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.

ARK186, 09 Environmental approaches to sustaianabel building, ARK 186

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-03-10 - 2009-03-17
Antal svar: 20
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 55%
Kontaktperson: Michael Edén»
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. Learning outcome 1

After completion of this course you should be able to
- combine design with investigations

20 svarande

Very insufficient»1 5%
Insufficient»2 10%
Sufficient»14 70%
Excellent»3 15%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.95

- Omitted since it concerns another course» (Insufficient) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- Omitted since it concerns another course » (Insufficient) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- More thorough investigation aspects should be given/demanded. Maybe some type of gathered research assignment - Not only the common A1-print presentations? Easy that a lot of the student"s focus is put on the layout/"design" - afraid of that it won"t look "investigated" enough.» (Sufficient)
- the links between design and investigation could be even stronger if there was a real site given for the first exercise (material)in order to base the design on a real site investigation.» (Sufficient)

2. Learning outcome 2

After completion of this course you should be able to
- understand and use information about sustainable architecture in given project assignments

20 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»3 15%
Sufficient»14 70%
Excellent»3 15%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3

- However, one was so caught up in trying to wade through the quagmire of systemic mapping and connecting that this issue seemed mute if anything. Less time was spent learning and understanding new information than mapping the information and understanding one already had, which of course also has a benefit, but the question is if it is necessary to spend so much time mapping what you already know?» (Sufficient)
- Very good exemples were given in the lectures.» (Excellent)

3. Learning outcome 3

After completion of this course you should be able to
- create design concepts about different aspects of sustainable architecture

20 svarande

Very insufficient»1 5%
Insufficient»1 5%
Sufficient»17 89%
Excellent»0 0%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- Design concepts? When did we have time to come up with design concepts? Systems organizing became all consuming and distracted from/slowed down concept formation and development if anything.» (Very insufficient)
- energy losses (material exercise) as well as energy production (solar exercise) are two aspects of sustainable architecture we studied. However, it would have been also interesting to go deeper in the economic and social aspect of sustainability.» (Sufficient)

4. Learning outcome 4

After completion of this course you should be able to
- communicate important issues in a design project through poster and in a report

20 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»4 20%
Sufficient»12 60%
Excellent»4 20%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3

- This course was not much about communicating. Maybe that "learning outcome" should be removed...» (Insufficient)
- (see comment above - and also: In critics, the teacher/critics must be more brave and actually critizise what"s not good and praise what is - The students must learn to take critique and not always defend themselves)» (Insufficient)
- posters are ok -5 minutes for presenting a project is a bit too short.maybe teachers could split in two groups so we have more time for talking about each project ? » (Insufficient)
- I think, the posters were too much about "pure communication" (as an advertisement campaign!!) rather then Communication about architecture and a real project.» (Insufficient)
- hing grounded in logic rather than purely whimsical as many people think it to be.» (Sufficient)
- Omitted since it concerns another course» (Sufficient) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

5. Are the aims and expected learning outcomes reasonable in relation to your pre-knowledge?

20 svarande

No, the aims are to elementary»3 15%
Yes, the aims ar reasonable»16 80%
No, the aims are too ambitious»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 1.9

- i regret we didn"t go deeper in the subjects and stayed a little bit too superficial and in communication rather then reality.» (No, the aims are to elementary)
- I allready had a lot of knowledge and intrest in these issues since I"ve been studying on Chalmers and had an internship on an office that was very aware of environmental issues.» (No, the aims are to elementary)
- The aim for project 2 was indeed a bit elementary for 4th year students,shouldn"t we go further than just doing some concept projects ??? but it is true that the time given to do this was short so maybe just working on one project instead of two ????» (Yes, the aims ar reasonable)
- Omitted since it concerns another course» (No, the aims are too ambitious) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

6. Are the goals reasonable in relation to the given time and amount of credits?

20 svarande

Too small scope in relation to credits»3 17%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»11 64%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»3 17%
No opinion»3

Genomsnitt: 2

- Time for solar investigation was too short. Relevant lectures and inspiration examples would be appriciated.» (Too small scope in relation to credits)
- But the solar exercise had too little time regarding the amount of work that was expected.» (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)
- Two courses, the scope for the solar design poster was higher than the credits ia the time at hand for the project. For the course of material it was ok. » (Too wide scope in relation to credits)
- This course became all consuming and actually overpowered the main course of Environmental approaches. Partly due to the consuming nature of systems and partly due to the overly complex nature of the assignments.» (Too wide scope in relation to credits)
- I"m not sure I understand the question! Maybe a little more time for the exercises would have been welcome to go deeper in the subjects and do something less superficial. On the contrary, we are given too much time for the systemic design assignements, maybe a better repartition of time between those two courses could be good.» (No opinion)

