|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENKÄTER | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visa resultatHär 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, ADM140Status: AvslutadÖppen 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 goalsThe 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
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) 2. Are the aims and goals reasonable in relation to your pre-knowledge ?41 svarande
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) Workshops3. Did you find workshop 1 (exploring a situation + staging experiments) relevant?40 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.92 - A good coming together in a group and managing a first little presentation. It was good.» (Very much irrelevant) 4. Did you find workshop 2 (Critical modeling, staging problem situations) relevant?41 svarande
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) 5. Did you find workshop 3 (Structuring the research problem, Focusing goals) relevant?41 svarande
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) Literatur seminar6. Are the literature seminar 1 relevant?41 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.65 7. Are the literature seminar 2 relevant?41 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.7 - Literature seminar 3 was not relevant AND scheduled without any regards to the timeframe available.» (Very much Irrelevant) Lectures8. Are the lectures in general relevant?40 svarande
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.» (?) 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
Genomsnitt: 3.36 - Do I have to grade it?» (?) 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
Genomsnitt: 3.61 - Do I have to grade it?» (?) 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
Genomsnitt: 3.3 - I like lectures of Fredrik Nilsson» (?) 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
Genomsnitt: 3.66 - Missed it» (?) 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=average37 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.62 - Do I have to grade it?» (?) 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
Genomsnitt: 3.42 - I do not remember clearly my impressions sorry» (?) 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
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
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
Genomsnitt: 3.41 - Not needed (in my opinion)» (2) 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
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.» (?) 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
Genomsnitt: 3.43 - Interesting» (3) Conference20. How do you rate the conference?36 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.8 - The feeling of a conference was not there, did Sten Gromark know about the approach of a conference at all?» (?) Education and course administration21. What support have you got from learning staff?39 svarande
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) 22. How did the organisation, memoranda, direct information etc. function?40 svarande
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) Work environment23. How do you rate the possibilities to get assistance and ask questions? (Workshop consultation).39 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.05 - Limited but sufficient.» (Neither well nor bad) 24. How has the cooperation between you and students in your group been?40 svarande
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) Concluding questions25. What is your overall opinion of the course?40 svarande
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) 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)» - WORKSHOP, CREATION, EXPLORATION» - 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. »
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2%