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.

LP2 12/13 ARK323 Design and planning for social inclusion

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2013-01-17 - 2013-01-31
Antal svar: 17
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 62%
Kontaktperson: Linn Warg»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Arkitektur 300 hp

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

17 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»0 0%
Around 20 hours/week»0 0%
Around 25 hours/week»1 5%
Around 30 hours/week»1 5%
At least 35 hours/week»15 88%

Genomsnitt: 4.82

- I would say sometimes 40 hr or bit more...» (At least 35 hours/week)
- Definitely more than 35 hours/week!» (At least 35 hours/week)
- Didn´,t have to work during weekends as long as we worket from 9 to 4 each day! So perfect :)» (At least 35 hours/week)

2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

17 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»1 5%
75%»3 17%
100%»13 76%

Genomsnitt: 4.7

- all lectures seemed compulsory as you were given a supplementary task for missing even a single one.» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

17 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»0 0%
The goals are difficult to understand»1 5%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»6 35%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»10 58%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

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

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

17 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»3 17%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»14 82%
No, the goals are set too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.82

- So far I feel like the master has challanged me less than the last year of my bachelor studies.» (No, the goals are set too low)
- There was very big variation of backgrounds in the group.. the kenian people have any background knowlage, no design skills as well as posibility to partisipate or contribute in the swedish speaking workshops, lectures, meetings as well as big parts of the citizen participation. This implied muliiply work for the rest of the group.. this language barrier has to be solved and if the corse will continye to accept exhange students it has to change form!!» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

17 svarande

No, not at all»2 11%
To some extent»6 35%
Yes, definitely»8 47%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.47

- While I think our project did show our understanding of using participation, the connection to the Million Homes Period was a bit less developed, but a good discussion around it was brought out well in the final critiques. » (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

17 svarande

Small extent»1 5%
Some extent»5 29%
Large extent»8 47%
Great extent»3 17%

Genomsnitt: 2.76

- I think it would have been better for most students if the teacher would have been more present and clearer in his expectations every step of the way» (Some extent)
- some of the lectures were quite unrelevant in the bigger picture. No guidence during the project work-really missed to talk to the teacher once a week to get tips/guiding/help» (Some extent)
- I think many of the lectures in the first part of the course were really beneficial to give a background and understanding, but inherently we learned a lot just by doing during the project phase. » (Some extent)
- It is different from what I am used to and beneficial since students get to interact and learn from their environment as well as from each other.» (Large extent)

7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

17 svarande

Small extent»1 5%
Some extent»6 35%
Large extent»6 35%
Great extent»4 23%

Genomsnitt: 2.76

- Okay for background and general ideas, some were quite repetitive to the lectures and therefore didn"t really add that much new insight or information» (Some extent)
- They were readily available and contained relevant literature.» (Great extent)

8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

17 svarande

Very badly»1 5%
Rather badly»4 23%
Rather well»7 41%
Very well»5 29%

Genomsnitt: 2.94

- allways very last minute» (Rather badly)
- web was good, but overall structure from the administration inside the course was not good enough. Lots of misunderstaning, wrong messages and a lot of time spend on this...» (Rather badly)
- Ping-pong worked quite well as a site for collecting all required reading materials and handing in assignments. I liked have the google calendar that was updated in real-time. However, I think the general administration of the course could have been a lot more organized - while I totally understand that things are "organic" when you work with real people, some things (such as project expectations and presentation dates) could have been a lot clearer from the start. » (Rather badly)

Study climate

9. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

17 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»3 17%
Rather good»5 29%
Very good»9 52%
I did not seek help»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- While Pål was always open to our questions, sometimes the answers were not so useful or relevant - maybe in part because he was not very involved in the specifics of our project, but also questions about course material were not always clearly answered/resolved. » (Rather poor)
- Once again, the follow up was not sufficient and some questions asked were never answered» (Rather good)

10. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

17 svarande

Very poorly»1 5%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»10 58%
Very well»6 35%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.23

