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.

ARK136 Housing Inventions VT 2010

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-04-26 - 2010-05-17
Antal svar: 35
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 79%
Kontaktperson: Ola Nylander»
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 after completion of this course, the student should be able to

- apply widened insights on experimental and innovative best practices in the European context to future housing designs in order to foster innovation

35 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»6 17%
Sufficient»18 51%
Excellent»11 31%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- little actuall implementation of method, needs better focus on for example specific architects methods and how to emulate them» (Insufficient)
- i think that innovation cannot only be the concept, construction is a important part of it. » (Insufficient)

2. Learning outcome 2 after completion of this course, the student should be able to

- to perform advanced architectural analysis on housing situations and to produce adequate solutions to emerging new potential future demands on the housing market

35 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»2 5%
Sufficient»25 71%
Excellent»8 22%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.17

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

35 svarande

No, the goals are to elementar»1 2%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»34 97%
No, the goals are too ambitious»0 0%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 1.97

- i wish i went further in the project, more in detail...» (No, the goals are to elementar)

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

35 svarande

Too small scope in relation to credits»0 0%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»34 97%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»1 2%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.02

- I worked in a group. Otherwise the goals would have been to high!» (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)
- goals are not well defined, sound like the entire master program of architecture» (Too wide scope in relation to credits)

Education and course administration

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

35 svarande

Very little»0 0%
Rather little»18 56%
Rather big»12 37%
Very big»2 6%
No opinion»3

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- Mostly from discussion in the team and during consultation. Own investigation.» (Rather little)
- more information about technical/structural aspects of floating/amphibious etc. architecture would be useful» (Rather big)

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

35 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»1 2%
Rather well»22 62%
Very well»12 34%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.31

- It was confusing when submission times were different in printed format and on the submission web page. Consistency in this would stop any confusion. » (Rather bad)

Work environment

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

35 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»2 5%
Rather well»16 45%
Very well»15 42%
I have not asked for assistance»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.48

- The teachers have been easy to reach but the studio has been too small. It would be good if it was possible to have your own desk.» (Very well)

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

35 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»3 8%
Rather good»11 31%
Very good»20 57%
I have not tried to cooperate»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

- It depends on everybody"s way of life as an erasmus student... And it"s hard, this year maybe, to find people seriously involved in the project they are working on.» (Rather bad)
- the cooperation was quite good since we managed to hand in even if one student was sick (but managed to work from home) and the 3rd one was not efficient...» (Rather good)

Concluding questions

9. What is your overall opinion of the course?

35 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
Passed»5 14%
Good»9 25%
Very good»21 60%

Genomsnitt: 4.45

- i wish we had more lectures about construction with innovative materials...» (Good)
- the mid-crits, tutoring and final-crits really gave me a lot to think about and develop during process which were really good and important for the workprocess.» (Very good)

10. What should be preserved next year?

- The topic of the main exercice»
- The first two assignments before the main exercise were a great staring point for the project. Crucial and interesting and the actual time for the main exercise was narrowed and therefore more sufficiently used.»
- It was good to first work with familiar people in the the first exercise, then new people in the second exercise and voluntary in the the main exercise.»
- 2nd exercice»
- The lectures made by Sten are interesting and gives good examples to reflect on. »
- The studytrip»
- All.»
- The 45 minutes critic, it really gave good feedback on your project.»
- Allowing students to select their own project site. Getting the students to work with different students for the second assignment encouraged more variation and more interaction between all the students. »
- Kajsa Crona! She is the best tutor ever! the continuity of tutoring was good and the study trip was inspiring.»
- Study Trip, and getting to see the work of the teachers.»
- Course excursions»
- introduction/ basic information and exercises at the beggining of the course»
- it was great with the studytrip, and I was very happy to be in the souroundings of Gothenburg, instead of going to kopenhagen. The stay at Salt o Sill was great!»
- *The very good and interesting study-trip. It was a really good decision not to go to copenhagen(had been my 6 time of study-trip during my time on chalmers)good to show the exchange students another place of sweden. *The clear information about what to hand in and what the course should learn. *The final crits in half groups, sad to not see all presentations but now all groups got more time and discussion and everyone got energy to listen carefully and the nice finally on friday evening.»
- The option to choose your own plot. It makes the course more interesting.»
- I really enjoyed the one on one half hour consultation, which was really helpful.»
- the freedom we had: to be able to organize our schedule by ourselves. »
- study trip!so usefull!»
- introducing lectures at the beginning, way of working on final project - in groups»
- Lectures & workshop & mid-crits»

