Visa resultat

Research by Design 2009 FULL FART, ADM142

Goals and fullfilment of goals

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

Very bad»		6		9%
Rather Bad»		18		28%
Neither bad nor well»		15		23%
Rather Well»		22		34%
Very well»		2		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- the course was vaguely defined and poorly organized in tuition» (Very bad)
- i had no idea of what the point was until several weeks in...and even then it wasnt completely clear. » (Very bad)
- We didn´,t get the whole schedule until a week or two into the course. The aims were vaguely formulated and when we asked the teachers what was expected of us they didn´,t have a clear answer.» (Very bad)
- expecially in the firs part it was very difficult to understand the topic of the course and our research» (Rather Bad)
- Many of ur were confused about what the research proposal was supposed to look like.» (Rather Bad)
- I personally was confused most of the time about the aims of this course. Maybe make it more touchable and concrete. The aims and expected outcomes sounds good, but seems very abstract and far.» (Rather Bad)
- It"s quite hard to see the aim, as the structure seems to be very loose.» (Rather Bad)
- try to give more examples instead of abstract concept» (Rather Bad)
- I think there is a gap between the very ambitiously formulated goals and the short period of time for the the research. The workshops were playful and they were quite good, I made experiences. But what kind of experiences is hard to say. I suggest that the goals are formulated in a different way and less ambitious. "Be playful" was a phrase that I remember from the workshop instructions. I liked that, it"s down to earth and in touch with the possibilities in a short course. » (Rather Bad)
- I still don"t understand the concept of research by design instead of design by research.» (Neither bad nor well)
- It"s kind of fuzzy» (Neither bad nor well)
- it was a bit difficult to understand at the beginning, but mabe for my english!» (Rather Well)
- as well as other courses in Chalmers the subject was sometimes too vague.» (Rather Well)

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

No, the goals are to elementar»		10		19%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»		42		80%
No, the goals are too ambitious»		0		0%
No opinion»		11

Genomsnitt: 1.8

- the given exercises did not expand upon prior knowledge. » (No, the goals are to elementar)
- the course would be great on the bachelor level» (No, the goals are to elementar)
- The goals are reasonable. But the introduction of the course could have been more clear with(could have pointed out) which pre-knowledge that was supposed to be used in the course. Then the course would have had more substance as a part of our education.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- yes because it helps us to inform our design process to bring research to design which give us the chance to reach to actual life of design.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- As excange student my pre knowledge are very different so is hard to answer at this question.» (No opinion)
- I still don´,t know the aims and goals for the course.» (No opinion)

Initial Workshops

3. How well did the initial workshop "FRICTION + MOVEMENT" work within the overall course?

Very well»		9		14%
Rather well»		25		40%
Neither well nor bad»		20		32%
Rather bad»		8		12%
Very bad»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.43

- It made us pay attention to peoples movement more.» (Very well)
- at the beginning was hard to understand but at the and it was a very useful and well related workshop» (Rather well)
- I felt the first workshop was fun and explorative» (Rather well)
- It"s a training of observation which is an often used tool for further workshops.» (Rather well)
- It gave us initial direction towards next workshop, but in other hand it probably limited scope of possibilities» (Rather well)
- Feels like a good start, but the first week could be compressed to maybe three days.» (Rather well)
- It"s a worth introduction to the subject. » (Rather well)
- A bit to basic.» (Neither well nor bad)
- that was not so well organized» (Neither well nor bad)
- Our group used the workshop as a way to study the movement in public space.» (Neither well nor bad)
- I think that all of the initial workshops could have been linked to the rest of the course in a much clearer way. Even if they were good as workshops.» (Neither well nor bad)
- » (Neither well nor bad)
- Friction was an abstract concept that was poorly understood by students and faculty. No productive discussion or intervention emerged from its use. It functioned merely as a buzz word. » (Rather bad)
- The theme FRICTION should have been more explained in it self before we went in to FRICTION + MOVEMENT. It was a bit hard to be open minded about friction after the initial workshops. It could have been better to have a worshop reflecting about only FRICTION.» (Rather bad)

