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.

MPDSD Architectural conservation and transformation ARK146

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-03-30 - 2009-04-20
Antal svar: 24
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 44%
Kontaktperson: Lotta Särnbratt»
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.

1. Learning outcomes

During this course the students learn to recognize the architectural and cultural values of existing buildings in the context of their environments and their cultural settings. The students learn to develop preconditions for re-use and how to make design for transformation with regard to aesthetic, technical and functional demands.

The students learn to:
- describe and analyses the built environment as a resource, - cultural, architectural, technical, environmental and economical
- describe and analyses views, ideas and policies that are practiced by different professions and stake-holders in the process of conservation and transformation
- analyse and reflect on the relation between cultural and architectural values
- analyse and reflect on the relation between architectural design and building technique in an historical perspective
- learn about building materials and craft from historical and contemporary periods, and how they can be combined and applied today
- apply the knowledge and understanding in a conservation process, and to cooperate with other professionals

24 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»0 0%
Sufficient»20 86%
Excellent»3 13%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 3.13

- improve the seminars» (Sufficient)

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

24 svarande

No, the goals are to elementar»3 12%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»20 83%
No, the goals are too ambitious»1 4%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 1.91

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

24 svarande

Too small scope in relation to credits»2 8%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»17 70%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»5 20%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.12

4. What do you think of the lectures as a whole?

Please comment on specially interesting or less interesting lectures.

23 svarande

no opinion»0 0%
very bad»1 4%
rather bad»5 21%
rather well»14 60%
very well»3 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.82

- overall too weak english, with exceptions» (very bad)
- I think most of the lectures was pretty boring, bit Inge-lises lectures was the opposite, inspiring and usefull to understand the subject!» (rather bad)
- I liked the lectures that Inger Lise fixed with examples from abroad and Sverre Fehn. But some of the other lectures just repeated the same thing or were a bit slow. more precedents with the complete architectural example, the entire building, not just the entrance.» (rather bad)
- We didn"t have many lectures that felt related to the project or the course in my opinion.» (rather bad)
- Many lecturers had a quite poor english, which lowered the level, but this is probably hard to do something about... The man from Byggnadsvårdsföreningen was very good and inspiering.» (rather well)
- Some could have been much better if they had been in Swedish, or if the speaker had been better in English. Over all, very good lectures.» (rather well)

5. How did the literature seminars contribute to the learning outcomes?

24 svarande

no opinion»0 0%
very little»0 0%
rather little»2 8%
rather well»16 66%
very well»6 25%

Genomsnitt: 4.16

- Though I think the groups were to big. It is hard to discus in a group of more than 6-8 people. » (rather well)

6. Did the project application (Masthuggskyrkan/Annedalskyrkan) help to clarify the theme of the course?

24 svarande

no opinion»0 0%
very bad»1 4%
rather bad»2 8%
rather well»16 66%
very well»5 20%

Genomsnitt: 4.04

- expectations seemed low» (very bad)
- The theme is huge and has so many different parts. The churches are a little peace of this, and still a very big theme in its own. The course and lectures could maybe have been more focused on chuches and old, monumental buildnings, to be more related. But still it was good that the course showed how big the theme is.» (rather well)
- I found it was to little tutoring time (mostly due to misunderstandings between the teachers and one of the guest tutors, but also due to the numbers of students/projects in relation to tutors). I"d wish more opportunities to discuss my ideas with people already having experience in these areas.» (rather well)
- First time for me to work conservation » (very well)

Education and course administration

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

24 svarande

Very little»1 4%
Rather little»6 26%
Rather big»15 65%
Very big»1 4%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 2.69

- Good litterature.» (Rather big)

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

24 svarande

Very bad»1 4%
Rather bad»4 16%
Rather well»13 54%
Very well»6 25%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3

- chaotic scheduling, poorly articulated assignments» (Very bad)
- too much information that changed from week to week, kind of messy» (Rather bad)
- Quite many things (like what should be handed in, how the seminars where supposed to be, etc) where changed a little too many times.» (Rather well)
- Thanks Roberto !» (Very well)

Work environment

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

24 svarande

Very bad»1 4%
Rather bad»3 12%
Rather well»15 62%
Very well»3 12%
I have not asked for assistance»2 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.08

- Kia was good, but too little time for consultations, » (Rather bad)

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

24 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»1 4%
Rather good»4 16%
Very good»18 75%
I have not tried to cooperate»1 4%

Genomsnitt: 3.79

- group work was very rewarding» (Very good)
- I did the project on my own, but had very interesting discussions with my fellow students. Also, I think the literature seminars were a very good source for learning.» (Very good)

Concluding questions

11. What is your overall opinion of the course?

24 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»1 4%
Passed»6 25%
Good»10 41%
Very good»7 29%

Genomsnitt: 3.95

- could have been pushed harder» (Passed)
- Interesting topic!» (Good)

12. What should be preserved next year?

- Well the way of working and teaching works well to my mind»
- course literature - excellent selections»
- the project, give it a little more time.»
- The lecture from Byggnadsvårdsföreningen, some similar assignment, the seminars (but the aim with them should be clearer).»
- The good amount of lectures and as good organisation as this year.»
- text seminars»
- organisation, mix between reading, seminars and group work, excursion»
- everything»
- a small "project" felt like a nice way to apply the new knowledge and try it out. We have not worked with this kind of project before.»
- Historical lectures and excursions»

13. What shuold be changed the next year?

- no lectures in swedish... »
- More comments during the final presentation please !, more tutorials»
- tighten up syllabus, raise expectations»
- organize the seminars better»
- A wider perspective on conservation and transformation in different projects and scale. The project should be more detailed and have a higher demand on the motivations and outcome.»
- A better planing from the start so things don"t need to be changed after the course started.»
- the lectures»
- more about technical issues regarding to conservation methods, more in detail. »
- more tutoring»
- More info on changes in the scedule»
- More emphasis in the project and less theorical lectures»

14. Other comments

- I like the idea of focusing on churches, but higher demands on the students and discussions.»
- Thanks for a good course!»

Kursutvärderingssystem från