Visa resultat

MPDSD Design Systems 2011, ARK176

Goals and fullfilment of goals

1. Learning outcome 1*

27 svarande

Very insufficient»		0		0%
Insufficient»		0		0%
Sufficient»		24		96%
Excellent»		1		4%
No opinion»		2

Genomsnitt: 3.04 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I am still not sure what the definition of systems thinking is.» (Sufficient)

2. Learning outcome 2*

27 svarande

Very insufficient»		0		0%
Insufficient»		13		52%
Sufficient»		12		48%
Excellent»		0		0%
No opinion»		2

Genomsnitt: 2.48 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- didn´,,t see the different approaches you are talking about. I just saw the systems thinking as a one. Maybe it is me not understanding the question or maybe it is you failing to present the different approaches?...» (Insufficient)
- See comment above.» (Insufficient)
- I would have wanted more examples of different approaches/methods. Not knowing almost any when you started wasted a lot of time.» (Insufficient)

3. Learning outcome 3*

27 svarande

Very insufficient»		1		3%
Insufficient»		3		11%
Sufficient»		20		74%
Excellent»		2		7%
No opinion»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.96 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

4. Learning outcome 4*

27 svarande

Very insufficient»		0		0%
Insufficient»		6		25%
Sufficient»		16		66%
Excellent»		2		8%
No opinion»		3

Genomsnitt: 2.83 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- would have been easier to start with very simple systems, or at least clear limits for the systems, since it is a lot to handle at first» (Insufficient)

5. Learning outcome 5*

27 svarande

Very insufficient»		0		0%
Insufficient»		10		40%
Sufficient»		12		48%
Excellent»		3		12%
No opinion»		2

Genomsnitt: 2.72 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- the instructions could have been clearer about what was expected from us when it came to writing the design program. A program can be so much, just as a system. Clearer defintions, limits!» (Insufficient)

6. Learning outcome 6*

27 svarande

Very Insufficient»		1		3%
Insufficient»		8		30%
Sufficient»		15		57%
Excellent»		2		7%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 2.69 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Too little time!!! 2 days is not enough. » (Very Insufficient)
- not go through well from the first assignment to the third» (Insufficient)
- The transition from drawing of systems into a deign proposal was difficult. Would be nice to have an real life example of it.» (Insufficient)

7. Are these objectives reasonable in relation to your pre-knowledge?*

No, the goals are to elementary»		1		4%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»		20		90%
No, the goals are too ambitious»		1		4%
No opinion»		5

Genomsnitt: 2

- I don´,,t think it is the goals that are set to high, more the examples presented when first introducing us to the world of systems. There was a gap in between the level of the examples and the level were we were at...It could have been made easier, systems themselves are complex, wouldn´,,t hurt with an easier start. More limits, clearer definitions, again.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- Yes, given that you get a bit more from the lectures, for example about different approaches.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)

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

No, the goals are to elementary»		0		0%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»		14		58%
No, the goals are too ambitious»		10		41%
No opinion»		3

Genomsnitt: 2.41

- The goals are not clear.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- Its not the goals but rather the brief that was the issue... » (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- If the assignment description and the instructions had been clearer from the beginning, it would"ve been ok. As it was, there was too much frustration and confusion to make a good job and learn properly.» (No, the goals are too ambitious)
- to little time to apply assignment 1 and 2 to asignment 3.» (No, the goals are too ambitious)
- The goals may not be too ambitious, but the course as a whole was WAY too large for the amount of credits.» (No, the goals are too ambitious)
- Very intense course, a lot of work in relation to the credits!» (No, the goals are too ambitious)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.78

Lectures

9. Systems thinking in design work - Duzan Doepel*

Not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		8		34%
Quite well»		10		43%
Excellently»		5		21%
No opinion»		4

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- a lot of them were not relevant. I would have prefered a larger range of different approaches. More experimental ways of using digital tools in systems thinking.» (To some extent)
- can"t remember who was who» (No opinion)

10. A road map to systems thinking - Jaan-Henrik Kain*

Not at all»		3		14%
To some extent»		12		57%
Quite well»		5		23%
Excellently»		1		4%
No opinion»		6

Genomsnitt: 2.19

- It would be nice to have the course and systems thinking approach defined, see question 1.» (To some extent)

11. System Dynamics - Patrik Wallman*

Not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		7		30%
Quite well»		12		52%
Excellently»		4		17%
No opinion»		4