4. How well did the initial workshop "FRICTION + MATERIAL" work within the overall course?

Very well»		6		9%
Rather well»		29		47%
Neither well nor bad»		18		29%
Rather bad»		7		11%
Very bad»		1		1%

Genomsnitt: 2.47

- more intresting, but felt like i was back on first year at architecture» (Rather well)
- It made us pay more attention to peoples senses.» (Rather well)
- i think that the topic abought material was more far from the aim of the course» (Rather well)
- Our group found one definition of friction to be interesting to explore next and it turned to be useful» (Rather well)
- It was a bit better than FRICTION + MOVEMENT. It gave us more tools to work with in our experiments.» (Neither well nor bad)
- Maybe we don"t need the screw driver. That "s a waste of money. U can ask us to bring a folk or knife for example.» (Neither well nor bad)
- same as #3» (Rather bad)
- The focus on material was lost during the rest of the course both from the students point of view but also from the teachers.» (Rather bad)

5. How well did the initial workshop "FRICTION + SOCIAL SPACE" work within the overall course?

Very well»		15		24%
Rather well»		22		35%
Neither well nor bad»		20		32%
Rather bad»		5		8%
Very bad»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.24

- Through this workshop we could continue working with social friction» (Very well)
- I thimk that it was very useful because our works as architects is to make social frictions.» (Very well)
- It was quite hard and abstract. But it was a good start to bring inspiration to the up cpming experiments.» (Rather well)
- We had little time to formulate our idea and just had to go with our first thoughts.» (Neither well nor bad)
- same as #3» (Rather bad)

Workshops 1 To 4

6. How relevant is workshop 1 (exploring a situation + staging experiments) ?

Very much irrelevant»		2		3%
Rather irrelevant»		9		14%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»		11		17%
Rather relevant»		32		51%
Very much relevant»		8		12%

Genomsnitt: 3.56

- the time was not enough to stage experiments that would be in any way relevant» (Very much irrelevant)
- it´,s necessary to know well all the characterises of a places first of all» (Very much irrelevant)
- I did not find any workshops particularly useful. » (Rather irrelevant)
- it gave me a good overview of the term "friction"» (Rather irrelevant)
- Since the information, about what we were actually supposed to do was too scarce, Our group found the workshop and the time wasted. One in our group even quit the course after the workshop.» (Rather irrelevant)
- This is something that architects do anyway and doesn"t require its own workshop.» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- We had to stage our own workshop and decide what to do so therefor we could use it in our later groupwork.» (Rather relevant)
- We changed our research site from Opaltorget to the city centre. The expected people to be less shy (open for interaction) in an more urban setting.» (Rather relevant)

7. How relevant is workshop 2 (Critical modeling, staging problem situations)?

Very much irrelevant»		1		1%
Rather irrelevant»		7		11%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»		14		22%
Rather relevant»		34		54%
Very much relevant»		6		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.59

- This workshop led our group very much into confusion. We were unable to seperate the "workshops" and the project proposal, as I assume it was intended to be. We interpreted the workshops as the steps leading us to our proposal. » (Rather irrelevant)
- all these workshops would be so much greater if they where connected to a real project. » (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- We had too little information on what to do for the workshop and it didn´,t help by talking to the teachers for advice.» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- Relevant but hard to understand. Be more clear in the formulations and goals whan introducint this workshop.» (Rather relevant)

8. How relevant is workshop 3 (Structuring the research problem, Focusing goals) ?

Very much irrelevant»		2		3%
Rather irrelevant»		4		6%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»		8		13%
Rather relevant»		37		60%
Very much relevant»		10		16%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- Very unclear what we were supposed to deliver and why it was important.» (Rather irrelevant)
- A lot of unclear information about what we were supposed to do. » (Rather irrelevant)
- This would have been relevant in a course called "how to conduct a research project" but I don"t suppose this is the same as "research by design"» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- it was rather relevant but the message did not come across very well.» (Rather relevant)
- Structuring a research problem is perhaps the core of the course and critical for the outcome of the projects.» (Rather relevant)