Education and course administration

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

20 svarande

Very little»3 15%
Rather little»8 40%
Rather big»7 35%
Very big»2 10%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.4

- I more researched on the internet.» (Very little)
- A lot of self-research has been necessary but also the some what aim of the course so, that"s just a good thing i guess.» (Rather little)
- I was missing some overall information in this course, which might be provided by having a literature seminar at the beginning of each project. Not sure if the time is available for this, but it is always quite informational. » (Rather little)
- Though scattered.» (Rather big)
- Was neccesary with material for the course of sustainable materials» (Rather big)
- Thank you very much for all the information on the web folder and all the softwares of ecotect! It"s a very precious database.» (Very big)
- The professors are very open to discussion on the topics and the problems that have arisen from the processes.» (Very big)

8. What support have you got from lectures and supervision

Please, do not mention names. Try to give an overall estimation

20 svarande

Very little»1 5%
Rather little»8 40%
Rather big»10 50%
Very big»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.55

- the consultation time is limited and not usefull. To see the design process of each group is also quite interesting which can be achived by a more open consultaiton in the studio where groups can have an overview on eachothers approach towards the problem. » (Very little)
- More support from group members but some necessary over-all from lectures. Scheduled councelling with architects/professors is a good way of supporting.» (Rather little)
- In comparison to the final resault, the help given was through internet and assistant help. The lectures gave an overview of the subject.» (Rather little)
- Regarding the lectures there was a great difference in relevancy and quality. The supervision in both the assignments was unfortunally not good. We didn"t get any help to widen our perspectives and the left the supervision sessions just continueing where we were before. » (Rather little)
- Many of the lectures were either too elementary or too theoretical, and extremely repetative. With the exception of a handful of the lectures I felt that I gained more from the readings than the lectures.» (Rather little)
- I liked very much the different lectures. The best ones for me was those with a lot of different concrete examples in Europe and in Sweden. The ones which showed sustainability in real life and not on theories. » (Rather big)

9. How did the assessments work

20 svarande

Unsatisfactory»1 5%
Gave a little feedback»5 25%
Satsifactory»11 55%
Good feedback»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- After the first course work we still did not really understand what we had done well or poorly.» (Unsatisfactory)
- Assignement 1-Satsifactory 2-Gave a little feedback» (Satsifactory)
- We are using much time for reportmaking and for smallscale work like the solarcellwork. Nice to have the break. The teachers need not to make the report work, but there are other moments I would like to master better, like designconcepts / designprocesses. An emphazis of designsteps as guide through workshops. And advanced designwork that goes all the line through modulbased buildingtechnic to choice of material. But this course would need a semester of time. I guess. » (Satsifactory)
- Except for some social problems in one of the groups I"m satisfied with the groupworks. I"m happy with the outcome of them. Maybe it should have been the same groups in both of the assignments. It allways takes some time to start working in a good way with a new group. When the time is so limited the start up process occupies to much of the time.» (Satsifactory)
- Great architectural reviewers for the most part. The solar review may have been more efficient if the reviewers would have been prepped beforehand on what they should comment on. » (Good feedback)

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

20 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»1 5%
Rather well»11 55%
Very well»8 40%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- As usual (at this school) it would be nice to have had the schedules a little bit earlier than the week before.» (Rather well)
- A lot of material on the web folders - Good - but could be better structured and named. Organisation of "student responsability" didn"t work that good i guess, to short time and shattered large group to get that "group feeling" and automatically organized responsability. Also quite vague information about what for example the log book should be.» (Rather well)
- I have no special complains but since I was following NN:s course this autumn I"m comparing every course with that one (It was EXTREMLY well organised).» (Rather well) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- After the introduction I was not sure how communication would work, but it worked out very well. Congratulations!!» (Very well)
- Omitted since it concerns another course» (Very well) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

Work environment

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

20 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»1 5%
Rather well»9 45%
Very well»7 35%
I have not asked for assistance»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- I really appreciate the disponibility of the teachers, thank you!» (Very well)
- I saw the teacher in the studio, and had the possibility of asking question. » (Very well)
- But it would be great to know how and where to get a bit more assitance and know that you are not limited to the consultation hours...» (I have not asked for assistance)