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- The lecture was relevant, however the jargon of the lecturer was a bit too condescending... » (Quite well)

12. Workshop in System Dynamics - Patrik Wallman*

Not at all»		1		4%
To some extent»		6		24%
Quite well»		16		64%
Excellently»		2		8%
No opinion»		2

Genomsnitt: 2.76

- Workshop was sort of misleading - there was just one excersize during that day. Personally I would have benefited more from a whole day with different assignments to get the hang of it. More trial and error.» (Not at all)

13. Strategic Choice Approach - John Friend*

Not at all»		6		33%
To some extent»		7		38%
Quite well»		4		22%
Excellently»		1		5%
No opinion»		9

Genomsnitt: 2

14. Economy - Anders Ekbom*

Not at all»		1		5%
To some extent»		9		52%
Quite well»		7		41%
Excellently»		0		0%
No opinion»		10

Genomsnitt: 2.35

15. Nature + Environment - Ulrika Palme*

Not at all»		3		13%
To some extent»		9		39%
Quite well»		6		26%
Excellently»		5		21%
No opinion»		4

Genomsnitt: 2.56

- This is a repetition of previous courses in my bachelour.» (Not at all)
- Good systems thinking, but not exactly relevant to the actual course» (Quite well)
- I really enjoyed this lecture!» (Excellently)
- Had alredy listen to that one» (No opinion)

16. Urban systems and the body as metaphor - Sigrid Östlund*

Not at all»		1		4%
To some extent»		7		29%
Quite well»		10		41%
Excellently»		6		25%
No opinion»		3

Genomsnitt: 2.87

- maybe would have been better when given in a less stressful way» (To some extent)
- Should have taken more time/place in the course, could have been good if given better oppurtunity» (Quite well)
- I couldn"t exactly get out what she wanted us to learn from the lecture.» (Quite well)
- More of this would be interesting.» (Quite well)
- Would have liked to have an extension to this lecture, where the concept could have been delevoped and explained further... Analogies offer a very grateful type of pedagogy. » (Quite well)
- My only complaint was that the lecture was too short - it felt sort of rushed.» (Excellently)

17. Planning Strategically from a Systems Perspective - Shawn Westcott*

Not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		4		18%
Quite well»		12		54%
Excellently»		6		27%
No opinion»		5

Genomsnitt: 3.09

18. Workshop: Planning Strategically from a Systems Perspective - Shawn Westcott*

Not at all»		1		4%
To some extent»		6		25%
Quite well»		10		41%
Excellently»		7		29%
No opinion»		3

Genomsnitt: 2.95

19. Participatory processes as systems - Jaan-Henrik Kain*

Not at all»		4		19%
To some extent»		10		47%
Quite well»		6		28%
Excellently»		1		4%
No opinion»		6

Genomsnitt: 2.19

20. Environmental certification and design - Louise Kronander*

Not at all»		5		23%
To some extent»		8		38%
Quite well»		5		23%
Excellently»		3		14%
No opinion»		6

Genomsnitt: 2.28

- This could also have been a longer lecture to give the lecturer a possiblity to elaborate a bit further about the topic. And possibly connect it to systems thinking? » (Excellently)

21. From systems to design: Creativity - Birger Sevaldsson*

Not at all»		3		15%
To some extent»		7		35%
Quite well»		4		20%
Excellently»		6		30%
No opinion»		7

Genomsnitt: 2.65

- Very funny and enthusiastic speaker!» (Excellently)

22. From systems to design: Synthesizing - Birger Sevaldson*

Not at all»		3		16%
To some extent»		4		22%
Quite well»		5		27%
Excellently»		6		33%
No opinion»		9

Genomsnitt: 2.77

23. Workshop: From systems to design - Birger Sevaldsson & Norwegian students*

Not at all»		2		10%
To some extent»		7		35%
Quite well»		4		20%
Excellently»		7		35%
No opinion»		7

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- The workshop was a good idea - but badly prepared in terms of both material and schedule. The Norwegian students were both better prepared and far more advanced in systems thinking. I didn"t feel as it we could provide necessary input to their projects. » (Quite well)
- It was quite fun, but it was hard to explain the complex systems we had made in such short time for the Norwegian students. But what I realized during the workshop is that they had a much better approach to problem solving then our course AND they had much longer time to do it.» (Excellently)

