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.

Sustainable building - Competition B, ARK 350

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-12-28 - 2010-01-28
Antal svar: 15
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 62%
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

- to design sustainable architecture

15 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»1 6%
Sufficient»7 46%
Excellent»7 46%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- One of the goals of the course was to merge architectural and technical aspects of building to achieve sustainable solutions. I think this goal was fully reached. It"s just a pitty that it took 5 years at Chalmers to reach this integration. » (Excellent)

2. Learning outcome 2

- to describe and analyse the basic features in sustainable building

15 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»0 0%
Sufficient»10 66%
Excellent»5 33%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- Most of the main features in sust building was already known by me. The news came up in the interaction with the engineers.» (Sufficient)

3. Learning outcome 3

- to design systems for good indoor climate and energy efficiency

15 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»4 26%
Sufficient»4 26%
Excellent»7 46%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- The final result showed a good variety of solutions but most of them came from the engineers. More time for the architects to study technical systems would be welcome. » (Insufficient)
- I have not attended so much in the work with indoor climate, so I can not say that my knowledge is enough. but about energy efficience it is better..» (Insufficient)
- see q.2» (Sufficient)

4. Learning outcome 4

- to synthesize programme issues into a competition entry

15 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»2 13%
Sufficient»9 60%
Excellent»4 26%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.13

- too open program» (Insufficient)
- The programme was to vague. » (Insufficient)
- The relatively open program, free for interpitations, made the process very interesting.» (Excellent)

5. 5 Learning outcome 5

- to visualise the performance concerning energy, environment and indoor climate in a building

15 svarande

Very Insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»1 6%
Sufficient»11 73%
Excellent»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

- This is what we are used to do.» (Sufficient)

6. 6 Learning outcome 6

- to cooperate across disciplinary boundaries in a design process

15 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»0 0%
Sufficient»4 26%
Excellent»11 73%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

- This was really the most inportant outcome of the course.» (Excellent)
- Good way to learn by practice.» (Excellent)

7. 7 Learning outcome 7

- to use competitions ans means for reflection and professional development

15 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»0 0%
Sufficient»10 66%
Excellent»5 33%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- There is always a certain amount of freedom in competitions but it can also be a factor that prevents free thinking. In some aspects we played safe to please the jury.» (Sufficient)
- An early discussion about how to relate to the competition is necessary. There was critique from teachers that we spent too much time on the competition and less on "sustainable" building. » (Sufficient)
- not much time for reflection, maybe afterwards» (Sufficient)
- The competition moment made every group member more ambitious.» (Excellent)

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

15 svarande

No, the goals are to elementary»2 13%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»13 86%
No, the goals are too ambitious»0 0%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 1.86

- I think some more advanced lectures and literature could be included in the course.» (No, the goals are to elementary)
- People have very different background. Having such a open project doesnt give anyone advantage over the others. » (Yes, the goals are reasonable)

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

15 svarande

Too small scope in relation to credits»0 0%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»12 85%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»2 14%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 2.14

- i think the architects had a much bigger work to do than the engineers. (I"m an engineer)» (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)
- when it is a competition you always work harder than you need to.» (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)

Education and course administration

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

15 svarande

Very little»3 20%
Rather little»8 53%
Rather big»4 26%
Very big»0 0%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.06

- The structural part of buildings has not been included in any course material, this has to be better to next year!» (Very little)
- The first part of the course could be followed by a literature seminar.» (Rather little)
- As usual, how we use the literature is up to us. As a result, hardly anyone actually reads enough. Therefore, it would be good with a more theoretical part in the beginning. If the literature is actually deemed necessary. » (Rather little)

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

15 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»4 26%
Rather well»8 53%
Very well»3 20%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- In overall good. But a large minus is of course the lack of information concerning the fact that one competition was split in two. » (Rather bad)
- The information should be improved. When we had some lectures a lot of students did not attend, because they did not have the information.» (Rather bad)
- The only problem was that I didn"t check the course homepage often enough. My fault. Please be very clear in the begining of the course how information are to be distributed.» (Rather well)

Work environment

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

15 svarande

Very bad»1 6%
Rather bad»1 6%
Rather well»6 40%
Very well»7 46%
I have not asked for assistance»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

- No supervisors in the structural part. I had to search information and people with knowledge by my self.» (Very bad)
- It took to long before ? about the competition was answered (as I understand it that was because of technical problems)» (Rather well)

13. Consultations

A competition should in principle be independent, but we have chosen to give you opportunities for "coaching". How did it work?

