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 and Communication Tools, ARK 440

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-10-21 - 2011-11-21
Antal svar: 27
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 79%
Kontaktperson: Daniel Norell»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Arkitektur 300 hp
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Arkitektur 300 hp

1. The instructors in the course were good at explaining things to us

27 svarande

Absolutely not»0 0%
Hardly»1 3%
Maybe / maybe not»2 7%
Fairly good»11 40%
Very good»13 48%

Genomsnitt: 4.33

2. The instructors motivated me to perform well

27 svarande

Absolutely not»0 0%
Hardly»1 3%
Maybe / maybe not»0 0%
Fairly good»11 40%
Very good»15 55%

Genomsnitt: 4.48

3. This course seems relevant to my future professional life

27 svarande

Absolutely not»0 0%
Hardly»1 3%
Maybe / maybe not»4 14%
Fairly good»10 37%
Very good»12 44%

Genomsnitt: 4.22

4. I was mostly clear on how I was doing in terms of achieving the course goals

27 svarande

Absolutely not»1 3%
Hardly»0 0%
Maybe / maybe not»3 11%
Fairly good»16 59%
Very good»7 25%

Genomsnitt: 4.03

5. The instructors spent enough time commenting on our work

27 svarande

Absolutely not»0 0%
Hardly»2 7%
Maybe / maybe not»3 11%
Fairly good»8 29%
Very good»14 51%

Genomsnitt: 4.25

6. This course stimulated me to active self-study

27 svarande

Absolutely not»0 0%
Hardly»0 0%
Maybe / maybe not»3 11%
Fairly good»12 44%
Very good»12 44%

Genomsnitt: 4.33

7. We were mostly given enough time to understand things that we were supposed to learn

27 svarande

Absolutely not»1 3%
Hardly»2 7%
Maybe / maybe not»9 33%
Fairly good»11 40%
Very good»4 14%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

8. The communication between students and instructors worked well

27 svarande

Absolutely not»0 0%
Hardly»1 3%
Maybe / maybe not»2 7%
Fairly good»13 48%
Very good»11 40%

Genomsnitt: 4.25

9. The examination / final review requirements were reflected in the course content

27 svarande

Absolutely not»0 0%
Hardly»1 3%
Maybe / maybe not»2 7%
Fairly good»14 51%
Very good»10 37%

Genomsnitt: 4.22

10. Comments on the structure and organization of the course

- Jättebra struktur på kursen, Lätt att följa med och kände sig sällan vilsen. »
- Brilliant! Considering the fact that this was the first time the course was held, I was very content with the outcome and the organization.»
- the course was very interesting and i will recommended it t everyone but it should be 12,5h instead 7,5. It was impossible to finished the project while only working the schedule hours.:(»
- The software tutorials worked excellent as well as the pin ups. It was timeconsuming to do post things on the blog and do the site ananlysis through the Lena Hopsch assignment and I personally think that the Drottningtorget analysis should have been set up earier in the process. Personally I would have appreciated if we could have gotten a clearer presentation on how each material group would develop from technique studies to spacial studies and combining this with a site analysis on day one too be able to make a more thought through decision on which material we were to work with and maybe you can present good examples of student"s processes from this year the next time you run this course. »
- Worked mostly very well! Would have liked to see the final material being exhibited longer that a day (I know that many students that would have loved to see it but didn´,t get the chance)»
- väldigt bra»
- The course as a whole was excellent and I would have given it the highest possible marks if it wasn"t for the totally unrelated workshop about choreagraphy. The instructions and goals in this part was unclear, the lecturers (Lena Hopsch and Gun Lund) came across very unprepared and was reading manuscripts from paper! »
- the course was very intense, maybe there should be more time for group work»
- Poorly organized and unstructured. Time consuming and without clear view on how long it takes to produce something or work for the tutorials.»
- the course was a combination of many things..like having to learn a specific software,materiality and having to design a tram stop...i think it was too much for a short period of time a bit more eclectic than it should be.»
- More organization for the course is imperative.»
- Good participation from Daniel Norell and a very good course! But way too short amount of time for each task, stressful. Very time-consuming with the pin-up presentations each week. Good as consultation but the presentation took a lot of time from the design work. Week 3 with both pin-up and Lena Hopsch assignment was too much since it was supposed to be two separate hand-ins but since we changed that into regular consultation it worked out much better. The software consultation should not be the day after a pin-up but rather a few days before the next. Maybe Monday when you have had Thursday and Friday to sketch in physical model. The final review should be a day after the hand-in so that you have some time and space to breathe and prepare for the verbal presentation and also for the jurors to read the projects beforehand. It was very stressful to build all the frames for the elastic membranes teams. We lost a lot of crucial sketching hours to that...»
- Unusually well for chalmers arch»
- Lack of organization with The Body as Research Tool»
- In general good. For some reason it felt like a rather big leap from experiment to actual project on site.»
- Good and clear structure although the comunication between Lena and Daniel could have been better. Lenas task wasn"t implemented in a very helpful way.»
- it"s very well-organised and structured which is strongly appreciated»
- It was a bit "too little of both". From what I understood the point was to (finally) get to learn some digital tools, but then we also had to make physical models. I understand the importance of working with both, but from an educational standpoint (at least for me personally) it would be better to, for once, get to focus on the digital parts. We"ve been doing physical models since year 1. In that aspect, we should"ve had more tutorials, more time with the people who knows the different applications etc.»
- I really like this kind of experimental on materials. However, the course was too shot, it could be expand to 6-8 weeks. »
- the course is bigger than the amount of credits we got. »
- I think Daniel is quite talent and try to push us to progress both in the study of material and the learning of software. And I think it works quite well, except a little much work to do~»