24. Parametric Design - Jonas Runberger*

Not at all»		1		5%
To some extent»		6		35%
Quite well»		8		47%
Excellently»		2		11%
No opinion»		10

Genomsnitt: 2.64

- Possibly a bit to far from the approach that was the scope of the course. The topics was rather unrelated to the course, however the lecture was interesting and stimulating. » (Excellently)

25. Debate: The use of systems in design processes - Ante Flygare & Sigrid Östlund*

Not at all»		1		5%
To some extent»		3		15%
Quite well»		8		42%
Excellently»		7		36%
No opinion»		8

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- The "debate" seemed rather absent. But interesting to see how to use systems in the design process.» (Quite well)

Education and course administration

26. What support did you get for your learning from course literature and other material?*

Very little»		1		4%
Rather little»		12		48%
Rather big»		9		36%
Very big»		3		12%
No opinion»		2

Genomsnitt: 2.56

- It was too much to read under too short time. Harder to learn under stress.» (Rather little)
- some were good but some were not» (Rather little)
- Some texts were of great value and others were not. The text about leverage points were very useful.» (Rather little)
- In the first texts for literature seminar 1, there were only 1 or 2 that felt relevant for the course.» (Rather little)
- Once more the discreppancy between the litterature and course brief was partially lacking. Some texts were relevant, others, especially the ones about parametric design were so remote that it felt more like an insult to be presented with them... » (Rather little)
- I wuold have wanted more about different approaches and less theory.» (Rather little)
- The literature for the first seminar felt a lot more relevant than the second.» (Rather big)
- very interesting literature. Good idea to mix literature with practice, but it was quite much literature though.» (Rather big)

27. Literature seminar 1. To what extent did the literature seminar contribute to the learning outcomes and as support for solving the assignments?*

Not at all»		3		11%
To some extent»		11		42%
Quite well»		10		38%
Excellently»		2		7%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 2.42

- The only text i actually had use of, was the one about leverage points. The seminars contributed very little to solving the actual assignment.» (Not at all)
- Did not feel as if the literature seminar contributed to the assignments - but the discussions were interesting. It might have been of more use if there were guiding questions in relation to the seminar.» (To some extent)

28. Literature seminar 2. To what extent did the literature seminar contribute to the learning outcomes and as support for solving the assignments?*

Not at all»		5		19%
To some extent»		11		42%
Quite well»		8		30%
Excellently»		2		7%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 2.26

- It was difficult to grasp what the literature was supposed to give.» (Not at all)
- Far more intresting» (Not at all)
- See above» (To some extent)
- There were some interesting texts about parametric design, but not all of them were good.» (To some extent)
- It was difficult to focus on the task in Kisumu.» (Quite well)

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

Very bad»		1		4%
Rather bad»		7		28%
Rather well»		11		44%
Very well»		6		24%
No opinion»		2

Genomsnitt: 2.88

- The 100% attendance is not realistic, and that for example a doctor"s appointment or funeral is not valid absence is just not acceptable. We are adults who attend these courses for our own sake and do not need to be checked at every lecture like we were in high-school. The students evaluation of each other is also something that shouldn"t continue. » (Very bad)

30. Assignments. To what extent did Assignment 1 contribute to the learning outcomes?*

Not at all»		1		4%
To some extent»		9		36%
Quite well»		13		52%
Excellently»		2		8%
No opinion»		2

Genomsnitt: 2.64

- The group work was in too large groups. half the group didn"t work but only slowed down the process and made motivation hard for us who had to do all the work for them when they were home sleeping. so the organisation (of the course administrators) of the group work, the number of students, how the groups were put together etc really made this course a bad experience. I know most of us didnt want to do the peer evaluation, but we could at least have been given the option to choose our own groups from the start. And why did we have to spend two days working on the wrong thing before we were told how we were expected to do the systems? Making the systems in a more free way like the norwegians would have been more creative and fun. The way we were expected to do them killed all the fun and we lost motivation.» (Not at all)
- This was the part that offered the most new insights, while the succeding steps more was about "systems-washing" a design-process that usually have big similarities to the process expected by the course´,s structure.» (Quite well)

31. Assignments. To what extent did Assignment 2 contribute to the learning outcomes?*

Not at all»		2		8%
To some extent»		15		60%
Quite well»		8		32%
Excellently»		0		0%
No opinion»		2

