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.

BOM-Structural design 2012, BOM170

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-11-01 - 2012-11-20
Antal svar: 34
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 61%
Kontaktperson: Björn Engström»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Väg- och vattenbyggnad 300 hp

Learning outcomes and examination

Before you answer these questions, please check in the course syllabus what is stated about learning outcomes of the course.

1. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

32 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»0 0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»32 100%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Not bad, considering that it was the first try.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Although time spent doesn"t allow for equal study of the other course - which many feel is more practically applicable and important. However, this course was enjoyable, interesting and contained a lot of useful information about design and structural engineering which I think wouldn"t have been learned otherwise.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- I think some students were better prepared for this course than others, especially in terms of being used to working in projects and making independent decisions.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

2. To what extent have you reached the learning outcomes?

32 svarande

0-20%»0 0%
20-40%»0 0%
40-60%»1 3%
60-80%»12 37%
80-100%»19 59%

Genomsnitt: 4.56

- Less design of models and design overall - I feel - and more focus on structural systems and structural behaviour with respect to forms and shapes» (40-60%)
- don" really know since we have not got any results or feedback yet. » (60-80%)
- I have learned a lot from this course, more than expected!» (80-100%)
- I think there could be more focus on understanding the force paths and the mechanichal behaviour of structures. Perhaps there could be specific, non-project related, tasks to solve in order to practice in the beginning of the course.» (80-100%)
- Nobody talked about costs although this is always the main issue in the later professional life... Maybe you can include that somehow next time.» (80-100%)
- There was good cooperation between the architectural and civil engineering teaching stuff, that managed more or less to transmit the most important parts of structural design.» (80-100%)
- How to achieve more efficient structures. It was hard to start from a desired flow of forces and find an efficient structure, could need some more guidance on how to start from that point of view. In our project it was more about getting an idea of an expression and then from there try to find smart solutions, which although helped by many iterations could be hard to succeed with in an optimal way.» (80-100%)
- I think more focus » (80-100%)

3. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

Please consider all kinds of examiantions during the course: assignments, projects, seminars, final written exam, etc.

32 svarande

No, not at all»1 3%
To some extent»10 31%
Yes, definitely»17 53%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»4 12%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

- Less focus on presentations - which although were very enjoyable and also helpful for the future - some kind of report or exam would be good for knowledge I think - as in the structural system course.» (No, not at all)
- It was a bit difficult to show all the work you had done in just an oral presentation. The process pdf shows more but I got the impression that it is not as important for the grade. » (To some extent)
- Was very different among the group members. Some "yes, definitley" others "not as much"» (To some extent)
- I think the jury could have been better informed that the task was not to design in detail all parts of the bridge.» (To some extent)
- It was good with the peacha kucha (don´,t know how to spell it) format!» (Yes, definitely)
- The project was done in several steps, it was evaluated again and again, and the final seminar was really interesting.» (Yes, definitely)
- Of course I don"t know my grade yet. But I think the format of the course was very good. I have some comments though: It would be useful to know how much calculations "preliminary sizing" entailed. Perhaps a simple example? As it was, I felt some students felt safe in the calculations and wasted too much time on them, rather than using them to influence their design, which I saw as the main objective. Also, I though the phase with three bridges was simply too difficult. The site should have been a consideration from the beginning: now we were faced with juggling more advanced calculations and also adapting our designs to the site in the same phase, which was very stressful. Both the phase before and after went much better and were more instructive, I thought.» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)

Teaching and learning

4. To what extent has the organised teaching activities been of help for your learning?

34 svarande

Small extent»2 5%
Some extent»10 29%
Large extent»12 35%
Great extent»10 29%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

