific research.»
- The conference and maybe some kind of odd movie or something as a "crazy" good exemple in the beginning.»
- Information in right time and maybe more lectures with clear examples of research projects. »
- Clearer goal and what to present at the end of the course.»
- See abow»
- Aims and goals.»
- maybe task for the first workshop should be more specific, touching more different but small problems. this time everybody could only make an action, small event, like dress funny or stupid, or put something in the public space, or in a way interrup people, but the reaction was always the same, no surprise (even if we said that we were very surprised in our abstract:) that was too obvouse. and what we could think about in only two days. maybe workshop and resarch should be more conected to the real architectural work. maybe take a task, and try to solve it, try to make a research in that. f.e: how does the movement of bikes put a presure on designing the main entrance to the architectur building in chalmers. other group could find out f.e. how much of paper chalmers school waste for prints:) hope you know what I mean. more like task and real research in that subject than just putting trash bags on a head and play as a alien. I am not able to specify that to the end, but I was just dissapointed a little bit with the first workshop task. But maybe it was only because of my group... »
- maybe some more group lectures, and having more lectures but not barely about the research. Sometimes it is good to have some artistic/ architectural lectures about a painting, a project, one piece of music notes,....By the help of them the course would be more interesting and less confusing and so-called boring.»
- The logistics »
- Focusing more on finding methods, not results.»
- The teachers could try to define Research by Design in a less vague way. As it is now I get the feeling that Research by Design is something that will dissolve if you try to grab it or shed light on it. To let the students fill the concept with meaning might be interesting for the teachers, but it doesn"t help us when other people on Chalmers ask us what Research by Design is about. »

Kursutvärderingssystem från