11. Comments on brief, intro lecture and assignments

- Tror vi alla uppskattade dator-programs undervisningen. Einar Anna och Frans var väldigt duktiga! Mer sådant på Chalmers!!!»
- It"s a good and relevant course! »
- Loved it. Been longing for a course like this. »
- alla var väldigt inspererande»
- Everything in order, clear enough, thought through.»
- a lot a effort was put into it and was good.»
- Don"t read a paper when you have a presentation, otherwise you loose the auditorium.»
- See nr 10»
- clear assignment sheets and info»
- Very pleased by the course. I good way of approaching a task, when it comes to proccess. Go between rhino and pysical model. Also interesting to start with a material, have never approached a task in that way before but will consider it as an option in future projects.»
- well-structured»
- No remarks.»
- All the intro are very clear. »
- clear and instructive»

12. Comments on course contents, such as tutorials, pin-ups, handouts, etc.

- The computer tutorials were insufficient. Two hours each week is way too short for us to learn the complex software. Einar was however fantastic as our tutor - very nice, skillful and humble.»
- It was really good communicated, we often don"t get that clear hand outs in any other courses so that and your mail contact worked really well. »
- Sometimes the goals seemed very ambitious, but it made it produce a lot of material and push ourselves. We spend a lot of time working outside "office hours", something that might cause problems for some people (that might have kids etc).»
- konceptet med pin-ups fungerade väldigt bra, blev bara en krok under Lenas vecka som hade kunnat vara bättre integrerad i kursen som helhet.»
- Great!»
- Time issue again: unbearable tempo for only 7.5 ECTS, overlapping of certain requirements. Also, group time has to be more organized and professors as well as students should stick to the schedule. A pin-up once a week is a good idea, but there should be enough time in between so that groups can actually produce something. »
- pin up every week is a good thing..it meant that we have to produce every week.if one thing that should be kept from the course is pin ups every week.»
- Less work on a project, it"s only a course of 7.5C. More time to learn Architectures softwares.»
- See nr 10 Great effort from Einar Rodhe and Daniel Norell!»
- all was clearly organized and worked well»
- Good tutors, Anna was great! Good pin-ups as well. »
- very clear and straightforward comments that is easy to comprehand»
- No remarks.»
- Tutorials were very useful and also comments from pin-ups.»
- Greate tutors and guest critics! Always good constructive criticism. »
- I wanted to be able to learn more but because of the amount of work, we had to divide the work so only one of our three group got a good understandig of one of grasshoppe. The other two had to mostly guess.»
- I do really like communicate with Daniel and Anna, and we can always get inspiration and encourage from them.»

