|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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.
Sustainable building - Competition B, ARK 350Status: AvslutadÖppen 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 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. Learning outcome 1- to design sustainable architecture15 svarande
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 building15 svarande
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 efficiency15 svarande
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) 4. Learning outcome 4- to synthesize programme issues into a competition entry15 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.13 - too open program» (Insufficient) 5. 5 Learning outcome 5- to visualise the performance concerning energy, environment and indoor climate in a building15 svarande
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 process15 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.73 - This was really the most inportant outcome of the course.» (Excellent) 7. 7 Learning outcome 7- to use competitions ans means for reflection and professional development15 svarande
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) 8. Are the aims and goals reasonable in relation to your pre-knowledge ?15 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.86 - I think some more advanced lectures and literature could be included in the course.» (No, the goals are to elementary) 9. Are the goals reasonable in relation to the scope and amount of credits?15 svarande
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) Education and course administration10. What support have you got for your learning from course literature and other material?15 svarande
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) 11. How did the organisation, memoranda, direct information etc. function?15 svarande
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) Work environment12. How do you rate the possibilities to get assistance and ask questions?15 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.26 - No supervisors in the structural part. I had to search information and people with knowledge by my self.» (Very bad) 13. ConsultationsA competition should in principle be independent, but we have chosen to give you opportunities for "coaching". How did it work?14 svarande
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) 14. How has the cooperation between you and students in your group been?The question concerns mainly the cooperation between engineers and architects15 svarande
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) 15. Exchange with TrondheimIntroduction days, site analysis and other contacts15 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.86 - No engineers from Norway» (Very insufficient) 16. Learning form the jury assessmentMore what you learned form it and less if it was fair15 svarande
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) 17. Excursion to TrondheimThe trip, the excursion and other events15 svarande
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) 18. Post competition phaseSeminars, de-breifing essay and final lecture. Did you learn more?15 svarande
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) Concluding questions19. What is your overall opinion of the course?15 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.4 - The information have to be better.» (Passed) 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.»
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0%