ENKÄTER
 

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.

Course Evaluation MPARC Housing Inventions 2012, ARK136

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-05-04 - 2012-05-28
Antal svar: 15
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: ?%
Kontaktperson: Anna Eriksson»
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

14 svarande

Very insufficient»1 7%
Insufficient»3 21%
Sufficient»5 35%
Excellent»5 35%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3

- Not enough emphasis on the "innovative" part.» (Insufficient)
- Few lectures with innovative examples. » (Insufficient)
- In our taem we learned alot about new ideas etc, but the cours did not bring inovative soulutions and ides in fornt wich I find wierd since the name od the course is inovative & future housing!» (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

14 svarande

Very insufficient»1 7%
Insufficient»1 7%
Sufficient»7 50%
Excellent»5 35%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.14

- Only focus of the early workshops was "usable units" and flexibilit. Shoukd have been a broarder variety in order to promote innovativity. » (Insufficient)
- We learnet this on our own, did not really get any support regarding this subject. The workshops in the beginning helped, but the tutorials was not that supportive.» (Sufficient)

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

14 svarande

No, the goals are to elementar»1 7%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»13 92%
No, the goals are too ambitious»0 0%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 1.92

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

13 svarande

Too small scope in relation to credits»0 0%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»12 100%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»0 0%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 2

- But too much time spent on workshops and similar. Too little time for the actual project. Strange to have the hand in just after Easter break. » (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)

Course Exercises

5. Have the exercise Extreme Housing implied progress in Your project work?

14 svarande

Very insufficient»1 7%
Insufficient»3 21%
Sufficient»6 42%
Excellent»4 28%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.92

- A chance to see a lot of different aspects. Too much time per project presentation though. » (Sufficient)
- We did not really use the excercises, but they where still very good and gave alot!» (Sufficient)

6. Have the exercise Demographic Changes implied progress in Your project work. Are the issues of adaptability, changebility and flexibility of use in Your future work as an architect?

13 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»0 0%
Sufficient»8 66%
Excellent»4 33%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- Bra övningar men lite för många på samma ämne..» (Sufficient)
- bra övningar men det fanns inte plats eller efterfrågades innovation - men skippa gemensamma genomgångar när ni försöker sammanfatta varje projekts intentioner det gav väldigt lite för lärarna var inte tillräckligt inlästa och förberedda» (Sufficient)
- Yes, but there should have been other examples as well. I think the results are very depending on these workshops. A wider spread could have been seen if we weren"t "forced" in this direction. » (Sufficient)
- We did not really use the excercises, but they where still very good and gave alot!» (Sufficient)
- Very good exercise that made work with the real project much smoother. » (Excellent)

7. Have the Workshop implied progress in Your project work. Are the issues of the workshop of use in Your future work as an architect?

14 svarande

Very insufficient»1 7%
Insufficient»0 0%
Sufficient»8 57%
Excellent»5 35%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.21

- I have used workshops as a part of my process to get ideas and learn new things, so yes I think so.» (Sufficient)
- A good startup that gave inspiration and ideas for the project.» (Excellent)

8. Did the study trip include interesting objects and were the objects relevant for the project task?

14 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»0 0%
Sufficient»5 41%
Excellent»7 58%
No opinion»2

Genomsnitt: 3.58

- It was very interesting although there were no examples of what I would call future housing.» (Sufficient)
- Very nice projects, a nicely put together study-trip. Well organised. Not that many projects showing innovative housing though. » (Sufficient)
- Följde ej med pga sjukdom» (No opinion)

9. Did the Mid Critics bring a constructive feed-back on Your project work and were the discussions relevant?

14 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»3 23%
Sufficient»5 38%
Excellent»5 38%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 3.15

- Det var tråkigt att innovativa lösningar inte diskuterades mer om det var målet med kursen» (Insufficient)
- Vi var besvikna över att inte målen för projecten (recreation, innovation and sustainability) togs upp för diskussion. Saknar en plan för hur kritik ges, bör finnas några grundläggande saker som diskuteras utöver projektgruppens egna mål med förslaget. skippa gneomgång av alla förslag - kändes otroligt oförberett och lärarnas presentation av förslagen var missvisande och » (Insufficient)
- The mid crit was a bit lame, did not bring up innovative solutions but rather embracing wath is already known and used today. » (Insufficient)
- Goog feed-back, but not at all focusing on the innovative hoiusing, sustainability etc. » (Sufficient)

10. Did the Final Critics bring a constructive feed-back on Your project work and were the discussions relevant?

14 svarande

Very insufficient»2 14%
Insufficient»3 21%
Sufficient»5 35%
Excellent»4 28%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.78

- Inte konstruktiv och inte heller kritiskt, inte heller den här gången fanns någon idé om vad som skulle utvärderas och diskuteras. » (Very insufficient)
- No, the feed-back was not constructive. Critics poorly prepared. The discussion got stuck on irrelevant questions. » (Very insufficient)
- Not enough critique. Way too soft.» (Insufficient)
- The last critic was not good at all. We did not get any discussion about the solutions. The comments from other students was great though. I think you teachers need to but more effort and energy in to the crits. It would be good if you had some lead words that could guide you in the crits since the critics have been very uneaven from project to project!» (Insufficient)

Education and course administration

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

14 svarande

Very little»1 7%
Rather little»7 50%
Rather big»4 28%
Very big»2 14%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.5

- But great with the workshops in the beginning.» (Rather little)

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

14 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»4 28%
Rather well»5 35%
Very well»5 35%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.07