9. How relevant is workshop 4 (Creating value, developing innovations)

Very much irrelevant»		4		6%
Rather irrelevant»		4		6%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»		15		24%
Rather relevant»		21		33%
Very much relevant»		18		29%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- I felt like this workshop could have been earlier during the course. Our values were already very well identified at this point.» (Very much irrelevant)
- all of those are very important for a good project!» (Very much irrelevant)
- This was by far the worst workshop, primarily because its question-seeking methodology inherently skirts the ultimate goal of design or problem solving (which is never actually attempted or even allowed into discussion). Furthermore, the core questions of the workshop concerning idea, value and action, were merely different iterations of just one question,forcing students to simply restate their answers over and over in different ways. The absurdity of this task is mind-boggling. » (Rather irrelevant)
- It didn"t add so much to what we already have done. We just took the discussion another round.» (Rather irrelevant)
- it should be put more ahead not just come as the last one» (Rather irrelevant)
- This workshop has to be placed before in the schedule since the issues are focused on how to organize and menage the work in order to reach certain goals» (Rather irrelevant)
- The workshop and lecture could be made much shorter and still have the same infomation.» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- but how about the relationship btw this 4 workshops? Is there a clear structure clarified before we start the workshops?» (Rather relevant)
- but i think this workshop came to lat ein the course» (Rather relevant)
- The onlu problem is that it came to late in the course, to late to implement it in the group work.» (Rather relevant)
- Very very good! Helena really brought value to this. This workshop should have come earlier in the course or have been explained earlier in the course. It would have been good for the process of our work to know that this kind of workshop was coming up.» (Very much relevant)
- Could take time a bit (for instance a week) earlier in the course» (Very much relevant)
- The most challenging workshop. Something that we hadn"t done before.» (Very much relevant)
- This was the diamond of the course. Well defined, well structured, well run and with great follow up. thank you Marie» (Very much relevant)
- This was the optimal workshop, but we wished that it had been presented earlier in the course. As it was now we had the ws two days before the final presentation...» (Very much relevant)
- Felt like this part of the workshops could have had more time. In our group we started thinking about design rather late. » (Very much relevant)

Literatur seminar

10. Was the literature seminar 1 relevant?

Very much irrelevant»		5		8%
Rather irrelevant»		8		12%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»		18		29%
Rather relevant»		22		35%
Very much relevant»		9		14%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- Unstructured. We were given the information on how to prepare for the seminar half a day before the actual seminar. Then that imformation was changed. The literature was delivered only a couple of days before the seminar which made it hard to prepare in time. When the seminar started we were given roles which had been changed a couple of times so we didn´,t really know what roles we were expected to take on. The roles meant that there were supposed to be three secretaries of each text, three presenters of each text and three opponents of each text. So we had to listen to the same text being presented three times in a row. Then there was a lack of discussion because the secretaries only wrote down the discussions and the presenters had already made their part. So all in all, a big waste of time.» (Very much irrelevant)
- it is good i still learn a lot from the literature even i did not find it quite relevant to the course, the same as the other two seminars» (Very much irrelevant)
- I was missing text about exemples of made researches which could have helped us understand futher possibilities of doing research by design» (Very much irrelevant)
- I still do not understand why the selected literature was appropriate to the course. Also, "Digital Myths and Delusions" should be eliminated for simply being poorly written (grammar, flow and general clarity lacking) » (Rather irrelevant)
- the texts where not the best. the point could ve been made with more well written pieces» (Rather irrelevant)
- A little bit hard to connect all the texts with the topic. » (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- Good order of the texts. You felt that you had learned something from the first texts (seminar 1 +2) when you read the last texts (seminar 3) Some of the texts was hard to understand. It would have been good to discuss the meaning of the texts in the beginning of the seminar. Smaller groups for next year, please. With this big groups as we had alot of people remain quiet.» (Rather relevant)
- Good level, I appreciated all the texts. Also, the assigned roles was a very good initiative. Could be rotated better though since the last two had the same assignments.» (Rather relevant)
- The materials are very good. But we have little feedback. People seems to be talking in the air. Good program, bad teaching method.» (Rather relevant)
- All of the literature seminars felt relevant but I thinkt they could have been linked to the course subject. Maybe by formulating questions around the text, leading the discussion more.» (Rather relevant)
- Literatur seminars are really important in order to share the knowledge and the points of view. All the texts (which less which more) have stimulated debates and new thoughts especially the one was talking about "aesthetic". That one was pretty tough but I found really important to acknowledge each of us about these issues » (Very much relevant)

