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.

Sustaianble Building A, ARK186

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-03-08 - 2010-03-17
Antal svar: 29
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 69%
Kontaktperson: Michael Edén»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Arkitektur 300 hp
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

-combine design with investigations

29 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»1 3%
Sufficient»20 68%
Excellent»8 27%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.24

- Though the course very much focuses on one´,s own ability to be self-going, the amount of foregin students with little understanding for how swedish people think or of swedish climate, or students with NO experience in drawing buildings actually is a setback for the level on which the discussion and creative level of development is held. The bigger gain in experience is in group dynamics, rather.» (Insufficient)
- The investigations we made were usually related to the task so that we have searched what we can use in the course.» (Excellent)

2. Learning outcome 2

-understand and use information about sustainable architecture in given project assignments

29 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»4 13%
Sufficient»17 58%
Excellent»8 27%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.13

- see one. But I am not sure. Some things are sufficient, some aren´,t.» (Insufficient)
- We probably missed some points of "sustainable design" while we were focusing too much on the given task. So that we used materials that are sustainable but we forgot about the building design orientation and shape. Accordingly I haven"t seen much sustainable design approaches in the Water Management exercise. I wish that we had more time & information about sustainable building design and used it in our exercise actually.» (Insufficient)
- It should have more exercises about the thermal calculations and how to apply on each project, climate or environment which effected. » (Sufficient)
- The boxe exercice was really to understand and discover new materials!» (Excellent)

3. Learning outcome 3

-create design concepts about different aspects of sustainable architecture

29 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»4 13%
Sufficient»20 68%
Excellent»5 17%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.03

- No other aspect than the ecological one. Different aspects should include social/economy features as well.» (Insufficient)
- It would have been more efficient if we would also think about other locations and climate properties rather than only focusing on Sweden. That will halo us how to investigate different countries local climate and materials.. how to look handle solutions on different zones.» (Sufficient)

4. Learning outcome 4

-communicate important issues in a design project through poster and in a report

29 svarande

Very insufficient»1 3%
Insufficient»1 3%
Sufficient»19 65%
Excellent»8 27%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.17

- The examiner should pay attention and criticized about posters/layout and graphic communication on presentation more.» (Insufficient)
- I think that the report on material that we did at the end of the quarter should be at the end of the exercice "boxes"» (Sufficient)
- I think the information about the report could have been more clear, so we new what to expect to do. » (Sufficient)
- ... depending on whom the recipiant is. Most groups did do good or OK.» (Sufficient)
- My opinion is that although the course name is "sustainable building" printing everymaterial on posters is not a sustaible solution? It would have been more effective on powerpoint presentations so we could have focused on more details. And exhibiting projects through course homepage-or blog page.» (Sufficient)

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

29 svarande

No, the goals are to elementary»1 3%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»28 96%
No, the goals are too ambitious»0 0%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 1.96

- The course offered a very good chance to me to apply interesting ideas got from a previous course. For example designing a straw bale house. It was fun!» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- I learnt a lot !!» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- I really enjoy and aim from the difference kind of materials also how it’,s work and how’,s to use it in difference climate to make the comfort zone for inhabitants.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)

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

29 svarande

Too small scope in relation to credits»2 7%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»21 77%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»4 14%
No opinion»2

Genomsnitt: 2.07

- the idea of 2 short exercices is really attractive !» (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)
- But it is not much time, to little to have time to read litterature for example. » (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)
- If the argument is that it is good to learn how to work fast, because that is the speed one will need to have as a professional architect, I think that if the goal is something which is a new field for the student, It much more time to do something for the first time.» (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)

Education and course administration

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

29 svarande

Very little»1 3%
Rather little»6 20%
Rather big»18 62%
Very big»4 13%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- We didnt use the recomended literature, there whas not enough time to do that. It would have been good with just a little bit more time and maby a litterature seminar. » (Rather little)
- We didn"t have compulsory literature, but I felt that I read more for this course than other course with reading tasks.I prefer this way of teaching rather than spoon-feed.» (Rather big)
- We gathered the literature within our group, it would have been more effective maybe having seminars within course schedule» (Rather big)
- Some literature were not available in the library, so that me and my team had to create our own literature. » (Rather big)
- ...there is an architectural library. It is not that hard.» (Very big)

8. What support have you got from lectures

29 svarande

Very little»2 6%
Rather little»5 17%
Rather good»13 44%
Very good»9 31%

Genomsnitt: 3

- It’,s good to have wide information lectures but some of them should be more specific.» (Very little)
- The first lectures may have been very informative, at the same time they throw you a long way into the jungle. It is hard to figure out something new, more likely to try something shown. It is a support. But not a very clear one. » (Rather little)
- Some good some bad» (Rather good)
- NN:s lecture was very good!!» (Rather good) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- Not too much lectures but all very good!» (Very good)
- especially the storm water lecture was great.» (Very good)

9. What support have you got from supervsion and meeting with engineer students?

29 svarande

Very little»3 10%
Rather little»7 24%
Rather good»14 48%
Very good»5 17%

Genomsnitt: 2.72

- and confused!» (Very little)
- I got only encouragement but suggestions from supervision, and no valuable info from engineer students.» (Rather little)
- the only problem in this meeting is that we used new and unsual materials for the boxes. So they didn"t know really how to work with.» (Rather good)
- They might not have said that much of help, but seeing their confused expressions was good. It goes to show how specified you need to be to have a fruitful meeting.» (Rather good)
- Consultation with engineering students were not as useful as I expected. That is because they did not have the knowledge about the areas that we had questions. » (Rather good)
- Interesting » (Very good)
- It was very useful meeting them and it made you also understand that architects in themselves are quite capable.» (Very good)
- The tutorials could have been denser, it would have been better, meeting them in later stages made us a bit confused..» (Very good)