11. What shuold be changed the nest year?

- the first assigment took too much time and was not very useful.»
- When we have a deadline, don"t put another time for latest submission on the student portal. Very confusing, all students will believe that the deadline has been moved and all teachers will be annoyed that the student don"t hand in earlier...»
- The written deadline should also be the deadline for "filinlämningen" on the course homepage.»
- Are we really speaking about "extreme inventions"?»
- I think the time that rest at the end to do the project in the step 2 is too short. We would have seen deeper analysis and research if we could have had more time to do that...»
- Maybe an earlier start of the main exercise.»
- The workshop could been earlier. »
- More space in the studio.»
- Students working on similar sites could cooperate in linking there projects as joint interventions in whole areas. More time should be allocated for the final main project and time reduced for the first assignment which was primarily research.»
- Shorten the time for the first two tasks or make higher requirements for them so that we learn more. the trip could preferably have been scheduled sooner in the course.»
- Starting the main project earlier, and incorporating the preliminary exercises as part of the main project, so that the research exercise can be directed towards the main project. To make it possible to keep the mixed grouping of the research exercise, there can be a list of research topics, and each person, or one person from each group, choose a topic, and they research with other people from other groups who chose the same topic. Eg. Research topics on flexibility, on floating systems, etc. In that way, people will still have a chance to cooperate with people outside their project group. In the project groups, every member would have focused their research on different topics, and there will be many discussions when they discuss how to apply each of their topic in the project. For people working individually, they can focus their project on the topic they researched, while still getting the chance to work in a group when researching the topic. By starting the main project earlier, it gives the opportunity to reach a higher level of investigation, focus, and detail.»
- size of the studio - should be bigger.»
- More consultations. Three times are to little.»
- a bit more time for the main project, during mid critics - limitation of time for presentation and comments, both for students and teachers»
- more lectures, and examples of extreme housing. The outcome of the proposals were not that "extreme". I / we used mostly knowledge that I/we had from before»
- *Stick to the deadline when it is set, to skip missunderstandings etc.»
- More people at the final critique...guess that had to do with this years vulcano crisis?»
- was given too much time for the first two project.»
- the two first smaller assignments should perhaps bwe three instead of two and should both have assigned groups instead of chosen (like the second one had this year), THere should be smaller SEMINARS to present resjults of them rather than the very critique like situation this year.»
- more consultations maybe?»
- way of working on second assignment (forcing to work with somebody). It would work better If we had a choice with which sweedish student we would like to work.»
- more lectures»

12. Other comments

- Great course, truly interesting! Good consultation, Kajsa Crona was a great tutor! »
- Thanks for a great course!»
- Different teacher at this school have different attitudes to deadlines and work loads. Last term in the matter space course Morten Lund expected that students would sit all night and work and therefore work was always submitted in the mornings before presentations started. Therefore, I can understand if it is confusing with different practises on handing in times. Many students thought hand in was ok until 23 as said in the studieportal, and were surprised that you complained that we handed in late during the critique. If you wanted us to hand in the work for submission at 17.00, I think you should close the home page "filinlämning" at that time so that no misinterpretations can be made. Thanks for a good course!»
- this housing course was more exciting than the one last semester, thank you.»
- A really nice ending of the course at Olas place!!!»
- A great course with teachers who are engaged! A very nice studdy trip as well. The critics was also very good. I really appreciate that we got so much time for the critics, that always feels good when you have worked hard. And that the one who gives the critic has gain insight into your project. Also good with the tutorials. Both the tutors were given us good opinion and new views.»
- nice study trip, very inspirational»

Kursutvärderingssystem från