14 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»3 21%
Rather good»7 50%
Excellent»4 28%

Genomsnitt: 3.07

- I do not think Barbara"s tactic worked, She tried to provoke us in order to raise questions about our project and look further, but instead she was just very provocative. To be completely honest I stopped listening to her after the second consultation. sad but true. I can understand what she wanted to achieve by being so provocative, but it failed. So next year, tone it down please Barbara. » (Rather bad)
- it was mostly coaching about the estetics and about accesibility etc, maybe it would be good to leave that and concentrate more on the important part of the course-> sustainable building and competition.» (Rather bad)
- Generally good but some of the consultants (A&B) spent too much time arguing with each other and intruding on each others expertise instead of consulting us. » (Rather good)
- At times there was some obvious conflicts between our coaches that moved the focus from our work. » (Rather good)

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

The question concerns mainly the cooperation between engineers and architects

15 svarande

No learning or exchange of experience»0 0%
Some exchange, but not enough»1 6%
Sufficient learning and exchange»6 40%
Much learning and exchange»8 53%

Genomsnitt: 3.46

- Because of the time constraints, we did not take the time to learn what the others were doing, well not enough in my opinion.» (Sufficient learning and exchange)
- as said before this is the major outcome of the course. I really believe that our combined knowledge made us come very much further in our work than we would have by our self.» (Much learning and exchange)

15. Exchange with Trondheim

Introduction days, site analysis and other contacts

15 svarande

Very insufficient»1 6%
Insufficient»2 13%
Sufficient»10 66%
Excellent»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- No engineers from Norway» (Very insufficient)

16. Learning form the jury assessment

More what you learned form it and less if it was fair

15 svarande

No learning or points for reflection»0 0%
Some learning and points for reflection»6 40%
Valuable learning and points for reflection»8 53%
Excellent lesson»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- i thought they had loads of personal opinions, and less professional conclusions. I think a jury speaks for a comunity and should be able to see beyond a beautiful presentation and "see" the project, more than the presentation. The written assessment was unfair and written with ignorance. But, maybe this is how it is in a real competitions. Time is limited for a jury and you have to be very clear with your project and your intensions with it.» (Some learning and points for reflection)
- It was obvious that the jury hadn"t really taken time to analyze all the projects equally. It was obvious both in their oral and written assessments. Can"t really say I learned much from it. » (Some learning and points for reflection)
- I"m impressed by the jury"s work even thou I think thay missed some points in all projects.» (Valuable learning and points for reflection)
- Good jury» (Valuable learning and points for reflection)

17. Excursion to Trondheim

The trip, the excursion and other events

15 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»4 26%
Rather good»9 60%
Excellent»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- There was not enough time during daylight hour to tour the city. The building we visited was awfull and barely sustainable.» (Rather bad)
- I can"t say that the building we visited was something worth seeing, neither in terms of sustainability or architecture. The trip was not very well planned. For instance, we had to listen to a lecture after traveling by bus all night... Nobody was really up to that I think. Half the group was asleep during the lecture, which wasn"t very interesting. That being said, the trip in general was a good idea.» (Rather bad)
- Insufficient planning by the Norwegians» (Rather good)
- I don"t think the study visits was good. The hostel was really bad. Nice city, jury assessment and party thou.» (Rather good)
- long bus-drive but good party ,)» (Rather good)

18. Post competition phase

Seminars, de-breifing essay and final lecture. Did you learn more?