11. Was the literature seminar 2 relevant?

Very much Irrelevant»		5		8%
Rather irrelvant»		8		13%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»		12		20%
Rather relevant»		26		43%
Very much relevant»		9		15%

Genomsnitt: 3.43

- See above...» (Very much Irrelevant)
- Same as above» (Rather irrelvant)
- because some of the text were complicated and they didn"t explain the matter very well.» (Rather irrelvant)
- Inspiring texts!» (Rather relevant)
- see 10» (Rather relevant)
- This was more about what I figured the course should be about. (Wigglesworth methods etc)» (Rather relevant)

12. Was the literature seminar 3 relevant?

Very much Irrelevant»		7		11%
Rather irrelvant»		7		11%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»		20		33%
Rather relevant»		17		28%
Very much relevant»		9		15%

Genomsnitt: 3.23

- see above» (Very much Irrelevant)
- It had very similiar discussion topics as seminar 2 which made it hard for discussions to be long-lasting.» (Rather irrelvant)
- Text nr 2 seems to be aimed toward a context which very few of us had a knowledge about (seemingly the theoreticians field in north america). Therefore I think it became difficult to understand the actual meaning of the text and its relevance and the discussion became rather poor. Text nr 1 on the other hand, was rather relevant.» (Rather irrelvant)
- quality of literature had improved, but still was not relevant to the course. » (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- I did not have time enough to read the text as this was the second seminar within 3 days and we had no scheduled reading time.» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- see comment in seminar 1» (Rather relevant)
- see 10» (Rather relevant)
- Interesting texts but as in all the three seminars there should have been some focusing questions formulated.» (Rather relevant)

Lectures

13. Are the lectures in general relevant?

Very much irrelevant»		2		3%
Rather irrelevant»		11		18%
Neither relevant nor irrelevant»		11		18%
Rather relevant»		31		50%
Very much relevant»		6		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

- I am not sure that any lecture could have been relevant considering that the entire course topic was not clearly defined. » (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- some were relevant others were irrelavant.» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- However the poster/presentation lecture was very good!» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- i liked christel copp, even if i have listen to her before. but i would have been intresting if she have put the lecture on i higher level when it comes to us architects to present out project wth all drawings etc » (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- The quality of the lectures was varying.» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- More examples of other people performing this type of research would be good» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- Some yes some no» (Neither relevant nor irrelevant)
- i m just dissapointed that the quality of the lectures where so uneven. they range from a complete waste of time to very interesting» (Rather relevant)
- Some were relevant, others seemed very abstract.» (Rather relevant)
- lectures with ana betancour, otto von busch and christel Copp very intersting» (Rather relevant)
- The only thing missing for better understanding of the topic in the beggining of the course was real examples made by others which could really help in my opinion» (Rather relevant)

14. Lecture: Sept. 01. Staging Research Problems (Catharina Dyrssen)

60 svarande

1»		1		1%
2»		4		6%
3»		32		53%
4»		19		31%
5»		4		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- Complicated lecture» (2)
- It"s really hard to remember all the lectures!» (3)
- this lecture should have later on instead of in the beginning of the course. She talked about previous projects in the course which was hard to relate to in the beginning of the course when one was unsure of what we were to do.» (3)
- don"t remember» (3)
- Insoiring but could have been more concrete about WHAT we was supposed to do in the course. It would have been good to have a lecture like theis in the end of the course where we summed up what we had done. Than maybe we would have had more questions (efter working with staging research problems)and could have had a better discussion.» (4)
- Maybe this could have been repeated later in the course, the lecture felt as if it was given to early in the course» (4)
- Catharina has a lot of knowledge in the field and the skill to communicate that knowledge.» (4)