- We could have used more training and help regarding teamwork and conflict management» (Rather well)
- I really enjoyed the group work and found that the cooperation went quite well and we were able to appropriate tasks quite effectively and learn from each other"s different ideas and backgrounds. » (Very well)

11. How was the course workload?

16 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»2 12%
Adequate»12 75%
High»1 6%
Too high»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 3.06

- I studied another course full time paralell to this course.» (Low)
- I think the workload was really appropriate - I really appreciate how much I was able to learn through a variety of traditional and hands-on activities (study visits, lectures, workshops, project, etc.) while not being too stressed about deadlines, etc. » (Adequate)
- Because all the duble work» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

16 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 6%
Adequate»12 75%
High»3 18%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.12

Summarizing questions

13. What is your general impression of the course?

17 svarande

Poor»1 5%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»2 11%
Good»10 58%
Excellent»4 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.94 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- It is definitely a good course but should include more of real projects or should foster some form of collaboration between the university and stakeholders for a better outcome. » (Good)
- It is a great course and we learned a lot during those few months» (Good)
- Best course ever.» (Excellent)

14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Its all fine.»
- Pantrarna Lecture»
- Social inclusion tools.»
- Study visit med angeredsgymnasiet, urban farming week»
- The citizen participation part is important.»
- the lecturer»
- literature seminars»
- lectures about participatory methods and game»
- Practicing methods»
- The aspect of meeting community actors. »
- The class of 62.. Urban farming week.»
- - the main teacher - the goals»
- realistic projects :)»
- Specific highlights of the course that I can pick out include: study trip to Angered, Panthers visit, visit to Mixgården, home visits, urban farming week. Having the course in Hammarkullen was also definitely a plus and quite essential to the success of the course. And having several mid-project period presentations was really helpful to organize thoughts, etc. and keep an internal timeline. It didn"t really work out quite so well, but I liked the idea of having a weekly morning meeting with all the groups to discuss common problems or questions (logistic or project-related). I also really appreciated the emphasis on group and personal reflection with the final assignment that really helped me to put the course in prespective for my personal development and future career. »

15. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- there was a little detachment from colleagues from local context there is need for frequent meetings to compare notes.Composition of groups should be homogeneous. »
- Location of studies. Hammarkullen resident"s are tired of being questioning while nothing changing in their neighborhoods.»
- too many lectures, some of them not necessary.»
- The turiring session for project»
- The study area especially Hammarkullen should be changed because I think it is not adding anything to the course other than what is already known»
- the lecturer knows»
- n/a»
- better tutorials during the project process»
- The external assistants gave not much contribution. Put some extra emphasis instead on learning and practicing more participatory methods.»
- We should not return to the same community each year. Its too exploitive. »
- Higher levles in admision»
- - the location of the course (work with another area than Hammarkullen or in a different way) - to have less theoretical courses because sometimes it felt like the same thing over and over again - to have more time for the project - to have two teachers co-managing the course»
- administration/organisation/tutoring»
- I think there are several things that could really improve the course for next year: - condensing the first part of the course. It was definitely really useful, but could be a lot shorter, maybe by removing some repitive lectures. I think it could have been good, for example to have finished up the majority of the lecture period before the Urban Farming Week and then start the projects immediately after. - the division of groups for the project could have been handeled more efficiently: make sure that all groups have at least two Swedish speakers and a least one non-architect. While some amount of switching in inevitable, I think Pål should have taken more authority in defining the groups and maintaining the groups as formed. -Having the same tutor throughout the course of the project period would be very helpful - maybe Pål and one other tutor (maybe different ones for each group that relate to their projects). Some of the critics from the final presentations could make great tutors (eg. Erik Berg). -organization towards the end of the course could have been a lot better. I think many of us found it quite confusing (and frustrating) how unclear the expectations and specifics were for the community presentations. Even just having Pål present the day before the Bergsjön presentation to clarify things would have made things a lot better. Unfortunately, I think this lack of organization and clarity in general colored what was a really good course that I have certainly learned a lot from and enjoyed along the way. »

16. Additional comments

- N/a»
- An important course.»
- A good course»
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.94

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.94
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.73

Kursutvärderingssystem från