13. Comments on guest lectures (Michael Hensel, Kivi Sotamaa)

- Kivi"s lecture seemed more relevant and inspirational to me and to this course than Michaels. But even so, both of them were very good.»
- I missed the Kivi Sotama lecture and I wished it had been given at an earlier date than right before the hand-in. Michael Hensel"s lecture was a good input on trying to work on materiality and details with hierarchy on different levels - inspiring I would say. »
- Interesting lectures, too bad Kivi Sotamaa´,s were held on a day when all student felt very stressed and many didn´,t show up.»
- Good.»
- michael hensel was inspirational.»
- Interesting»
- Michael Hensel was interesting. Unfortunately I didn"t manage to go to Kivi Sotamaa since the hand-in was one day later so that lecture should probably have been scheduled earlier in the course.»
- fantastic»
- Interesting and relevant!»
- very relevant to course»
- It is very good to have guest lectures tied to the course. I went to Hensels lecture and although the subject interests me the lecture was a sleeping pill, with lots of diagrams. I couldn"t go to Sotamaas lecture, so I cannot comment on it.»
- The lectures are heplful and expanded my ideas, I really like these kind of lectures. »
- interesting, showing me more possibility of architecture.»

14. Comments on course litterature

- I read parts of it and enhanced my interest for working in a new manner than what we are used to at this school.»
- Literature was interesting and if we only had time to spend reading it, it would have been very helpful. »
- helpful.»
- did not have time to read course litterature which is a pity since I suspect it"s really good texts»
- Interesting and relevant!»
- it was very helpful»
- No remarks.»
- The literatures, even I haven"t read all of them but I like, Rahm and Differential Gravities.»
- i didnt have the time to rad much. We were working 10 hours every day.»
- instructive, not only for this course, but for the whole thinking and understanding of architecture.»

