ENKÄTER

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

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.

Architectural conservation HT09 ARK345

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-01-18 - 2010-01-31
Antal svar: 12
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 57%
Kontaktperson: Lotta Särnbratt»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Arkitektur 300 hp

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

Inventory of buildings and environment.
Describe and analyze characteristics out of architectural, technical, historical, cultural, functional and resource aspects Produce drawings as foundation for continued planning of restoration, transformation and rebuilding, and search for information in archives and literature. How well has this learning outcome been fulfilled?

12 svarande

Very insufficient» 0 0%

Insufficient» 3 25%

Sufficient» 5 41%

Excellent» 4 33%

No opinion» 0

Genomsnitt: 3.08

- We learnt too little about different methods and theories to make a qualitative analysis.» (Insufficient)
- Regarding our visits in Uddevalla and the Municipality. » (Excellent)

2. Learning outcome 2

Accomplish an inspection of damages and interpret them out of (historical) techniques and other investigations Inquire and communicate the wishes and needs of managers, authorities, users and other stake-holders Concepts of restoration and rebuilding
Know and reflect on restoration/renewal ideas, historically and today in local, national and international perspectives. How well has this learning outcome been fulfilled?

12 svarande

Very insufficient» 0 0%

Insufficient» 3 25%

Sufficient» 7 58%

Excellent» 2 16%

No opinion» 0

Genomsnitt: 2.91

- This can"t be fulfilled if not more is thaught about older building techniques.» (Insufficient)

3. Learning outcome 3

Describe, analyze and balance different values, shortcomings, needs and possibilities in the building and environment. How well has this learning outcome been fulfilled?

12 svarande

Very insufficient» 0 0%

Insufficient» 0 0%

Sufficient» 9 81%

Excellent» 2 18%

No opinion» 1

Genomsnitt: 3.18

4. Learning outcome 4

Program for renewal Make a program for renewal of a building on basis of acquired knowledge and understanding about the building itself and the opinions and needs of stakeholders. How well has this learning outcome been fulfilled?

12 svarande

Very insufficient» 0 0%

Insufficient» 1 8%

Sufficient» 9 75%

Excellent» 2 16%

No opinion» 0

Genomsnitt: 3.08

- We did not do any programs for renewal. Neither did we have any communication with stakeholders (like owners, property managers, tenants).» (Insufficient)

5. Learning outcome 5

Give ideas and sketch proposals for conceptual solutions, and visualize and communicate them with other students, experts, clients and stakeholders. Synthesis Design a project of architectural conservation and development, with regard to historical, cultural, functional, technical and resource considerations Perform, visualize and describe a full proposal for restoration and renewal. How well has this learning outcome been fulfilled?

12 svarande

No opinion» 0 0%

Very insufficient» 0 0%

Insufficient» 1 8%

Sufficient» 8 66%

Excellent» 3 25%

Genomsnitt: 4.16

- Good contact between Chalmers, visiting Architects, Uddevalla Municipality and other people. » (Excellent)

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

12 svarande

No, the goals are to elementar» 0 0%

Yes, the goals are reasonable» 12 100%

No, the goals are too ambitious» 0 0%

No opinion» 0

Genomsnitt: 2

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

12 svarande

Too small scope in relation to credits» 0 0%

Reasonable scope in relation to credits» 11 100%

Too wide scope in relation to credits» 0 0%

No opinion» 1

Genomsnitt: 2

Education and course administration

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

12 svarande

Very little» 0 0%

Rather little» 4 33%

Rather big» 8 66%

Very big» 0 0%

No opinion» 0

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- The literature was good but not always relevant to the task.» (Rather little)
- Satisefied with the literature seminars.» (Rather big)

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

12 svarande

Very bad» 1 8%

Rather bad» 4 33%

Rather well» 5 41%

Very well» 2 16%

No opinion» 0

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- It was hard to know HOW different tasks (like the PAD, the GIT analysis) should be conducted and presented. Overall the task descriptions where very fuzzy and constantly changing. You need to be more precise IngerLise!» (Rather bad)
- Sometimes confusing and unorganiced which took time from the project.» (Rather bad)
- Sometimes in lack of information and rather confusing. » (Rather well)
- Thank you Sylvia Pompe !» (Very well)