- FEEDBACK The feedback after each phase has sometimes been put forward in a quite negative way, despite the fact that some quite brilliant and interesting ideas have been presented. Instead of aknowleding the good examples and point out interesting directions to develop ideas in, examples of bad design have been discussed: "I do not see how this could work, this is not a good way". It would have been more constructive to hear "This is an example of a good representation that would become eaven better if this and that was clarified" or "this is an example of a well considered design proposal". In other words, guide the students by pointing on the good examples rather than the bad, we understand when a solution is bad if we know what is considered as a good one, however we will never know what a good design is if we only are told what a bad one is. PRESENTATIONS The Pechi Kucha format was a good way of presenting the work in each phase, however there were too little qualitative group specific discussion afterwards.» (Some extent)
- I think "organised" was a strong word at times. The tasks changed quickly, which is to be expected since it was the first time the course was held, but it is very frustrating for the students.» (Some extent)
- Maybe more supervision could be scheduled. It would be good to maybe sit down once a week with one of the teachers and assess the work so far and if we are thinking in the right direction.» (Some extent)
- Mostly inspiring to participate in lectures.» (Some extent)
- The learning was mostly achieved from working within the group and discussing different ideas and solutions. Especially good with this were the different point of views from architectural and structural engineering students.» (Some extent)
- The lectures were more like inspiration, i think we learnt the most in the group work. Very good system! » (Large extent)
- Great with lectures both from the engineering and architectural point of view. For me, as a civil engineer, it was a whole new way of thinking.» (Large extent)
- Would be good with a clearer discernment of the different parts that should be be carried out by the students. However, it was good during the course, but I think it can be even better. Perhaps you can use Gantt charts in order to distinctly illustrate the intended working progress.» (Large extent)
- Very good teachers, it is clear that you like what your are doing and that affects the students!» (Great extent)
- The lectures were the most useful and enjoyable part of this course - mainly because of the passion of the teatchers and the many interesting examples which were presented and discussed during the lectures.» (Great extent)
- bit hard with uncoordinated teachers» (Great extent)
- Study trips, inspiring lectures, lots of seminars, enough activities I think to enhance our learning. » (Great extent)
- Very good. A comment to Mario and Björn, though: please use more positive examples! It"s easier to learn what to DO, rather than what NOT to do (for example when drawing force diagrams). Your constructive advice was very helpful.» (Great extent)

5. To what extent has the teaching material and the course home page been of help for your learning?

34 svarande

Small extent»10 29%
Some extent»12 35%
Large extent»7 20%
Great extent»5 14%

Genomsnitt: 2.2

- You can"t studie good design in a book since the problem to solve is to complex and situation specific. Good discussions and feedback processes are the best way to learn and identify risks, unceartenties and potentials.» (Small extent)
- Too few books and they are too expensive to buy - however I applaud the choice of the books - both books are incredibly interesting and useful - I think. The lecture powerpoint - although they were good - couldn"t really be used that much when performning the design task. Perhaps mainly because the short time afforded to the subtasks - thus one couldn"t explore literature much or even consider as much as we might have wanted to do.» (Small extent)
- What teaching material? » (Small extent)
- The lectures is what I mostly used.» (Some extent)
- Form and forces is a great book, and so is Detail engineering, but the field we had to cover I think went a bit beyond the topics covered in form and forces especially. » (Some extent)
- It was mainly learning by listening and discussing.» (Some extent)
- The initial book was useful and the course home page was fine. I would have liked more examples of engineering presentations (actual force diagrams, the extents of calculations suggested, etc).» (Large extent)

6. How were the opportunities to get feedback and for asking questions and getting help from teachers and supervisors?

34 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»15 44%
Very good»19 55%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

- Due to the complexity of the problems, we were some what unable to explain and get relevant feedback when asking questions. The session with Karl-Gunnar was very useful and it would have been good if it could have been aranged to meet the other teachers in a similar way.» (Rather good)
- Maybe one more session like the one with KG would be nice when developing the final proposal. » (Rather good)
- The teachers seemed passionate about the course and it reflected in their wish to aid us - they seemed to have stake in the results, i.e. they wanted us to perform well (which isn"t often the feeling students have - in my opinion of course).» (Rather good)
- Good to have the gallery critique, but in many cases contraditory response from the different teachers. » (Rather good)
- It was a good dialogue» (Very good)
- All the teachers were helpful and almost always we got a constructive criticism which helped us to develop our concept. » (Very good)
- All the teachers were available many times during the week. Great help! » (Very good)

Course organisation

7. How well did the course organisation, course information, course home page, handouts etc work?

34 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»2 5%
Rather well»20 58%
Very well»12 35%

Genomsnitt: 3.29

- Could very much be improved. Seemed very confusing sometimes, like the teachers had no good organisations, changed a lot of things during the course. » (Rather badly)
- It felt like it was quite a big gap between what the teachers of architecture wanted us to achieve compared to the teachers of engineering. It was difficult to satisfy both.» (Rather well)
- Some minor organisation problems happened like the day when the guest bridge engineers were at the university and we din´,t know.» (Rather well)
- Would say that this has been rather ok - especially considering that this is the first time this course has run. In light of that I would say that I"m impressed with the structure of the course - and I also like that the teachers asked us for our opinion and more often than not changed the course based on those discussions - an example of that would be the pecha kucha presentations - which I think were not planned for that many presentations to begin with. Also, the choice of not demanding posters - which I would think would had made many students upset and rather stressed.» (Rather well)
- Considering that it was the first time for this course I think it worked very well but improvements of the handouts and more consistent information would be nice. Also, the teachers from the architecture department were quite bad at keeping time.» (Rather well)
- could have been good with the assignments some earlier, thick specially assignment 3 came out a bit late» (Rather well)

Study climate

8. To what extent have the facilties at Chalmers been appropriate to support your studies in this course, e.g. lecture halls, study rooms, equipment, computer labs etc.