15. Lecture: Sept. 02. Friction and Movement (Gun Lund)

60 svarande

1»		3		5%
2»		14		23%
3»		19		31%
4»		19		31%
5»		5		8%

Genomsnitt: 3.15

- please...if she actually would talk about the space impact and why it was the way it was, it could ve been interesting» (1)
- Great choreographer, poor lecturer. Reeding from a manuscript makes it hard to engage the audience.» (1)
- if i remember right she was reading from a manusscript was she was going to say, that doesnt make the speaker so intresting to listen to» (2)
- quite an interesting lecture but in some ways unclea how it was related to the course more specifically.» (3)
- Great presenter and very inspiring» (4)

16. Lecture: Sept. 02. Design Dialog (Saddek Rehal)

60 svarande

1»		5		8%
2»		12		20%
3»		24		40%
4»		14		23%
5»		5		8%

Genomsnitt: 3.03

- hard to understand. unstructured lecture.» (2)
- It was hard to grasp the essence of the lecture.» (2)
- --» (2)
- the philosophical/ ontological approach was interesting. » (3)
- don"t remember» (3)
- relevant for the course» (4)

17. Lecture: Sept. 02. (Morten Lund)

57 svarande

1»		1		1%
2»		1		1%
3»		14		24%
4»		24		42%
5»		17		29%

Genomsnitt: 3.96

- had the best energy. » (3)
- a very good, clear and inspiring lecture.» (4)
- his wa of showing his comitment to his work is rather intresting and his pasion to his work, maybe i dont think it was the best workshop, quite basic» (4)
- Relevant to the course» (4)
- very inspiering. Morten has a great ability to pick up questions and reshape the lecture if necessary. » (5)

18. Lecture: Sept. 02. Social Network (Otto von Busch)

59 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		2		3%
3»		11		18%
4»		15		25%
5»		31		52%

Genomsnitt: 4.27

- missed it.» (?)
- Most interesting» (4)
- Inspiring» (4)
- inspioring» (4)
- Good examples, a good presenter.» (4)
- a very eyecatching and inspiring lecture which could easily be related to the topic theme of the course, i.e. friction.» (5)
- Inspiring!» (5)
- Inspireing lecture with real examples» (5)
- Great. engage Otto more in the course next year. Maybe he could have a workshop.» (5)
- A very inspiring lecture that tickled the edges of the mind regarding product design and what design can be.» (5)
- Very inspiring and brilliant. » (5)

19. Lecture: Sept. 08. Concept Knowledge Theory (Saddek Rehal)

61 svarande

1»		4		6%
2»		12		19%
3»		30		49%
4»		10		16%
5»		5		8%

Genomsnitt: 3

- --» (2)
- don"t remember» (3)
- relevant but a bit uninspiring. » (3)

20. Lecture: Sept 08. (Ana Betancour)

61 svarande

1»		0		0%
2»		5		8%
3»		10		16%
4»		27		44%
5»		19		31%

Genomsnitt: 3.98

- she was doing more og an advertisement to the urban studio then taking about friction, but in the end it start to be intresting» (2)
- Problems with the technical parts. She didn´,t have that much time.» (2)
- needed better focus, although she obviously has the most clear idea of what "research by design" is. She should be more involved in the design of the course.» (3)
- She was poorly organized and unprepared for the lecture as well as that it was her "typical" lecture that some have seen before. Feels like she could have been a bit more reflective and related to the course.» (3)
- Inspiring» (4)

21. Lecture: Sept. 08. On choice of methodology: overview research methods (Monica Billger)

60 svarande

1»		2		3%
2»		4		6%
3»		24		40%
4»		25		41%
5»		5		8%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

- Completely unnecessary because we all already know what standard research methods are. What we don"t know is what "research by design" is. » (1)
- Could be developed more - would have appreciatet a ahandout with the different methodologies. Otherwise an interesting quick go through. » (3)
- Good to get some examples of theories.» (3)
- a clear and structured presentation of different research methodologies» (4)
- Relevant and good.» (4)
- This lecture should be put as one of the first ones» (4)
- Good and very concrete.» (5)
- One of the few lectures that helped to give the course meaning. More of this thoughout the course would take this course into a masters level.» (5)

