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.

Design processes and management, ARK165 and ARP058

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-03-12 - 2010-03-29
Antal svar: 15
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 21%
Kontaktperson: Inga Malmqvist»

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

15 svarande

Very insufficient»3 20%
Insufficient»4 26%
Sufficient»6 40%
Excellent»2 13%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.46

- Lectures are not relevant regarding the brief process. The last lecture was quite useful but should have been set at the beginning.» (Very insufficient)
- I would have liked more connections to reality with case studies. » (Very insufficient)
- outcome1 = participate in the briefing/programming phase, I would have liked to achieve a deeper understanding on the contract forms and other choices which are made during the early stages etc» (Sufficient)

2. Learning outcome 2

14 svarande

Very insufficient»2 16%
Insufficient»3 25%
Sufficient»6 50%
Excellent»1 8%
No opinion»2

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- Regarding understanding, the goal of the course is not very clear. Everything is mixed for the project. Are we working on a brief, a proposal, a feasibility study?» (Very insufficient)
- outcome 2 = participate in the building design process. Everyone in our group wanted to design the building» (Sufficient)

3. Learning outcome 3

14 svarande

Very insufficient»2 18%
Insufficient»4 36%
Sufficient»4 36%
Excellent»1 9%
No opinion»3

Genomsnitt: 2.36

- I do not feel skilled in design process at the end of this course.» (Very insufficient)
- outcome 3 = describe the basic processes of planning and building, no one in our group took the initiative to describe how to deal with sustainability, standars, stakeholders or contract forms etc in a, to me, fulfilling way. » (No opinion)

4. Learning outcome 4

14 svarande

Very insufficient»2 18%
Insufficient»3 27%
Sufficient»5 45%
Excellent»1 9%
No opinion»3

Genomsnitt: 2.45

- No perspectives highlighted.» (Very insufficient)
- outcome 4 = communicate with other actors in the design and planning processes in a professional way: It was good to get contact between architects-civil engineering students, only that our group did not have so many civil engineers.» (No opinion)

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

15 svarande

No, the goals are to elementar»3 23%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»8 61%
No, the goals are too ambitious»2 15%
No opinion»2

Genomsnitt: 1.92

- The goals are reasonable but the course should have provided with more knowledge and information at the start.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- Goals are responsible since they are not clearly defined and ambiguous.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- (architect)» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- The basics of programming/brief should have been well presented in the first lecture. It was also unclear what was expected from us to deliver. For example, choice of contract, technical systems? This was not asked for in the deliverables document.» (No, the goals are too ambitious)

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

15 svarande

Too small scope in relation to credits»1 8%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»10 83%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»1 8%
No opinion»3

Genomsnitt: 2

Education and course administration

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

15 svarande

Very little»7 46%
Rather little»5 33%
Rather big»3 20%
Very big»0 0%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 1.73

- Lectures were not very relevant and few were scheduled. » (Very little)
- I would have needed more lectures that would help me understand the litterature. No feedback on the question I wrote didnt teach me anything. » (Very little)
- The optional book I chose was interesting and good for my learning but the compulsory papers were not that good.» (Rather little)
- I have learnt from the lectures about how the process is working in general but we have not had much use of it in our group work.» (Rather little)

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

15 svarande

Very bad»4 28%
Rather bad»5 35%
Rather well»3 21%
Very well»2 14%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 2.21

- Bad organization. You never knew what information was correct evern if you checkt studentportalen. Very bad and disrespectful that one of the teachers always was late for lectures. » (Very bad)
- there were rather much changes, that was made with short notice only at the portal, this times it could be good to send a mail about to look at the portal. one lecture there were just 15 person on because of short notice and late in the process.» (Rather well)

Work environment

9. 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»6 40%
I have not asked for assistance»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- it was both good and "bad" to have different tutors every time, it would be better to have one or two so not much time would be to just explain the project. even if that was good to practice during the work process.» (Very well)