15. Comments on workshop - The Body as Research Tool

- Kursens enda stora frågetecken. Det gav ingenting. Ett besök på tomten kan vi göra utan att kalla det för workshop och site-analys har vi gjort i alla år. Behöver inte ha en dyr koreograf som hjälper oss. Det skapar en stor irritation bland eleverna när Chalmers lägger mängder av pengar på strunt och sen tex. låter elever köpa sina egna strumpbyxor, plast eller kartonger. !! Gun Lund är väldigt duktig på det hon gör men när vi plötsligt blir inkastade en halv dag blir det hela bara fånigt. »
- It was a fun thing, but frankly speaking, I personally think that the workshop took unnecessarily alot of time. One day would have been enough for this experiment. Besides, the lecture which Lena held was nothing more than listening to a person reading a text. In fact, it was the worst lecture I have witnessed throughout my education. If the text was considered so important, it could have been listed as compulsory literature study? Second, when people are stressed with developing an idea, going from the phase of research to design, there is absolutely no motivation at all to spend time studying the flow of Brunnsparken when the actual site is Drottningtorget. Thirdly, the hand in requirements of this workshop were also absurd and time-consuming. Why couldn"t we just have presented the results of this workshop orally? Like for instance, instead of having a pin-up on wednesday week 3 on the project assignment only, we could have had a pin-up on friday with both things included? Maybe then, the workshop would appear more relevant as we will be forced to use it to develop a strong site strategy?»
- this workshop supposed to be in the beginning of the course before students start to think about the design project.»
- I liked the assigment, but I think we could have made so much more use of it if it was scheduled week 2 instead. Further, I didn"t see the point in having a separate hand-in. It was just time-consuming and it was difficult to make use of all material for the final hand-in. The good thing was that the "dance" on Drottningtorget made us move in a manner that we would normally do, and thus made us see and analyse things we otherwise might have missed. But as I said, it almost took a week of our time and I think that we could have achieved a better final result if this assignment was shorter and scheduled earlier and that the material was supposed to only be handed in with the final hand-in. »
- The only thing I really didn´,t like with this course. Felt very forced to have this right in the middle of everything. Gun Lund and Lena Hopsch seems like nice people, but the whole dance thing felt very awkward (and embarrassing!) and didn´,t add much to the course.»
- Lena till vilken nytta! Hon har jätte bra tankar men det är alldeles för långt bort från kursen i sin helhet, för att det ska fungera krävs bättre förklaring av syftet med workshopen. Det räcker inte med att Lena står och mal på med ansiktet ner i ett papper och nämner att hon har varit på konferens i Istanbul 7 gånger. Om vi hade fått en förklaring till hur vi kan använda dom känslor/iakttagelser som uppkommer under workshopen för att förstärka eller eliminera dessa.»
- Totally unrelated! The instructions and goals in this part was unclear, the lecturers (Lena Hopsch and Gun Lund) came across very unprepared and was reading manuscripts from paper, dropping everyones interest to zero! »
- was great! and very useful»
- Interesting, but placed late in the whole schedule. Also, not completely necessary since students are aware how to do site analysis that includes flow of people. If done, maybe it should be on a less abstract level.»
- well as much as i hated it to perfor it in the city...surprisingly, it did help.»
- Funny & interesting»
- Very good for you to experience the space but it could maybe be a bit shorter because of the crammed schedule during this course. That week had very little time for the design project.»
- Although Gun Lund was fantastic, the workshop was the weakest part of the course, too much introduction lectures and should have been preformed first thing after the 2nd pin-up to be included in work properly.»
- Not good at all. The intention might have been good but the outcome was not.»
- Needs organization, better timing and stronger relevance to the course itself.»
- Irrelevant! A normal site visit would have done the same job.»
- To be honest, not very helpful at all! I think body in space as theory is important and relevant to the course but in the way we did it, not very much. Feels wierd that a profetional coreograf shows us some "dance moves". When we don"t have time and/or ability to perform a proper dance, then I"d rather do somthing else. Besides, it would be more relevant to in a way do a workshop with our bodies as research tools "in" our actual design. Not sure how that would be made, maybe by imaginaring our placements and go from there instead of "dancing" on the square. Also, Lena should be able to talk freely about her PHC and not read from a paper. Made the lecture very uninteresting and dificult to keep the spirit up. The content is surely good but the way she is presenting it isn"t very interesting. Also, the work shop should have been implemented in the final product instead of just sending a pdf without any comments. If the workshop would have been succesful, then why didn"t it show in the results? Just saying that some changed their positions isn"t very convinsing to me.»
- Interesting and different perspective of things»
- I think it is hard to comment on this without writing negative comments on a personal level, therefore I will not.»
- Nice to see the reaction of people, while we were walking and moving.»
- felt like a "first year" workshop»
- good but it didnt work together with the rest of the program. I dont understand why we had a hand in?!»
- Den delen av kursen som kändes lite svår att ta till sig. Just delen med Gun Lund fick jag inte ut så mycket av, skulle hellre tex hyrt in en fotograf och haft en fotokurs hur man dokumenterar platsen. »
- it"s interesting to have this experience, but the workshop was influenced too much by the weather, which may induce the effect.»

16. Suggested improvements

- Ta bort workshopen. »
- See point 15 and 17.»
- maybe it will be better to focus only on workshops for example interested of having finale presentation in the end have more smaller finale presentation every week. One week workshop with materials. One week focus only on digital design, one week shape and placement of the tram station»
- See written above. Please talk to the computer guy Erik Andersson about creating a server folder for all groups to use for saving and charing material within each group. This year we organized this ourselves and it"s useful since I know some groups worked on USB-sticks and that"s just timeconsuming and messy. Thanks.»
- Skip the Lena Hopsch part.»
- Lena borde gå ark316. Genomgångarna av grasshopper skulle jag uppskatta att man börjar med vad man vill åstadkomma och sedan visar på resan dit. nu visades det en massa saker som man kunde göra utan till synes något mål.»
- Remove the workshop!»
- Either change the number of total credit points for the course or change the number of working hours for it.»
- i really feel this course would be great if it was only about materiality or learning a new software ie grasshopper...really felt like putting feet on 2 boats and some how the boats were going in opposite direction.»
- More structure, more organization, more tutorials.»
- See nr 10»
- No workshop in brunnsparken. No lectures to introduce workshop. I"m sorry to say that Lenas lectures were very badly preformed just reading from a paper, nobody listened.»
- Skip the workshop (the body as a research tool) and replace it with a workshop with a stronger research concept and relevance or spend the money on more tutoring and materials for the course.»
- Everything being said above!»
- more time could be given on exploring the software. »
- See question 10.»
- more credits, a bit smaller requirements.»
- this is not a long term course, but maybe contain too much work to do. I think for the workshop, the body as research tool, maybe it is enough for us to understand by lectures and movie.»