22. Lecture: Sept. 10. Text-Image-Model: Inquiry and representation (Fredrik Nilsson)

61 svarande

1»		1		1%
2»		5		8%
3»		26		42%
4»		23		37%
5»		6		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

- Too short time. He only mentioned very quickly some theories and methods.» (2)
- most academic of all lectures.» (4)
- Interesting.» (4)
- good overview of theories to look more into.» (5)

23. Lecture: Sept. 15. Visual Communication (Christel Copp)

59 svarande

1»		1		1%
2»		0		0%
3»		11		18%
4»		18		30%
5»		29		49%

Genomsnitt: 4.25

- I didn"t attend, but I"ve seen christels lecture before.» (3)
- a very interesting lecture but as 4th and 5th year students, this lecture was repetitive and would have been better to receive in the beginning of our education. perhaps in year 1 or 2.» (4)
- Inspiring but a litte bit to basic. » (4)
- it was good, but like i metioned before it was a little bit to basic» (4)
- very good, specific lecture that could become more adapted to the course. » (4)
- Good lecture, but most of us have had this before. She should be more informed of what the course is about and the type of presentations we are making so that she can gear her lecture towards that.» (4)
- glad for her straightforwardness, new insight into human perception» (5)
- But I have had it two times already and there was nothing new for me...» (5)
- useable knowledge!» (5)
- Great presentation. Maybe not so relevant for the course but a lot of tips on how to reach a target group visually.» (5)
- This lecture was extremely useful and gave us the right tools for creating a poster. The knowledge can be used in all architectural projects.» (5)

24. Lecture: Sept. 16. Geting lost, as a Method (Monica Sand)

58 svarande

1»		1		1%
2»		12		20%
3»		27		46%
4»		12		20%
5»		6		10%

Genomsnitt: 3.17

- Missed it?» (?)
- not convincing» (2)
- it is quite hard to understand what is the purpose of that research, a lot of question i have not thought about before.» (2)
- don"t remember» (3)
- good examples, relevant to the course» (3)
- didn"t attend. When was it??» (3)
- I don"t remember this lecture.» (3)
- the workshop was intresting, but it came to lat ein the course and she was repeating herselfe alot» (4)

Conference

25. How do you rate the conference?

Very bad»		1		1%
Rather bad»		6		9%
Neither bad nor well»		18		29%
Rather well»		28		45%
Very well»		8		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.59

- There was only time for a few questions after each presentation. We didn´,t really get any relevant feedback to use later on.» (Rather bad)
- It became a course evaluation and not a conference. As in the rest of the course, there was almost no relevant feedback to the presentations, although the invited teacher from HDK had some good comments.» (Rather bad)
- It became more a course evaluation than a conference.» (Rather bad)
- Should have kept within the time limit.» (Neither bad nor well)
- the most interesting part was the final discussion, with a lot if interesting questions, but no real discussion about them unfortunately.» (Neither bad nor well)
- Maybe we were a to small group, but it felt a bit uninspired. The posters wasn"t even commented and there were very few questions about the projects. The interesting questions was the ones about the course itself» (Neither bad nor well)
- VERY BAD ORGANISATION, we should have received clearer information at the beginning of the week of how the day was to be scheduled and the level of ambition and professoniality that was required of us.» (Rather well)
- A longer panel discussion would be good.» (Rather well)
- Being such a little group I think made the conference very good, especially the discussion at the end felt very important.» (Rather well)
- i thought we all have done a lot of good work, and the result became great, even if it has been alot of confusenes and missunderstanding» (Very well)

Education and course administration

26. What support have you got from learning staff?

Very little»		5		8%
Rather little»		13		20%
Neither big nor little»		24		38%
Rather big»		18		29%
Very big»		2		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.98