33 svarande

Small extent»1 3%
Some extent»9 27%
Large extent»18 54%
Great extent»5 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

- Since there where a big focus on making models, despite the fact that physical modelling is not a learning outcome, an introduction to the A-workshop would have been good.» (?)
- Hard to find a good workspace.» (Small extent)
- Our study rooms are not suited for modelwork, howewer it was fully possible to fulfill the tasks.» (Some extent)
- There is always a lack of space in V-huset. » (Some extent)
- Has really nothing to do with the course - but generally I think there is to little room in the V-building and you can"t really expect to find room if you"re not there very early or rather late. The organisation about the materials of the models and how to build them could be improved I think - especially because most of the students in the course are structural engineering students and have never built models before - and not all of the groups had an architect student.» (Some extent)
- It was great that we got a room to store our models, but it smelled too bad to work there...» (Some extent)
- Its not so comfortable to sit in the small studyrooms during lectures. » (Large extent)
- We V-students got the impression that we weren"t really welcome in the "Snickeriet" at A. We had an AT-student in our group and we became very dependant on her to get material. Other groups who didn"t have an AT-student had some problems in the beginning as they didn"t know how to get the material.» (Large extent)
- More information about the tools in Snickeriet would have been nice. The groups with architects in them had a great advantage in being able to visualize their concepts and building models. » (Large extent)
- needed a great bit a ATstudents to get the material » (Large extent)
- Sometimes hard to find computers in the V-department. Great to have access to "snickeriet" when building the models, especially good to have an architect student in the group with knowledge about the laser cutter and so on. Some groups would have benefitted from getting access to these facilities from the start of the course.» (Large extent)

9. How much of your available time for studies in this study period did you spend on this course?

It is assumed that 50% of the time in one quarter is used for a course of 7,5 credit units.

34 svarande

less than 20%»0 0%
20-40%»1 2%
about 50%»12 35%
60-80%»19 55%
more than 80%»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.64

- It was my only course» (about 50%)
- From 40 to 50%. Our group meetings were long lasting, but very beneficial, as we had nice discussions and opinions exchanging during those meetings.» (about 50%)
- It was high workload!» (60-80%)
- It took too much time to build all the models. And also for some presentations we had only a few days too prepare since we had a lecture on wednesday about the content of this task and presentation on monday.» (60-80%)
- I think it was a very time-consuming course, with short deadlines and massive work-load. That took focus from the steel course.» (60-80%)
- Often in group work courses like this one it"s unavoidable that most of the time will go to the course - even though many student would want to perhaps focus on the other course more - one really can"t do that without disrespecting the group ethic - which no one would do. However, I believe this course will be better in the future in this regard - if the teachers keep their open mind - without the teachers ability to listen and discuss, the course would have taken even more time and not recieve good feedback from students - I would think.» (60-80%)
- This was a very demanding course, especially for students with an architectural background, since they became project leaders and took a greater responsibility for the design process.» (60-80%)
- Det var en väldigt tung kurs! För många tidskrävande moment.» (60-80%)
- To much» (more than 80%)

10. How was the course workload?

34 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»9 26%
High»19 55%
Too high»6 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.91

- Its was a very good level. We were able to accomplish much, and we had time to reflect on our descisions.» (Adequate)
- Almost too high!» (High)
- Constant high work load from the start to the end of the course.» (High)
- Very high when there was short time for a task, otherwise it was adqequate.» (High)
- Considering that work would have been twice with two courses like regular it would have been a little bit too much.» (High)
- A bit to high - but mainly because of the short time between presentations - perhaps even the work load out by having less presenations but more comprehensive ones? Worth discussing atleast I think.» (High)
- The work was high pace but not too much. Though, some of the teachers had a kind of unrealistic view of how much you could accomplice in the given time.» (High)
- High work load, as it contained architectural and civil engineering view, which adds restrictions from both sides, that need more investigation. Also, designing a bridge is always a very demanding process. » (High)
- It felt as we were expected to put our weekends on this course. Assignments were presented to late and we ended up having only a few days to do a lot!» (Too high)
- High pace throughout the course which was both good and bad. It pushed us to work hard and produce new material for each presentation but sometimes it could be a bit too rushed as well. I felt that the result would be better with more time to develop the ideas further and have more time for trial and error since it wasn"t until we could calculate further into the concepts when we realised if they were good or perhaps unrealistic.» (Too high)
- It was to much to do! Reduce the number of presentation to two. Maybe one with 5 suggestions and one with 1. Or keep 7,3 and 1 but skip the first presentation, which was totally unneassesary! » (Too high)

