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.

Material and Detail - ARK336, ARK336

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-05-29 - 2012-06-15
Antal svar: 11
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 33%
Kontaktperson: Mikael Frej»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Arkitektur och teknik 300 hp
Klass: Övriga

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 Part 1 Grasshopper introduction course

11 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»0 0%
Sufficient»7 70%
Excellent»3 30%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 3.3

- Good course but could be longer and with more exercises. » (Sufficient)
- for the brief orientation in the program really good, 2 days are enough» (Sufficient)
- Already knew grasshopper» (No opinion)

2. Learning outcome Part 2 - competition

11 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»3 30%
Sufficient»5 50%
Excellent»2 20%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 2.9

- Lack of tutorials in the beginning. When we eventually had tutorials, they all came within a few days, which made it hard to develop the project enough between them. More construction tutorials may also be needed since many projects seemed to be underdeveloped constructionwise.» (Insufficient)
- after the first tutorial it was no longer a course for 2 months, just an idividual work with no feedback» (Insufficient)
- the guidance with the teachers were more of listening than guiding, and suggestions and reflections came more from the other students than from the teachers. This is not necesarily something bad, just a reflection. To have some guidance more towards the competition deadline would have been great, I understand there are some scedule issues with but maybe next year that could work out. » (Sufficient)

3. Learning outcome Part 3 - construction

11 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»3 30%
Sufficient»3 30%
Excellent»4 40%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- Since i was not is a group that worked with drawings or grasshopper files, I did not learn much about construction in this part of the course.» (Insufficient)
- Especially from constructing it live! Also I was in teachnical drawing so I worked with thinking about the assembly, and visiting RIBO so that has been really rewarding » (Excellent)

Education and course administration

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

11 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»1 9%
Rather well»6 54%
Very well»4 36%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.27

- The information got out alright but I did not like the organisation of the course» (Rather bad)

Concluding questions

5. What is your overall opinion of the course?

11 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
Passed»3 27%
Good»4 36%
Very good»4 36%

Genomsnitt: 4.09

- aim of the course really good, very well prepared, reality unfortunatelly different in the "competition part"» (Passed)
- I really enjoyed this course and learning grasshopper.» (Good)
- Have recommended this course to anyone who can take it!» (Very good)

6. What should be preserved next year?

- The overall plan of the course, introduction course, competition and final project.»
- the grasshopper course and the part people build the final work by themselves»
- The concept, doing a parametric design from scratch to finnished product»
- I liked the lecture by the man who investigating curvature and bending. More lectures on the ongoing topics would have been great!»
- the whole design of the course»
- The Steel, it gives so much more possibilities. »
- project meetings - students in charge of everything»
- The 1:1 build up.»

7. What shuold be changed the nest year?

Make three concrete suggestions!

- Longer and more complex grasshopper course. More tutorials earlier in the project during the concept phase, together with engineers (KG?). More even distribution of workload among the students (many people are missing out in the end of the course, putting more work on other students»
- I think that in the later part, all groups have worked well and done their job. I think the hardest group to be in for any student is management since it is the least clear regarding what is excpected from you (seeing this from a sutudent perspective). I think that if next year this group had more guidance they could have been more like the oil that made stuff work, walking around and talking to the groups when they worked, always keeping up to date with what"s changing and connecting the groups. Now it would appear the managment group has focused much on who works and who does less, and less on what is going to make the project successful. »
- more meeting with the teachers during the course,they helped a lot more grasshopper course,very interesting »
- The mid part of the course was too much, it would have been much more interesting to work with the final project if the design wasn"t "finalised" in the mid part. I would have preffered the mid part was more about coming up with a concept to continue working with. I also think that using steel might have resulted in too many options, meaning mainly that the rolling and unrolling was really difficult to do in an exact way, in the computor modell. resulting in a lot of frustration and al lot of work that could not bee solved in grasshopper (as the plug in works today)»
- -More Grasshopper tutorials in the beginning -Lasercutting of first exercise was unnecessary »
- to increase more tutorial time during part2»
- More tutoring and more grasshopper tutorials»
- - tutorials during the course, not individual work with only showing the result at the end - some lectures (not bending workshop at the end of the course) »
- 1. If possible avoid planning any schedualled time during the last week of the parallell course Architectural Competitions. 2. Be more clear with the judgement criteria for the competition-part. What aspects of the design dose the jury want to see solved and what aspects can be left for further develoment in the phase 3. From the course introduction and the brief i got the impression that detailing and constructibility were essential factors for the design proposal, while the jury seem to think otherwise.»

8. Other comments

- A reflection looking back is that the comeptition entry that won are not in its essentials very parametric. It may have been easier to solve this project just in Rhino. I do think the best entry for Röhsska won, and that it is a great proposal. But I guess that is the double nature of the competition, that it needs to be right for Röhsska and parametric. »
- I feel that the workload in the last part of the course was unevenly distrubuted (I also realize that this is a problem that would be really difficult to solve compleatly, but it might be possible to do it better)»
- Thank you for the amazing course! Benoit ,)»
- nice teachers»
- Great course and a valuable experience, thank you!»

Kursutvärderingssystem från