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.
MPARE Building Design Laboratory ht-10 ARK340
Status: Avslutad Öppen för svar: 2010-10-22 - 2010-11-02 Antal svar: 7 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 58% Kontaktperson: Lena Axelsson» Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers Klass: Övriga Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Arkitektur och teknik 300 hp
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 1To create mathematical, physical and parametric-controlled digital models for simulation, rendering and animation in order to explore space and movement, structure and climate.7 svarande
Very insufficient» | | 1 | | 14% |
Insufficient» | | 1 | | 14% |
Sufficient» | | 5 | | 71% |
Excellent» | | 0 | | 0% |
No opinion» | | 0 | | |
Genomsnitt: 2.57 - It was a very good introduction to lower the step to actually using these tools for design.» (Sufficient)
2. Learning outcome 2To describe the interplay between space and movement, how spaces shape peoples movement, how the experience of space depends on certain movement, and how the character of the movement affect the experience.7 svarande
Very insufficient» | | 0 | | 0% |
Insufficient» | | 0 | | 0% |
Sufficient» | | 5 | | 71% |
Excellent» | | 2 | | 28% |
No opinion» | | 0 | | |
Genomsnitt: 3.28 - A new way of looking at architecture for me. Learned a lot with this.» (Excellent)
3. Learning outcome 3To design an architectural concept and by use of spatial characteristics direct a movement and a spatial experience.7 svarande
Very insufficient» | | 0 | | 0% |
Insufficient» | | 2 | | 33% |
Sufficient» | | 4 | | 66% |
Excellent» | | 0 | | 0% |
No opinion» | | 1 | | |
Genomsnitt: 2.66 - It was of course a short task, but by discussing each others projects a broad view was created anyhow.» (Sufficient)
4. Learning outcome 4To describe the interplay between experience, usefulness, and an adaptive structure, how an adaptivit structure aids an efficient use of material and energy, and how spatial adaptivity opens for a multipurpose use of a building.7 svarande
Very insufficient» | | 0 | | 0% |
Insufficient» | | 4 | | 66% |
Sufficient» | | 1 | | 16% |
Excellent» | | 1 | | 16% |
No opinion» | | 1 | | |
Genomsnitt: 2.5 - Don"t seem to recall really handeling this topic in classes.» (Insufficient)
5. Learning outcome 5To design an architectural concept capable of handling the variations in interior och exterior loads (example: by adaptivity, spatial design or material properties).
6 svarande
Very insufficient» | | 0 | | 0% |
Insufficient» | | 2 | | 33% |
Sufficient» | | 4 | | 66% |
Excellent» | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 2.66 - It was a nice approach, basic graphs giving a good insight. » (Sufficient)
6. Are the aims and goals reasonable in relation to your pre-knowledge ?7 svarande
No, the goals are to elementar» | | 0 | | 0% |
Yes, the goals are reasonable» | | 7 | | 100% |
No, the goals are too ambitious» | | 0 | | 0% |
No opinion» | | 0 | | |
Genomsnitt: 2
Education and course administration7. What support have you got for your learning from course literature and other material?7 svarande
Very little» | | 1 | | 16% |
Rather little» | | 2 | | 33% |
Rather big» | | 3 | | 50% |
Very big» | | 0 | | 0% |
No opinion» | | 1 | | |
Genomsnitt: 2.33 - Not so much support from that, but was not really necessary either.» (Rather little)
- IDA good
CATIA bad» (Rather big)
- Bra tutorials för CATIA och IDA» (Rather big)
8. How did the organisation, memoranda, direct information etc. function?7 svarande
Very bad» | | 0 | | 0% |
Rather bad» | | 2 | | 28% |
Rather well» | | 4 | | 57% |
Very well» | | 1 | | 14% |
No opinion» | | 0 | | |
Genomsnitt: 2.85 - Schemat kom väldigt sent.» (Rather bad)
Work environment9. How do you rate the possibilities to get assistance and ask questions?7 svarande
Very bad» | | 1 | | 14% |
Rather bad» | | 0 | | 0% |
Rather well» | | 4 | | 57% |
Very well» | | 2 | | 28% |
I have not asked for assistance» | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 3 - Extremly hard to get help from Sergio» (Very bad)
- Difficult to get help when you needed it in the CATIA course part.» (Rather well)
- Vi är ju inte en så stor grupp... Men under CATIA kunde det ändå dröja väldigt länge innan man fick hjälp, det är inte okej att behöva vänta 1,5 timme på hjälp.» (Rather well)
10. How has the cooperation between you and students in your group been?7 svarande
Very bad» | | 0 | | 0% |
Rather bad» | | 0 | | 0% |
Rather good» | | 2 | | 28% |
Very good» | | 5 | | 71% |
I have not tried to cooperate» | | 0 | | 0% |
Genomsnitt: 3.71
Concluding questions11. What is your overall opinion of the course?7 svarande
Very bad» | | 0 | | 0% |
Bad» | | 0 | | 0% |
Passed» | | 5 | | 71% |
Good» | | 1 | | 14% |
Very good» | | 1 | | 14% |
Genomsnitt: 3.42 - It feels a bit unnecessary to put that much time in learning programs that you will probably never work with again. I liked the first part of the course though.» (Passed)
- Delarna hänger inte ihop så bra och det blir svårt att koppla kontoret vi gjorde i den första delen med de andra. Känns lite konstlat. » (Passed)
- I"ve learned a lot. If it"s enough we will find out in the next course.» (Very good)
12. What should be preserved next year?- CATIA and the workshop with movement, but it could have been a bit shorter and a bit more analysing of the movement. »
- The first part of the course!!! Very useful in my further work. »
- It was very nice too be in the Asplundbuilding and I think that we had a good discussion about movment.
I did not attend the IDA part but i think it´,s a good program.»
- Studiebesöket på rådhuset var bra och jag lärde mig/repeterade en del byggfysik under IDA-delen. Max var en bra och inspirerande lärare.»
- Every different part was interesting so they should be preserved, but try to connect them better and give a better introduction whats the purpose whit the course. Study visit to Strängbetong was interesting.»
13. What should be changed the next year?- could do without the dance exercises at asplund. movement in space doesn"t necessarily mean dancing.
»
- The IDA part. Could have been more theorethical and not so focused on the program. And when teaching IDA the students should sit in front of a computer from the start.»
- The CATIA and IDA part could be a lot shorter. When the teacher says you will have to use CATIA in five years to be able to use it properly, it kind of feels a bit useless to put two weeks in to it. You will not be able to use the program to model buildings anyway. »
- The CATIA part was very bad.
The assignment was not suitable and we never learned the program well enough to use the program ourselves. I dont think it was right to put two weeks of work into something that we´,ll never use again. The program is to complex to use for architectual purposes in my opinion. Serio is not a good educator/pedagogue.»
- Bra om delarna hänger ihop mer»
- Create a better link between the different parts of the course, so you have the feeling that it"s all 1 course instead of 3 seperate ones.»
- See above.»
14. Other comments- Väldigt oklart vad man fick/inte fick göra under CATIA-delen, fokus flyttas lite från att lära sig programmet till att fundera över vad man ska (får) göra.
Dessutom, vem ska sätta betyg? Ingen lärare har följt oss och vi har inte haft någon slutinlämning eller kritik. Känns väldigt konstigt.»
Kursutvärderingssystem från
|