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

20 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»12 60%
Very good»8 40%
I have not tried to cooperate»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- No all the Erasmus students are used to work in gruops, that made group work a bit splitted. » (Rather good)
- Always tricky with student groups i terms of constellation and ambition. Not often alike real world situations - Shattered goals and no group structure forces the group to spend a lot of time with unprofesional time wasting, argueing - in good ways and badly. Language wise it"s also sometimes tricky when English isn"t anyones/a few ones mother language - But, I guess that"s how the worls looks like today. Just wish that Swedish could be more appreciated and used, not only becouse the language" beauty itself and strong role in the country we are in - and therefor maybe should be corse-given to the foreign students - but also that ones ability to communicate with fellow swedes and one self gets limited when only or re-learning factual words in Enlish.. This is all some personal thoughts.» (Rather good)
- one group worked perfectly fine but in the other group there was one person that was very hard to work with.» (Rather good)
- It has had it"s up and downs though. But has been a very great practice. I enjoyed it a lot.» (Very good)

Concluding questions

13. What is your overall opinion of the course?

20 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»2 10%
Passed»2 10%
Good»13 65%
Very good»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.85

- On the good side of bad though. I think much of the frustration with the course has to do with the complexity of the topic and its integration with the more traditional thinking process that architects use to do design (which is also systemic in nature). I feel like I have gotten something from the course, but I fail to feel confident in the application of systems thinking in architecture. I think with different task assignments and more time for investigation it could have been more successful.» (Bad)
- Especially the "material sketch" where I learnt alot. » (Good)
- This course would be perfect if there was more time to really go in depht.» (Good)
- I lack some designsteps. » (Good)
- Even thou much was repetition it was fine. I got some new insights and are more secure in my knowledge.» (Good)
- A Very informative course. I did"t have so much pre-knowledge about the topic and I feel that I have learned a lot by short time. At least I know where to find information now.» (Very good)
- It has been organized and systematic. Nevertheless, designed for Swedish culture which is more organized and precise itself. May be some predictions is needed for more chaotic situations...A kick off activity at the begining is always good when there is going to be a lot of groupwork and there are new commers to the course in the second semester. » (Very good)

14. What should be preserved next year?

- The interaction with the engineering students and the different consultations with guest.»
- Everything»
- I find the programme of the course quite complete. »
- The concept of groups researching on there own and presenting there findings for the whole class - great pedagogics!»
- The separate studies in material and solar and/or more ones. Good to have focus on one thing at a time.»
- the lectures were very interesting. Working on a real issue of enrgy production in chalmers is also very motivating and interesting subject.»
- the content in the both assignments are good and can be preserved. The second guy from Ramböll could be given even more time (maybe as an introduction lecture). It was very good.»
- The outline and lectures»
- Omitted since it concerns another course» (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

15. What shuold be changed the nest year?

- More time for the solar project »
- Solartrip could be better and more inspiring. If the trip is not possible, maybe more lectures and good exampels should be shown.»
- Things that could possibly change: _ More conferences _ More time for the projects _ Different projects than the last year ones»
- The projects of this course should be more technical and not just advertisement posters.»
- The PV excursion. When you have seen one PV on a house thats enough. We should have headed back to school after Scandinavium!»
- More focus in studio work and critics on the factual aspects of materials/energy etc. So that we actually learn something new, not only strengthen our ability to shape forms and do nice layouts. Maybe some test or assignment on material etc itself for focusing students or studies/lectures on separately material and or sustainable energy production. It sometimes becomes only surface-knowledge/training in both design and technicalities when not pushed more in any direction.»
- As said before, it would be good to have a real site for the material exercise to work with an ENVIRONMENTAL approach rather then designing with no site. More time would also be welcome!»
- I felt that the solar task might have been more informational if we had been given more time. Perhaps the amount of time given for each task could be more similar. And, if the task were widened a bit to include wind power, more time would definitely be beneficial. »
- More time for the solarexercise. Add a stormwatertreatment exercise. Maybe give material, solar and stormwater the same range in this course. Same time and same scope on three assesments. »
- The groups should be the same in both of the assignments so that not so much time will be used to actually find out how the group should work»
- Need more information for resources especially on the web»
- next year, you should definitely get more time than this year for this course. The time for the second assignment was too short. And I was not satisfied of what I made in only 3 days. I needed more time. The other course, systemic design doesn"t give enough knowledge compared to this one, so it will logic to take time from systemic design.»
- Omitted since it concerns another course» (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

16. Other comments

- Keep the co-laboration with the engineer students! Really interesting. But - make it more clear for them in advance that we are doing so that it gives them more and gives us more reliance on their skills. Stress the importancy of clear documents to present to them and let the air among the architects arise that there"s actually good use of engineers... Some "over-class" attitudes are existing among us architects and that"s the worst thing for everyones future in the building industry. Even in the critics it was said a couple of times that "don"t bother what the engineers says, they don"t know this and that and only stop us..." No! We"re the same kind! Just seeing things from different angles.»
- Omitted since it concerns another course» (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

Kursutvärderingssystem från