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

29 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»1 3%
Rather well»16 57%
Very well»11 39%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- Our groups had difficulty understanding exactly what the assignments were about and thought the hand-outs lacked clarity.» (Rather bad)
- Sometimes it wasn"t enough clear. Try to be clear when you give informations especially for schedules» (Rather well)
- It"s was confusing.» (No opinion)

Work environment

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

29 svarande

Very bad»1 3%
Rather bad»5 17%
Rather well»7 24%
Very well»14 48%
I have not asked for assistance»2 6%

Genomsnitt: 3.37

- Most of the scheduled meetings were put too close to hand-in. It would have been a lot more useful earlier.» (Rather bad)
- NN is an open person. Makes communications so much easier than if not. » (Rather well) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- email is a good system» (Very well)

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

29 svarande

Very bad»1 3%
Rather bad»6 20%
Rather good»14 48%
Very good»8 27%
I have not tried to cooperate»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3

- in some of the groups there were some poeple who are not good in group working, when we do not have any pre-knowledge about them it makes conflict between somebody and makes everything bad.» (Very bad)
- see one. I´,d like to add that the students are active and interested. Still... maybe I wasn´,t in luck. Also sometimes the language barrier is too big.» (Rather bad)
- the work was not divided evenly, group members did not want or could not attend group meetings. sometimes this was due to conflicting schedules. i would have preferred to choose the group members.» (Rather bad)
- In the beginning some issues, but we worked through it. Overall though, the cultural differences make it a bit trickier to colaborate, but good since you learn how to cope with it. » (Rather good)
- It"s good to have small length exercise.» (Rather good)
- I like to work in group !! I discovered it here in Sweden. In France, we don"t work so much in group for project design» (Very good)
- Even though we all come from different countries, cultures, understandings and working programmes, we all were so professional in group work and respected each other. We united a team and worked responsibily. That is because Chalmers choose good students from all around the world.» (Very good)

Concluding questions

13. What is your overall opinion of the course?

29 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
Passed»3 10%
Good»14 48%
Very good»12 41%

Genomsnitt: 4.31

- It is excellent the course is available at Chalmers architecture.» (Passed)
- I like the project we have done in this course.» (Good)
- I am really happy to have chosen this course» (Very good)

14. What should be preserved next year?

- I think that the first assignment about materials was very good.»
- Consultations are very good and useful.»
- short and fun assignments.»
- the short exercices»
- The two different subjects in the assignments, both verry interesting. Material and stormwater. I think they will be a good base for the next course, the b part. Whith seems even more interesting to me! »
- The course.»
- I think with some re-phrasing and some more clarity about the course objectives and assistence earlier on in the courses, it will function fine.»
- The time was very short for the assignments, and maybe it was about our elective courses as well which were as much as busy as ur studio.»
- the goals»
- cooperate in groups for the projects,but no more than 4 in one group is good.»
- all the assignments»
- I think seperating the delivery and the presentation is a good idea. So that we can go and have rest the night before the presentations. In addition to that commenting each others presentation was very beneficial. »
- Meeting with engineer students»
- Teacher"s humor.»
- Lectures should be preserved.»

15. What shuold be changed the nest year?

- I don´,t really like to have the studio in the V building. It feels like you are far away from teachers, the library etc. I also think that the work would have been more efficient and easier to organise if we just have one course instead of having two parallel courses . »
- Ensure that all teams are filled, and do not allow smaller groups. Workload gets too high in relation to the level of ambition. »
- More attention in design concept and in way to present posters (more care by the students and by the teacher), less investigation and more sketches.Maybe more lectures.maybe more than 1 supervision for project. »
- why only designing projects for göteborg? could we do someting for other countries?»
- I suggest to do the landscape first, when the weather is still good, when there isn"t snow everywhere»
- I think a litterature seminar and more time for reading. The short time didnt allow for that this year. And more info about how to do u value calculations. I dont think I learnd how to do it. »
- The possibility of choosing different aspects of sustainability.»
- If one is to design something that is very much specialized It is a good idea to have done the basic stuff first. Therefore I think mosty students with architecture background should be able to do the course. That v-classroom is quite horrible, by the way. Cold. Not enough wallsockets for laptops. »
- It was not a problem of my group but, the group could be more heterogenous, for example we were only international in our group so it was hard for us to go through local literature in Swedish. And some groups mostly of Erasmus people suffered from disorder and absence.»
- maybe more consulation can be added, and the meeting with engeering students should be better organised, for example, they can be updated with the goals and contents of our project before the meeting so that we won`t spend a lot of time to explain what we supposed to do during the meeting.»
- We could add a mid-term critic or present or kind of communication chance between different groups that might be helpful.»
- the landscape assignment"s site»
- The programme papers for both exercises had some missing information, so that the groups were a little bit confused and had to go back to the supervisor of the course and asked for detailed information. So I would better have a more explained programme in the beginning. »
- slow down the tempo»
- More information and small exercises.»
- Nothing»

16. Other comments

- Thanks !!»
- Looking forward to next course, part B, with hope! Might very well be the best course in Chalmers!»
- Good when the different steps of the course connect. It is good the groups are set from start, to get going quickly. »
- more detailed information»
- The studio can be changed. I think we should move to the studios in the second floor with kitchen, since we still kept working there (kenya studio) because we all want to use the studio full time and going to the other building didnt give us the feeling of "our studio"»
- none»
- The course was a little bit stressful for two projects ,especially for the second one.»
- overall, i felt the course was very useful. the lectures were limited, but all very good. the assignments forced us to find references and due a ton of research. i feel i gained a lot of information in this course.»
- If it is possible workshop included the course.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från