Work environment

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

12 svarande

Very bad» 0 0%

Rather bad» 1 8%

Rather well» 0 0%

Very well» 11 91%

I have not asked for assistance» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.83

- I always got an answer of the questions I asked. » (Very well)
- Thanks to internet which is a good way to get informations quickly, thanks to teachers who often check their mail box » (Very well)

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

12 svarande

Very bad» 0 0%

Rather bad» 0 0%

Rather good» 3 25%

Very good» 9 75%

I have not tried to cooperate» 0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.75

- It has been a nice atmosphear in the group but most of the work have been individual.» (Rather good)
- Most work was done individualy, but in the cases where we worked in groups I found it nice. » (Very good)
- Verry good with a mix of exchangestudents and swedish students, we learned a lot from each other. » (Very good)

Concluding questions

12. What is your overall opinion of the course?

12 svarande

Very bad» 0 0%

Bad» 0 0%

Passed» 2 16%

Good» 5 41%

Very good» 5 41%

Genomsnitt: 4.25

- The theme and the study area was good but the organisation was really bad.» (Good)
- A bit unorganized but interesting» (Good)
- It was great to have such a small group! The tutoring was really good. Mikael and Kia were great! » (Good)
- I am very satisfeid and think it is a good course in general. » (Very good)
- I really appreciated the fact that our teacher provided many points of contact for us to gain furthur information, and lectures from professionals in our field of interest» (Very good)

13. What should be preserved next year?

- kia as a tutor, the interaction with uddevalla municipality and the semnar after the presentation in uddevalla»
- Lectures and litterature about conservation theory, the conection to sustainablility and current issues as sea level rising. The study trip/workshop.»
- The course was organized quite good, every detail should be preserved especially the workshop part.»
- the flexibility for student to choose the object to work with, frequent tutoring.»
- Most of the context in the course. The contact with Municipalities, visiting professors and external Architects. Specially the study trips. »
- It was excellent and all the course should be preserved. »
- The tutoring was really good. Mikael and Kia were great! Inspiering lectures. Good contact with people in uddevalla. To stay at hostel in Uddevalla was great for the group. Good with the final presentation in the class in göteborg and that so many (IL, kia, mikael, solveig...) participated. Worked as a good training for the presentation in U. Good with a weeks break in the middle to focus on something else!»
- the fridly atmosphere in the studio, a good relation between students and teachers»
- The diverse amount of information and lectures we recieved»
- The Leipzig workshop»

14. What should be changed next year?

- organization, more relevant lectures, better english speaking teachers.»
- More lectures and literature about traditional building techniques! More precise definitions of the task. Definitions that doesn"t change during the course.»
- about the GIS course, could be more fruitful.»
- the GIS course»
- GIS, very confusing lessons and tasks. »
- More info to the public and authorities in Uddevalla so there will be more people looking at our presentation. »
- nothing. »
- Think about what to do with the GIS course. I didn´,t understand the point of it. Better organisation. Reserved time for help from the swedish students to help the non swedishspeaking with translation.(there were not time enoug since everyone were so stressed about their own pjoject.) It could have been a deadline for the englisch version, and two days later for the sw. More time to focus on the exibition. Doesn´,t feel good with so many spellingmistakes, and problems with the posters. »
- Try to develop more a work in group for analysis and why not for the design project»
- maybe more information even, technical lectures»
- The GIS class»

15. Other comments

- better information would be good»
- What happened to the theme with sea level rising? It was in the course title but disappered somewhere. The theme is interesting and important so it is a shame it just disappeared.»
- I enjoyed every minute to be together within the studio work.»
- Would like to see more knowledge from the school regarding flooding and solutions how it can prevent damages on buildings. »
- I enjoyed the course and Leipzig workshop was excellent.»
- Thanks you !! »
- More informations (task) and organization (presentation in Uddevalla)would be welcomed»

Kursutvärderingssystem från