- Saddek did not seem to participate very much in the course, especially in giving critical feedback or stimulating discussion. » (Very little)
- it has been hard to reach those responsible of the course and when one has reached them one has not been able to get any clear answers on the questions asked.» (Very little)
- I sometimes feel u didn"t really get in our projects and make a common comments. Give some constructing or real critical comments,Please!» (Rather little)
- As mentioned before, it seemed that the teachers didn´,t know what would come out of this course, therefor it was hard to get advice.» (Rather little)
- some teacher has been more helpfull and clear then others, i perticulary liked Henrik and Monica» (Neither big nor little)
- Compared to the full-time group we got a lot of support since the group was so much smaller.» (Rather big)

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

Very bad»		18		29%
Rather bad»		14		22%
Neither well nor bad»		16		25%
Rather well»		9		14%
Very well»		5		8%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- Course was poorly planned. The general schedule changed frequently, as were the assigned tasks for the literature seminar, for example. This made everything unnecessarily confusing. » (Very bad)
- Late information, unclear information, no information, changes at the last second etc. » (Very bad)
- schedules were often handed out the night before the schedule"s start and sometimes the wrong schedules were handed out and so adding to the confusion.» (Very bad)
- Changes of times and lecture halls all the time was very confusing and made people come late / not showing up at all. There was also alot of confusion of what we should do/produce which made us do unnecesary work (the brouchur for example). Probably the worst cource in this aspect I have taken at Chalmers so far.» (Very bad)
- Please be more stuctured! You cannot come with information the evening before lecture or workshop. That is to late.» (Very bad)
- Confusing and mixed messages. To short notices for everything especially the litterature semniars with almost no reading time. » (Very bad)
- The schedule changed often. Is there a fixed schedule? Or would u let us know just 1 day before not 10 hours before the lecture?» (Very bad)
- Bad organization and confusion among tecahers and students at times made the course feel less serious and less enjoyable.» (Very bad)
- this is the absolute worst part of the course. the theme for the course is interesting, but it dissapears in all the organizational chaos, i"m sorry to say. this is far from what i expect of a university. VERY BAD!» (Very bad)
- The information about this course was very bad. The schedule changed almost every day. We didn´,t know what lecture halls we should be in. One of the teacher didn´,t know the difference between tuesday and thursday and had a hard time giving us the right starting times for lectures etc. The information about what was to be handed in wasn´,t correct. My group worked a whole day producing material for a broschure that was to be handed in the next day only to get the information the next day that the information sent out about the broschure was incorrect and from last years course. We had worked a whole day producing material that shouldn´,t be handed in. » (Very bad)
- It was somewhat unclear who our contact would be if we did have a question or needed counseling, as there were so many teachers.» (Rather bad)
- alot of communicationproblems and changes during the course that has missled us during the course, for example the roles at the seminaries, the brochure» (Rather bad)
- Groups too big, indecisiveness in schedule/programme, insufficient feedback from teachers. For instance, the making of a brochure was very unclear and in the end removed from the hand-in requirements.» (Rather bad)
- There was a lack of organization from the learning staff and either from the administration office. That combination produced a huge mess. » (Rather bad)
- so so...coliding schedules, late info, unclear info made it a bit hard to plan.» (Neither well nor bad)
- Good quality in this aspect! That is not always the case at the architecture school...» (Very well)

Work environment

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

Very bad»		1		1%
Rather bad»		7		11%
Neither well nor bad»		21		33%
Rather good»		21		33%
Very good»		12		19%

Genomsnitt: 3.58

- We didn´,t get much assistance during the course.» (Rather bad)
- U can put part of workshop 4 at the beginning, some instructions on group work.» (Very good)

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

Very bad»		2		3%
Rather bad»		2		3%
Neither good nor bad»		9		14%
Rather good»		17		27%
Very good»		32		51%