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

15 svarande

Very bad»3 20%
Rather bad»1 6%
Rather good»5 33%
Very good»6 40%
I have not tried to cooperate»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- The knowledge and experience of having done projects before varied vastly! there was an uneven ratio of architects to engineers, and the role of the engineers was undefined, which made them not do that much work, The architect students had to teach them how to work in a project.. and unfortunantley did not learn much at all from the engineering students.» (Very bad)
- Very good teamwork between some members while others were absent most of the time and did not contribute. The reason for this has partly to do with interfering schedules, but also social loafers.» (Rather bad)
- I have taken on a much greater work load than the others, but I unfortunately don"t think that will affect my grading since it is a group work.» (Rather good)
- I had high expectations on the course that I wanted to learn the design process from an engineer point of view(am a architect)and from the beginning when I was alone architect I felt that we could do everything together, then it came on more architect that absolutly couldn"t understand why the engineers should cooperate in the actuall design. think this were a cultural issue that was hard to erase. that did the group work more divided and I tried to be the link between everyone. in the end it worked out quite well but with different amount of work time for each person. I think the groups were too big, 4 person maximum would be better, because now it was needed a group leader, a post that noone really wanted to take.» (Rather good)
- Hard to work in big groups» (Very good)

Concluding questions

11. What is your overall opinion of the course?

15 svarande

Very bad»4 26%
Bad»1 6%
Passed»4 26%
Good»5 33%
Very good»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- I am very disappointed. I expected a lot of this course and nothing came up. Lecture were not linked to the project. No technical point recomanded for the project were taught....» (Very bad)
- Didnt learn much, bad organization and very bad lectures.» (Very bad)
- I didn"t learn anything, the lectures were unrelevant and old fashioned» (Very bad)
- It was hard to get a grip of the assignment. Noone really knew what we were going to produce. It was hard to know what to focus on in the assignment. It was rather "blurry".» (Passed)
- I have learnt about the process as such and to work with different professions and how to best use people"s special skills. I also know more about programming than before. » (Good)
- had high expectations before starting the course and they were not really fulfilled, but I learnt how group work can be in a multiculture world and a lot in general about the design process.» (Good)

12. What should be preserved next year?

- The group work was quite interesting and we also gained a lot from the tutorial.»
- A real life objective (Draken) to make the project realistic. The tutor meetings. »
- The ambition.»
- Group work.»
- The format of the presentation at the end was good. Also, the clear requirements for the hand in = good!»
- tutoring sessions.»
- working in groups, the critique was good»
- mixed teams, a interesting task that gave much freedom in the design»
- delete this course»
- the integration of engineering students and architecture students working together»

13. What shuold be changed the nest year?

- Seminar should be more inspiration or related to the theme of the project.»
- Remove literature seminar, it was quite useless I"m afraid. »
- The ambiguity between architectural project/pre-project/management project/feasibility study/etc should be addressed/clarified a bit more. Maybe adding a bit of reflection/input on the THEORETICAL (and cultural?) meaning of all this. Practical stuff are important but not enough for a university course.»
- The content of group work»
- More information from the start. More concrete facts about what to focus on in the project. Better lectures. »
- To enable a functioning group work, the scheduled time for work needs to be more firm. In my group, the others went to their other course but I ended up skipping some of my scheduled lectures on other subjects, to assure that we got the work done. Some lectures could be better, and the lady from Liljewall architects had a really good lecture, which should have been at the beginning of the course, not the end. There was a great confusiion at the start, on who was the client, åsa or film i väst or? that confusion is not improving the aim of the course.»
- a better definition of the project, lecture really linked to the brief process. Lectures on technical points, administrative and regulation should be set.»
- more and better lectures (not power points with only text that the teacher reads), better organization, more connections to reality and better understanding for the building process»
- smaller groups, deside which focus you want in the course - is it the design or the actual process with the understanding of all parts you query? becuase it feels in the PM that you want the last but at the presentations we all got critic on our design and not on the thought of all parts together.»
- all staff of this course»
- the head professor, the course litterature, more specific demands for what to do in the project as some people didn"t know how to work in a project and it is unfair for the other students to take time from the project to explain that.»

14. Other comments

- Nice food and drinks, presentation days were also memorable. »
- Have lectures on programming in the very early beginning of the course. Also supply the students with the client brief the first week.»
- //»
- I am from DCPM»
- Lecture were not very linked to the topic and mainly presented project made by architect and not the briefing process. Some supervisor are good and relevant whereas others are unable to help us.»
- Have more inspiring lectures, not just text in the slides, know the actual goal of the project (in this case the number of seats for the film centre) the PM said 150, the client said 2500, and the teacher wasn"t there to tell us the proper nr. ,don"t let the students guess... or tell them that the objective of the project is to estimate»

Kursutvärderingssystem från