Genomsnitt: 2.24

- Too little time for this assignment. Especially when only a few people in the group are working or even showing up.» (To some extent)

32. Assignments. To what extent did Assignment 3 contribute to the learning outcomes?*

Not at all»		2		7%
To some extent»		16		61%
Quite well»		6		23%
Excellently»		2		7%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 2.3

- Too little time for this assignment. Especially when only a few people in the group are working or even showing up.» (Not at all)
- There were to little time for this part of the assignment.» (To some extent)

Work environment

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

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		9		33%
Rather good»		15		55%
Very good»		3		11%

Genomsnitt: 2.77

- I would have learned a lot more if things (especially assignment 1) had been explained more thoroughly and the teachers hadn"t been so cryptic.» (Rather bad)
- Very little real feedback in the "tutorials"» (Rather bad)
- There was a possibility to ask questions - but the feedback was scarce. The overall guiding towards completing the assignments were rather absent and my impression is that the teaching staff had a very vague image of the intended outcome and could hence give little assistance and encouragement.» (Rather bad)
- The possibility to ask questions were decent, but the assistance itself was once more showing that there was a slight difference between ambition and actual scope of course.» (Rather bad)
- But the feedback were bad.» (Rather good)
- While in Sweden. It was not so good while we were in Kenya.» (Rather good)

34. How has the cooperation between the students in your group been?*

Very bad»		1		3%
Rather bad»		6		22%
Rather good»		12		44%
Very good»		8		29%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3

- As mentioned above.» (Very bad)
- Mostly due to the obstruese and unusual sort of assignment» (Rather bad)
- First of all - the groups were much too big, hence non efficient. Secondly several of the students in my group were reading another program/courses and could not participate on all meetings so the workload were very much out of balance. The ambition level varied amongst the group - I therefore think that you should be able to design your own group. » (Rather bad)
- The number of members in the group varied a lot which made it hard to get a work-flow going. We also did not have the best of group-dynamics and the frustration during assignment 1 did nothing to help. During the later assignments, the work went smoother.» (Rather good)
- It was a good group of students, but I think that you should be able to choose your own team-mates if wanted, because the ambition-level varied amongst the different group members in different groups.» (Rather good)
- It was good between the most of us, but there was one student that didn"t want to contribute/ put time on the tasks and that sort of made the mood of the entire group go down.» (Rather good)
- I really enjoy working with my Group members , we did a great job! i like the group work very much this time! » (Very good)
- There was a distinct gap between the ambitions of different students, which led to some students being forced to work much more than others. At the same time this is an unavoidable consequence of groupwork... The chosen result is for the students with highest ambition, and says nothing about the general performance of all students in the group... » (Very good)

Concluding questions

35. What is your overall opinion of the course?*

Very bad»		3		11%
Bad»		14		51%
Good»		10		37%
Very good»		0		0%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- I like the teachers as people and they tried, but demanding 100 percent attendance at lectures is plain stupid and only resulted in people not taking part in the group work where they could get away with it, or showing up but not working.» (Very bad)
- I would not recommend it to anyone. In the course description it stated that you should be able to combine the course to your studio - this was clearly limited to the Kisumo students. It was far too time consuming in relation to the amounts of credits.» (Very bad)
- The time spent on the course is not equal to the amount of credits, especially if you compare to the studio, which is the double amount of credits, but didn"t seem like it in the amount of work. The Norwegian course seemed to have a much better layout and content, with a more realistic time and more complex problems.» (Very bad)
- I actually did not like the course. It was interesting to create a design brief - that was the part I liked the most. The third assignment was also kind of good, but I think it"s important during the critique that the comments are adapted to the scope of the assignment. If it"s supposed to be a sketch/concept more than a finished proposal, then the critique need to focus on that and not detailing that hasn"t been worked on.» (Bad)
- It has much more potential» (Bad)
- This is a rather sad comment, since I would choose the course again if given the option to do this semester once more, stil the course was too unsure of what it wanted to get through to the students. Maybe the course could be even more rewarding if the scope was rather more narrow, and the focus was to develop one or possibly two parts of the systems design-approaches? » (Bad)
- This is mainly because I think it didn"t work well to have part of the course in Sweden and part in Kenya.» (Bad)
- The content is interesting, but it would be nice if the strings were tied together in the end.» (Good)

36. What should be preserved next year?

37. What should be changed next year?

38. Other comments...

* obligatoriska frågor