|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENKÄTER | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visa resultatHär 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.
LP1 HT12 ARK440 Design and communication toolsStatus: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2012-10-26 - 2012-11-09 Antal svar: 26 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 61% Kontaktperson: Linn Warg» Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Arkitektur 300 hp
1. The instructors in the course were good at explaining things to us26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.34 2. The instructors motivated me to perform well26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.15 3. This course seems relevant to my future professional life26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.76 4. I was mostly clear on how I was doing in terms of achieving the course goals25 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.88 5. The instructors spent enough time commenting on our work26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.8 6. This course stimulated me to active self-study26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.96 7. We were mostly given enough time to understand things that we were supposed to learn26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.53 8. The communication between students and instructors worked well26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.88 9. The examination / final review requirements were reflected in the course content26 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.5 10. Comments on the structure and organization of the course- Teachers needs to spend more time with consultation or one to one work»- It was fun that it contained so big amount of practical work. » - very good» - It is a heavy course for students who are new to the software often used. » - good.» - The work was way too dependent on the cnc-mill. Since most of us haven"t used it before it was quite stressful to know that we only had one shot at it a week and that had to be good or else one week"s work would be of no use. I also don"t think it is fair to make people stay in school until 10 pm because of their cnc-mill time.» - quite clear» - very intense, very fast but lack of equipment (2 hot plates, 1 CNC for 30 people...)» - The structure and organization of the course was pretty well organize, but it could be improve even better. For instance make a more details schema, hours by hours schedule.» - Om en kurs är så pass teknikberoende borde den vara mindre och kraven på den producerade kan inte vara kompromisslösa. Vi försökte sinsemellan lösa tiderna och hinna borra, vacuumforma, smälta vax och gjuta i tid, men det kommer alltid uppstå förseningar, och vi har alla dagar stannat sent på natten för att hinna göra allt. Om det dessutom inte från början finns en tydlig begränsning hhr stora modeller varje grupp får göra osv, kan det uppstå missförstånd och förseningar.» - It was an extremely intense course with high demands from week to week. It was good with the weekly pinups, although it would have been better for my social life to have them on Friday rather than Monday.» - The given time to finish was a little short: for me to finish properly you HAD to stay overnight the last week. Because of the fact that it was only one machine available for the CNC-milling, it was quite problematic: when one group was late in the schedule, than all the others were pushed even more late, which meant very late for the last group which was already supposed to finish around 21.00 from the departure.» - då vi var en så stor grupp borde kursupplägget ha ändrats. inte bra att så mycket tid gick åt till att vänta på cnc-fräsen.» - Communication between course leader and students could have been clearer. Sometimes hard to know what was expected in the different phases of the course. The CNC-miller schedule and the unpredictibility in casting made the outcome very haphazard. It was difficult to control the outcome, which added to the stress level. Especially the milling-schedule caused big problems. If you had an early time you hardly had time to think of your design, if you had a late one it was difficult to be able to cast and prepare presentation material. Sometimes the mill also got behind schedule, because it was too tight. For next year: less students!» - The availability of the CNC mill was too limited. Each group only got one time slot per week, and it could get very stressful.» - Well organised. The reliance on the cnc machine was frustrating due to combination of the tight time schedule and the strict cnc timetable. Very much a matter of luck whether the schedule worked in the group"s favor or not. » - Groups of two or three would"ve been much more appropriate, four is just one person too many when it comes to making decisions and reaching a consensus.» - The time was a bit scarce.» 11. Comments on brief, intro lecture and assignments- Brief was well structured, lectures however could be improved. »- -» - pretty good.» - brief and lectures are good, assignments need more tutorial» - very informative, well structured» - generally brief and intro lecture was fairly good. Assignments was demand quite a lots of works for only 7,5 credits and quite quick of time only 3,5 weeks. » - Daniel and Stefan have a clear and down to earth way of communicating which I believe is good. » - Bra rhino tutoriels.» - Very clear.» - en mer välorganiserad genomgång av rihno för dem som inte använt programmet tidigare hade varit till stor hjälp.» - No problems » - The brief was clear and the assignments sparked a whole range of interesting investigations» - Interesting layout allowing us to experiment.» 12. Comments on course contents, such as tutorials, pin-ups, handouts, etc.- Pin ups are important however their organization can be reevaluated. For instance if they are not as a formal presentation, instead groups can be join together, present for themselves and comment on each other job. Teachers move with each group switching and give comments to each work. I have had the experience in a similar course studio in Chalmers and it allows for better ideas exchange and work overview»- good opportunity to learn Rhino with interesting casting process» - -» - Learning Rhino was great! Also to do experiments and material tests were instructive and fun. However, maybe Daniel should have been more clear why we made material tests in soap. I understand that since we only have or studio and the workshop we can"t do real tests in a material we want our gallery to consist of, but still it didn"t feel very meaningful to investigate the properties of soap. » - pin-up was quite good, well it could be better if we have more tutorials.» - Good with weekly pin up- and blog» - regular tutorials, regular pin-ups - made us work really hard and move forward» - Course contents was good. I personally think it will better if there were need more session for tutorials. Pin-ups was badly organized. There was no program