- Förvirrande information, mail angående modellens utseende som skickas ut dagen innan inlämning. Också tråkigt att få "arga" mail skrivna med versaler som att det förutsätts att man inte följer instruktioner annars..» (Rather bad)
- Lack of information in many cases, as for example the final presentations. I think almost all of us counted on a presentation in school as well, not only in Älvrummet. This would have been good to know since the time for preparing the presentation in Älvrummet was very limited. It is not ok to put a presentation the day after handing in. Most have worked many hours and are exhausted after handing in. We need time to prepare the presentations properly. Not good that you couldn"t get feed-back from the same person in tutoring, mid-crits etc. Noone followed the process. » (Rather bad)
- Information somtimes was just told orally in studio evan tough most students did not sit in there since there where no computers etc. Would be good if you send everything out in mails.» (Rather bad)

Work environment

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

14 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»1 7%
Rather well»7 50%
Very well»5 35%
I have not asked for assistance»1 7%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- Would have been better having the possibility to choose the same turor in different stages. » (Rather well)

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

14 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»3 21%
Very good»11 78%
I have not tried to cooperate»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.78

Concluding questions

15. What is your overall opinion of the course?

13 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»1 7%
Passed»2 15%
Good»6 46%
Very good»4 30%

Genomsnitt: 4

- ni jagade oss under hela kursen att vara innovativa. bra. sen när slutkritiken kom var de de innovativa förslagen som blev sågade på just den delen som var innovativ. ni vill nog hemskt gärna vara innovativa och öppna men kan det inte. det måste ni VERKLIGEN öva på. annars döp om kursen så man inte blir lurad in i dålig kritik. Att som student göra något som är vackrare, billigare och bekvämare än vad som idag inte redan är påkommet av världens alla arkitekter är en nästan omöjlig uppgift, att ni sätter det som krav för högsta betyg är fel. ska något bli annorlunda eller spännande på något sätt kommer byggnaden på något annat sätt få lida. så kommer det vara och låt det inte synas alltför mycket i betyget eller i hård kritik. annars slutar det hela med okreativa och rädda arkitektstudenter och i förlängningen tråkig arkitektur i Sverige. » (?)
- I had higher expectations on this course. I think it had a few organisational problems. Also, too much time was spent in the beginning of the course, with little result. More time is needed for the actual project. Many of us worked all Easter-break. Strange to not konsider the context at all. » (Passed)
- Very good when I see our work, but that is probably thanks to us in the student group. More support regarding ideas etc would be great!» (Passed)
- Bra kurs, intressant site, känns som att de flesta projekt kom långt i sin process.» (Good)
- men innovation verkar inte vara relevant för att kursen namn eftersom detta inte verkar efterfrågas eller arbetas med. lägg till workshop och hållbarhet» (Good)

16. What should be preserved next year?

- Workshops and their formula. It was extremely good to gain some functional background with Anna and then think about them in a more conceptual way in Bjorn"s workshop. The workshops were a very handy feedback for the main project.»
- Uppgiftens form, bra med fokus på lägenheter och boende. Handledningarna med två handledare var väldigt bra.»
- workshop, study trip»
- Some kind of workshop in the start that makes the work with the project easier. »
- workshoparna var jättebra, många korta perfekt!»
- workshops»
- The workshops»
- Workshops, but with wider variety of topics. »
- The studytrip was very inspiring. The initial workshops were a good way to start thinking in the terms of innovative housing. »
- The workshops in the beginning and the studytrip. Presenting in Älvrummet was a good idea, what about inviting other architects to this event? »
- tutors»

17. What shuold be changed the nest year?

- Maybe a little more time for the main project»
- De inledande övningarna var bra, MEN, om syftet med kursen är hur vi kommer att bo i framtiden då borde övningarna diskutera detta tydligare och inte enbart handla om generella och flexibla rum..Övningarna lämnade ett tydligt avtryck på hur många uppfattade uppgiften och kanske var en av anledningarna till att det inte var fler innovativa lösningar. Handledningen efter mittkritiken bör ligga två eller tre dagar efter istället för en hel vecka senare. En tydligare struktur på mittkritik och slutkritik, där olika punkter kan tas upp för varje projekt så att man undviker risken att fastna i en fråga för länge. Att få ingen tid alls till att förbereda den muntliga presentationen är tråkigt, de flesta hade inte heller uppfattat att vi enbart skulle göra en presentation, och tänkte nog göra det bättre nästa gång.»
- spelling check :) more tutoring on a shorter time»
- mer engagemang från lärarna, mer önskan om innovation coh testa utveckla, vi vill inte göra om kursen bostadens rum!»
- Less practical, more conceptual. Its about a vision for the future. Push the boundaries more.»
- Organisation!»
- I would have rather worked together with my team mates in the initial workshops instead of beeing divided into groups by the teachers. Overall there should be more focus and discussions on sustainability and innovations during midcritics, crtics and tutoring times. The presentations and critics should be held at the same occations. Weird to have to present one day and then only get feedback the next day. It was also confusing to understand the organisations of the last days. Many of us thought that we would present in älvrummet as well as on the critique day. »
- The crits and the tutorials. More engagement need to be put in to this time. We work very hard with our projects so it would be nice with proper feedback and some enthusiasm from teachers and tutors! Presentation shall not be the day after handing in.»
- nothing»

18. Other comments

- Kul att vi fick presentera i älvrummet, men tråkigt att inte få veta vad de inbjudna gästerna tycker»
- The course title, INNOVATIVE housing, does not correspond to the course focus, which is confusing.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från