15 svarande

Very insufficient»1 6%
Insufficient»1 6%
Sufficient»11 73%
Excellent»2 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- I believe that we should have had more time for the project than for the post competition phase. Especially since the time for completing the project was short and unequal for the different groups. The final lecture was quite useless, which you also could tell by the number of students auditing. Can"t say I learned more.» (Very insufficient)
- I would have like to have some extra weeks plan to go deeper in detail. In order to go on designing until december.» (Insufficient)
- It"s a pitty that the schedual was insufficient and didn"t work well with other courses. The essay gave a good oppertunity to reassess the course. » (Sufficient)
- I didn"t get a whole lot out of the de-briefing essay and I missed the final lecture. I think it would have been good to have sent out an email reminder for the final lecture as we all kind of just forgot about the course. We would have all loved to have a little fairwell meeting.» (Sufficient)
- it was good with a de-briefing» (Sufficient)

Concluding questions

19. What is your overall opinion of the course?

15 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
Passed»1 6%
Good»7 46%
Very good»7 46%

Genomsnitt: 4.4

- The information have to be better.» (Passed)
- This was not an easy course!, many complications, misunderstandings and angry faces sometimes, but also a lot of knowledge where exchanged, smiles and positive feelings. The worst feeling was the frustration over the practicalities and the cooperation over disciplinary boundaries. But these where also the ares where I learned the most.» (Very good)

20. What should be preserved next year?

- The prize money and competition. »
- The openness of the program. The choice of a difficult task on a problematic site.»
- The first excercise was good in its intention, but was not very well formulated for architects. Perhaps borrow the little studio project from Eden"s materials investigations course as a basis to help limit, but also give one a possibility to actually develop something that is worth presenting. More examples of good presentation techniques and diagrams and images are needed.»
- the small assignments in the biginning of the course»
- The teamwork with engineers. The complexity of the site. »
- Everything should be preserved»
- Everything, especially the lecture of Karin Adalberth.»
- The competition moment. »
- The competitions as a learning platform and the coop.»
- The interdisciplinary way of working.»

21. What shuold be changed the nest year?

- Schedule of the course earlier than one week before. More lectures on the subject.»
- the schedual , so that it fits the other courses.»
- The competition was architecturally extremely complicated. This was good to an extent to help engineers understand how complicated it can be to puzzle a project together, however it left the engrineers a bit out of the process until the end.»
- Some information issues explained earlier. »
- It should be plan either an extra project for the end of the semester either to go more in depth in the project. It could be individually or in group, but at least to add an extr time to design.»
- improve the consultations»
- Perhaps a more detailed schedule to be handed out in the beginning.»
- More lectures about sustainable building. NTU and Chalmers should have the same possibility to make groups (a lack of norwegian engineers this year was not good for the competition entries) Supervisors in the structural part. Better information about what the teachers expect from the structural engineers.»
- More time for the competition. Such a big project needs more time becasuse when you`re forcing it there will be a lot of angry faces. You cannot replace larger groups for less time. Actually maybe consider smaller groups, maybe four per group. »
- More time for the project. We started off very late in the semester and had about a month to finish it. In my opinion it was a waste of time. It would have been much better to put more time and energy on the project itself. All the groups didn"t have the same amount of time, so in that aspect, the competition wasn"t fair. Some groups didn"t lose time with simultaneous courses, for instance. »

22. Other comments

- Sending engineers to research by design stuff was not a bad idea, but was probably not very beneficial as that course was pretty poorly structured and communicated (even for architects). But it could be interesting for there to be some type of interventionist project that the engineers and architect have to do and build together so that engineers get an intro into some of the existential aspects of buildings and space.»
- thanks you for this course.»
- Michael is a cool guy!»
- The total impression is that it was a funny course, but I do not feel that I learned as much about sustainable building as I expected from the beginning.»
- Thank you Michael and Angela for a great course. A pleasure to have sucha dedicated teachers! A great way to practice your skills and knowledge.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från