which group start first and who is next, etc. I think it will be fair enough if the teacher organize that at least the day before. Comments from the teacher was unmotivatited and unencouraged especially for my group. It made me feel down and treated unfair. » - I think that the thorough rhino tutorials on projector do not work well. I learn quicker and better by doing online tutorials. Maybe it would be better to have a demonstration of different possibilities and then refer to different totorials to how to do those things. » - Good and clear! Not too long and time-consuming pin-ups.» - bra med pin-up varje vecka.» - When having discussions with tutors about our project, we felt that we didn"t get help in developing our idea, but rather that the tutor(s) had an idea of what the result should be. We needed more help with Rhino, but when asking the tutors for help we didn"t get help in these specific questions. Stefan felt a bit lost and gave sometimes quite harsh critique and always finished by saying "but it looks nice" or similar. » - Worked well.» - Good tutors.» 13. Comments on guest lectures (Michael Hensel, Kivi Sotamaa)- great job, immpressed with the sugestions they have given us»- good» - it is interesting to have lessons outside school every now and then. » - N/A» - John and Frida were brilliant.» - Jury"s comments are good, the case study is also helpful.» - It was a pleasure to receive encouragement, positive critics and suggestions from Michael and Kivi, what a shame that I could get that positif words from my own teacher.» - ?» - Constructive critique, and they were good in picking up our main focus. » - No comment» 14. Comments on course litterature- none provided»- very strong» - nil.» - N/A» - -» - a semenar follows literature could be great idea!» - It would be better if the course litterature books were provide in the studio.» - The literature was optional which is good.» - ingen kurslitteratur?» - I didn"t use any books during this course.» - No comment» - Relevant and informative» 15. Comments on workshop - The Body as Research Tool- very helpfull to understand connection b-n architecture and space, quite interesting even when I have had already the opportunity to study a whole class similar to that»- It was interesting and relevant to the work» - very impressive working within workshop, better given more time» - nil.» - ?» - that workshop feels interesting, related architecture with art, nice experience.» - Not relevant at all- could be excluded from the course.» - completely irrelevant...no connection to the course topic at all. Lena Hopsch was very unclear about what she actually wanted and the purpose of the workshop which turned out just as a lecture and a site visit.» - It was inspiring workshop, but because of limitation of time I personally think to make a special report about that was unneccessary.» - I think the workshop was good. I think integrating it into the final work should be optional. It should have been more clear what was wanted from us after the workshop. Saying: "please hand in your notes from the visit as a group" Is very clear for example. » - This did not seem extremely relevant to the course, especially not the lectures. » - It could have been more integrated to the rest of the course. Furthermore, the sculptures in Lindholmen made us think that we could use several pavilions whereas we could not.» - Feels a bit misplaced.» - It felt a bit tacked-on and not very relevant. The topic of public space and movement is naturally very important in a project like this, but in this time frame we simply didn"t have time to explore the subject thoroughly.» - Unfortunately, did not attend. Didn"t hear great things though.» - The work presented during the workshop and the perspective that this workshop took on was not only completely irrelevant to the rest of the course, it was poorly conceptualized and lacked focus and critical thinking.» - This "workshop" was a disapointment. The examples were 18 years old. The lectures were poorly prepared. » 16. Suggested improvements- In the case that we are producing such an amount of posters, which were not even evaluated or discussed, it may be a good idea to mention that final evaluation is on presentation and model»- I believe the facilities such as the workshop is not adequately equipped for this course, and the time-allocation system for machine-usage can be better managed to ensure fairness.» - more tutorial from Teacher, better no evening millings.» - more equipment according to the amount of students» - It will fair if give more credits for this course instead of 7,5 cr become 10,5 cr. Because amount of works for the course demand more time. I think it is important for the teacher to arrange the group members, since we need to be able to use rhino. So it will be fair and much easier for everyone if everygroup has at least one student that know rhino before. That the students could learn from the others. The teacher should arrange this!! Treat every single groups fairly!! Important not only teach the students but also encourage them.» - Looking back I feel that the main challenge of this course was working as a group. Especially the first week, where the building program is not an issue, is hard because then it can be hard to explain what you want to achieve and why. Different group members can analyze the same experimental result in completely different ways. Maybe it would be good to add to the course something about teamwork: possibly guest lectures where teams actually show up and have a word about how they work together on abstract or artistic subjects.» - Make the Rhino part as something more "compulsory", don"t have it as tutorials that people can have if they want. Indeed, in our group"s case, it ended up that the only one that already knew how to use Rhino a bit was the one doing it all the time, because the time was too short for the others to learn and acquire a sufficient knowledge.» - It is a little difficult to have 11 groups to use one milling machine. This is the only problem that I found in this course.» 17. Other comments- nil.»- Keep Stefan, he is a really nice assistent.» - I think the program for the final outcome was successful. I was a bit worried in the start that the digital modelling would not relate so much to real world scenarios but the connection was good. The group had little knowledge of rhino so we had to make use of what we knew. » - Buying all the soap, wax and colours could be quite expensive at the end.» - Inte så kul att lägga tid på att göra 6st A1 plancher som fick hänga uppe sammanlagt 20min och som ingen av varken lärare eller gästkritiker tittade på. skulle varit bättre om vi sköt upp slutredovisningen så daniel kunde vara med. tex hade vi inget schemalagt på fredagen... Kunde man gruppvis fått gå igenom projektet med daniel då han missade redovisningen? » - The access to equipment such as the CNC mill and the stove fell short of demand. There were simply too many people.»
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0%