Genomsnitt: 4.2

- Severe language problems and no active participation from several members. Also issues with how a group assignment should be carried out.» (Very bad)
- It was ok, but sometimes it feeled like it really works against productive work. So overall I got the feeling that I have learned to discus and work together, but it wasn"t really a productive course. » (Neither good nor bad)
- We got along well but later into the course we lost the will to continue the work because of all the wrong information from the teachers continuesly handed out. The course took a lot more mental strength than actual work. I was exhausted when the course was finished.» (Neither good nor bad)
- It was a good experience to have people from 4 different countries who had different cultural bachgroungs.» (Neither good nor bad)
- please make sure in the group there are both male and female students» (Neither good nor bad)
- Some participated more than others, but overall we worked well together as soon as we found a good strategy for delegating responsibility. This was the most valuable thing I learned during the course. » (Rather good)
- It was wery hard in the beginning. More guiding from the course would have been helpful when deciding about the first workshops.» (Rather good)
- Except the fact that none of us felt very motivated for this course, since we had a lot of expectations on it that were not fulfilled. » (Rather good)
- The number of students worked pretty well. » (Rather good)
- Very good as we were dependent on each other to understand the tasks that were given to us as a lot of our questions were not answered by the staff.» (Very good)
- We had a very good climate even though the group was so big.» (Very good)
- Yet I personally think u need to asign a project leader in each group. Democracy is not the best choice to make a group work in terms of effeciency.» (Very good)
- im pleased with my group, we communicated well and complete each other, my group was not so big, wich i liked» (Very good)
- The groups were a mix between erasmus and swedish students. This made for a more interesting discussion as the foreign students sometimes had a totally different view of basic architectural concepts.» (Very good)
- Great cooperation and really good experience according to the different thoughts.» (Very good)

Concluding questions

30. What is your overall opinion of the course?

Very bad»		5		8%
Rather Bad»		10		16%
Neither bad nor good»		22		35%
Rather good»		17		27%
Very good»		8		12%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- It seemed elementary, obtuse, and unfocused » (Very bad)
- This was without a doubt the worst course during my education so far. The lack of information and lack of goals and aims is the reason for this. » (Very bad)
- more basis in reality. theory without reality is useless. problematizing over theoretical concepts does not generate great designers...and it gives us no advantage on the future work market. as ana betancour said, you look at the portfolio relevance, not a written report.» (Rather Bad)
- The course id too vauge and too basic.» (Rather Bad)
- Good subject but to messy and to hard to move from step to step when you don"t have a clue about where you wil end up. Would have appressiated the checklist for the conferencu much earlier. » (Rather Bad)
- sometime i do not feel i am quite in the course. it can due to language, organization, the relationship with group member, the level of interests in the project. » (Rather Bad)
- The subject Research by Design have the capacity to be something VERY intresting. However I don"t think the course dealt with RbD. Maybe a more clear course program and another focus angle would help.» (Rather Bad)
- I liked the course except for the bad organisation.» (Neither bad nor good)
- It is an intense course and i understand that it is hard to organise so that all knowledge is perceived right, but in the end I feel slightly more confused about the subject than I was before i did the course.» (Neither bad nor good)
- The intentions of the course are very good, but somehow the tutoring is not guiding enough. The results depends crucially on the students" own ideas, inspiration and will.» (Neither bad nor good)
- I feel a bit disapointed, I had expected more of the course.» (Neither bad nor good)
- The satff should stress more that there should be some kind of design work done. The explorations was a bit detached from the designs we did in the end, "just to show something". » (Neither bad nor good)
- I think I will understand what I have learned in a couple of months... The course was quite intense so I have not have time to reflect upon the knowolegde I have gained. But I am sure that it is very useful.» (Rather good)
- Due to the group I worked with, not so much because off the course it self.» (Rather good)
- The course is pretty interesting as a beginning for a new year. I"ve been talking with Swedish students and the impression I got it"s about a disappointment. Mostly they told that they already had this course in the bachelor degree and it was so frustrating from them to do it again. Fortunately I"ve never dealt with such topics in my previous studies in Italy, so I could really enjoy the course » (Rather good)
- The course should be a bit more rigorous in its organization and clear in its goals, as well as remember at all times that this is a masters level course. But the basic concept and intentions are good.» (Rather good)

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

32. What was not so good and should be changed next year?

33. What can be improved?