17. Other comments

- Totaltsett väldigt nöjd! Chalmers behöver fler kurser av den här typen! Härligt med nya engagerade ansikten på Chalmers! Dock kändes det av slutkritiken att dömma som om eleverna tolkade kursen som om den hette "materialitet" och kritikerna som om det hette " bus-stop" men den heter i själva verket "design tools". Även om slutkritiken var givande och rättvis så till nästa gång kanske klargöra lite mer vad som faktiskt är kursens fokus. »
- A really good and inspiring course! Daniel: driven course instructor with great dose of enthusiasm and commitment that eventually got transmitted to us students. Also great fun to see that the teacher himself thinks is fun to teach, that is eager to follow our process and that tries to interact with us as much as possible. I do think however that he (you)can be a little bit too nice from time to time, especially on the first pin-up. For many students, this kind of course in parametric design and material research is perhaps our very first one. It can put us in a confusing situation, just as back in the first year, of not knowing whether or not we"re on the right track. The difference is that we"re now fifth year students, and therefore I believe, it"s even harder to ask if we don"t understand as we"re supposed to understand. Hence, i think it is important to tell us, good or bad. right or wrong. if something is a case of what the fuck, it would only be good for us to hear that. Example 1. One common question discussed among some of us the first days was whether or not the material we did the research for should be the same as the 1:1 proposal. That some of us took it to the literal level - a tram stop by wooden sticks, or in pure fabric. Example 2. After the final critics, many of us discussed that we thought the main purpose of this course was to focus on innovative use of material, developing techniques. That the tram stop was just the easiest/smallest program to test our ideas on. yet, there were proposals seen with little material research and very much emphasis on the architectural aspect/site strategy. Just to me, being a fifth year student, we don"t need a course of 7.5 credits to design a tram stop with no other additional function or programs. To wrap up, i think you should put a little bit more emphasis on what you want the students to focus on. even if it is okay to be general and a little bit broad, i still think you should tell us that we lack depth if that was the case. Thanks for the great efforts in this course, daniel! »
- As i wrote before the course was interesting but it need to be better planned(time schedule). Also i appreciate that we had a good contact with Daniel he is easy to speak to.He is very nice and ambitious teacher.»
- I spend an avarage of 16 hours a day at the studio and I"m still not too happy about the final result, and of course it would have felt better to have something great for the portfolio rather than just the process, but altogether it"s a good and relevant course which was carefully planned and well followed through. »
- Daniel Norell is a real find! Great teacher, and with a point of view that has been missing at Chalmers. You can tell that he likes his job, he feels committed to the students and has an inspiring, but yet humble way about him. I would recommend this course to next years students. »
- Daniel, väldigt inspirerande! Samt bra handledare»
- I"m sorry to give such hard feedback on the course, but I think that it might sometimes be necessary. »
- In the future, maybe one of the solutions is to focus on one method more - only analogue or digital work.»
- well this was a great course and learnt a lot but really wished it was a longer course.»
- Improve the relation between the students and the teachers with more teacher presence. »
- Don"t invite a juror if he doesn"t have time to look at all the projects. It was rather inappropriate when Jonas Lundberg had to work during the presentations.»
- In general one of the best courses I ever took, Daniel should take over chalmers arch! »
- Thanks for a interesting course! I learned a lot and got lots of inspiration! »
- No remarks.»
- no hand in for the lena hopsh workshop....»
- Sorry for lating answer.....I forgot it. sorry...»

Kursutvärderingssystem från