Summarising questions

11. What is your general impression of the course?

33 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»3 9%
Good»18 54%
Excellent»12 36%

Genomsnitt: 4.27

- Could be better organised. » (Adequate)
- Can still be improved but was already very good.» (Good)
- Excellent lectures, most interesting subject - i.e. structural engineering with respect to design with focus on form and forces. The high work load and the building of models brings it down from excellent to good for me. » (Good)
- The most "giving" feature of the course was collaborating with an AT-student and thinking in new ways. But, the work load was too high and the stress level high.» (Good)
- It started very well. But it seemed like it was some disagreement between teachers as to what should be included. You could get two different answers on what was supposed to be done, depending on who you asked» (Good)
- Really good course! :) I like that you work with the big pcture and get to use what you"ve learned in the previous courses. It is also great to do something in cooperation with architecture. » (Good)
- fun course, bit hard with knowing what the teachers where after and it seemed like they had widespread ideas of what the course was really abaut. » (Good)
- It was a fun course. Great to have cooperation between architects and structural engineers, it gave a lot of inspiration.» (Good)
- Very nice to work with a more architectural view of a project» (Excellent)
- The best course on chalmers!» (Excellent)
- It was amazing experience for me as a civil engineer to meet the architectural point of view and be part of the conceptual design phase.» (Excellent)
- I think it"s so, so good that this course exists - I"ve missed it until now at the master level. My understanding is that other master programmes often have more open questions/tasks, whereas in MPSEB they are very defined. I think this was super valuable. My only complaint is that there should be courses like this at candidate level for engineers.» (Excellent)

12. What is the remaining value of the course in the future

34 svarande

Very small»0 0%
Rather small»1 2%
Neutral»4 11%
Rahter high»16 47%
Very high»13 38%

Genomsnitt: 4.2

- I think we spend to much time on wrong things. Do you know how much time building a model does take? imagine that for 7 and it is to much. Better to spend time on things we actually can get something from.» (Neutral)
- It gives some confidence about beeing able to deal with structural design, howerver I find it hard to claim the right to work with theese issues as one of the first tasks when wmployed, much more experience is needed.» (Rahter high)
- If you want to continue and improve this course I would recommend to have a look at this: http://www.uni-weimar.de/archineering/ This is the master programm I´,m taking at my home university and it´,s very similar to your course. It´,s a mixture of arcitecture and engineering. That´,why I felt quite comfortable with this course - this way of working was not new to me and I really enjoy it.» (Rahter high)
- Most interesting course with much needed and obscure information I thought - obscure but most valuable - and I don"t see from where I would else recieve that information - mostly facts about bridges, but also facts about the industry - how the work of an consultant works in relation to other actors.» (Rahter high)
- This was the first time and you changed a few things during the course so I think next year"s course will be better.» (Rahter high)
- Very good with a course where all previous knowledge is gathered.» (Very high)
- It was fun to have such large freedom in the design. » (Very high)
- The context and concept of a structure are two things that are of great importance, both of them. » (Very high)

13. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Keekp the different assignments, it is good to split the project into smaller ones.»
- Good with different assignments (divided parts)»
- The course. Pecha kucha. »
- The iterative process should be kept, but relate the concept phase to the site and context. Preliniminary sizing should be kept, however emphase what preliniminary sizing is so that groups do not get caught in endless Mathcad calculations in order to find the section depth with mm accuracy, number of needed rebars etc. I thinkt many students get a feeling of security when turning into numbers and equations which might be dangerous in very early stages of a phase: if you spend days creating the perfect Mathcad file for a specific solution, you might get reluctant to change the solution to a better one since you then have to redo the calcs. My opinion is, that at the stage of a project that this course focus on, it is not relevant to know if we need HEB300 or HEB350, it should be sufficient to say that we can make a section with a structural depth of about 0.3 m by means of I-beams. To support the preliminiary sizing, add discussions to support confidence in making qualitative assesments of the preliniminary sizing. A good way is to relate to already built structures and see what have been accomplished before. Discussions about this can be put in the study trip where the students are asked to aproximate the span-depth ratios for the visited structures. Futhermore, a few basic examples in a lecture could be held where the level of detailing required for preliniminary sizing could be expressed. Perhaps some of the examples from the book Form and Forces could be discussed.»
- Good with the bus-trip »
- Feedback from professionals, groups with members from mixed disciplines, pecha kucha.»
- Everything»
- The models, three presentation, freedom in design»
- the group of teacher»
- The city related project»
- The study trip in the first week»
- Pecha Kucha - perhaps not as many but it was an interesting experience. »
- The project was interesting and good, and had many advantages. Could work freely to get the result we wanted. Interesting lectures and study trip! Inspiring»
- The conceptual design.»
- The division of the project into assignments. Makes the workload more distributed during the course!»
- I think the structure was good with the different phases. It could have been better defined what should do in each of them and how far to go (for example with sizing and drawings). »
- i)The teaching stuff. 4 great and inspiring teachers were always available and ii)the learning outcomes, in which an engineer should be included from the early phases of the conceptual design »
- Copperation with architects and structural engineers. Pecha kucha presentations were good to keep the time and helped the groups to focus on the most important parts. Gallery critique was useful. Best was when the groups stayed together when walking around to the other groups and also that each group prepare a few questions to discuss.»
- The inspired lectures.»
- The main idea about the course is amazing. I really like the fact that we are free in mind, being inovative and thinking about building the future.Petcha Kutcha was realy good, that you should really keep. »
- The pecha kutcha presenting format.»

14. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Maybee a bit smaller workload!»
- The first presentation, and making the concepts general in the beginning, better to make them site specific to better match the criteria we want to focus on. »
- Let the concept phase be related to the site. There will never be a situation when you are to design something without a context to relate the design to. Add context to the concept pahse. If the study trip is kept: add sketching of the force paths as a mandatory task, skip one or two stops and use the gained time to have on site sessions discussing the sketches: is this a good representation of what we see? In this way the students can practice force skeching as well as getting instant feedback and the risk that the theachers get stuck in endless discussions that the students at the back can"t hear is reduced. All the sketches could later on be collected and distributed so one can see how all the other students represented the pattern of one of the studied structures. Add more introduction lectures about the site: geotechnical conditions and limitations in construction, boat traffic, maintanence proceadures for bridges, how to do bridge construction etc. By doing so, the tools showed by KG could get a good context so it is easy to understand what we can actually use the tools for. »
- Not good that half of the jury and teachers were not there when half of the groups had their final critique. Mårten should learn not to exceed the time so much at the lectures. The lecture about computer tools was not very useful. »
- The study trip to hisingen shouldnt be until after the 2nd presentation, cause before that we werent supposed to think of our site but that was hard not to be site-specific since we had already seen the different sites. It was hard to understand what the people from tyrens were supposed to do, perhaps they could be of better use next year! I think that it would be nice to have a lecture about how to build models and where to get the material, cause it was very unfair now since some groups consisted of only engineers/exchangestudents and no architect. For those groups it is hard to know how to build good models. Better instructions for the documentation, it was very different between different groups. »
- The study trips. Add a lecture with someone from sjöfartsverket, we got a little bit of information from the guy at the boat simulator, but it was only about where certain boats trafficked the river.»
- Nothing»
- Keep the lecture time!»
- more critic from the students, not only teachers and guests»
- More design process and construction discussions and less evaluations and justification»
- More possibilities to consult with the teachers»
- More aid in building the models - materials etcetera. »
- What was expected from us students was kind of unclear from time to time and lead to confusion and stress. Clearer what the aim of the cours should be about.»
- It was very frustrating to not know what you teachers regarded as important as you all said different things. More time for the assignments!»
- More clear instructions»
- Perhaps reduce the number of concepts in the first phase, perhaps 4-5 will increase the quality and possibility to have time to analyze them structurally!»
- It would have been better to have more information on the river traffic guard rails, ship paths, frequency etc in order to include that better in the design.»
- Everything were well structured. »
- Should come already at candidate level!»
- But it is to time consuming. We dont have that much time. We had the steel course which as well were very loaded, and it end up in a mess. Morten needs to follow the clock! It is so annoing when you dont follow the time-schedual, EVERY lecture! That is a very bad thing. Reduce the nr of presentation. The first part you need to do something about. It is as well a good thought about learing inovative and new materials and different type of load bearing system, but that didnt come out very well. At least not for me. I only learned about the subject that my group was studying, I dont learn only by hearing a short presentation from other groups. »
- Minska på antalet seminarier och antalet modeller som ska tillverkas.»
- better working places with the models.»
- Maybe add some competition between groups - always good motivation.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från