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.

LP 3 ARK176_V13_Design systems

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2013-04-17 - 2013-05-25
Antal svar: 16
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 47%
Kontaktperson: Anna Sofia Wannerskog»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers: masterskurs

Goals and fullfilment of goals

The learning outcomes are given in the course programme, that is the knowledge, understanding, skills and perspectives you are expected to reach. Notify for each outcome how well they have been fulfilled.

1. Learning outcome 1

To explain systems thinking and its relevance for design, architecture and planning.

16 svarande

Very insufficiently»0 0%
Insufficiently»1 6%
Sufficiently»11 68%
Excellently»4 25%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- Not the best, cause it is still unclear to me how i am supposed to use systems thinking in a design approach. I agree it is good for early stages, but didn"t manage to explain its validity in design. » (Sufficiently)
- More clear examples os "successful systems thinking"- projects would have been necessary to clearify the relevance of systems thinking. » (Sufficiently)

2. Learning outcome 2

To select systems thinking approaches that are relevant for a specific design, architecture or planning task.

16 svarande

Very insufficiently»0 0%
Insufficiently»6 37%
Sufficiently»9 56%
Excellently»1 6%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.68

- In the last assignment, it felt like you just "did" something because you had to. No new learnings or insights about the systems or how to work with it.» (Insufficiently)
- Between the different ones we learnt about i can choose the ones i prefer, but i am not sure i can choose the moste accurate one for the specific task.» (Sufficiently)

3. Learning outcome 3

To structure, challenge and expose knowledge (or lack thereof) about the interdependencies of a design problem through systems thinking.

16 svarande

Very insufficiently»0 0%
Insufficiently»1 7%
Sufficiently»10 71%
Excellently»3 21%
No opinion»2

Genomsnitt: 3.14

4. Learning outcome 4

To tentatively analyze and synthesize complex knowledge by employing systems thinking, i.e., by combining and integrating different systems approaches.

16 svarande

Very insufficiently»0 0%
Insufficiently»4 25%
Sufficiently»10 62%
Excellently»2 12%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.87

- Still it is hard to combine different approaches and to use them as basis for one another. » (Insufficiently)
- Not even when explained by the tutors, the different "categories" and such under each way of think in systems could be clearly understood. » (Sufficiently)

5. Learning outcome 5

To reformulate the above mentioned analysis and synthesis into a design criteria and conceptual design proposals using systems thinking as the language of communication and justification.

16 svarande

Very insufficiently»0 0%
Insufficiently»6 37%
Sufficiently»9 56%
Excellently»1 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.68

- We never got carefully explained to us what proper design criteria could be, and never how we could reformulate it into real design. It became a bit arbitrary in my point of view how to make design proposals. » (Insufficiently)
- More examples needed.» (Insufficiently)

6. Learning outcome 6

To look towards nature´,s systems, both through their inspirational organizations, ecosystem services and planetary boundaries, for further creative alleys within a systems thinking approach.

15 svarande

Very insufficiently»0 0%
Insufficiently»2 13%
Sufficiently»10 66%
Excellently»3 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.06

- Did we look at nature"s systems carefully excpet when dealing w biomimicry? And that was really hard to implement... the groups that did that basically did it just for fun and not really due to a need for it as i see it. » (Insufficiently)

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

16 svarande

No, the goals are to elementar»2 13%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»11 73%
No, the goals are too ambitious»2 13%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 2

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

16 svarande

Too small scope in relation to credits»1 6%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»12 80%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»2 13%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 2.06

Education and course administration

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

16 svarande

Very little»1 6%
Rather little»3 20%
Rather big»10 66%
Very big»1 6%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 2.73

- more than from lectures» (Rather big)
- Mostly from the lectures and not too much from the literature. » (Rather big)

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

16 svarande

Very bad»1 6%
Rather bad»3 18%
Rather well»10 62%
Very well»2 12%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.81

- Many unclearities aling the way. Difficult to understand what to do, and communicational difficulties with some of the tutors. (Not Anna-Maria though! :) ) » (Very bad)
- More details below, but in general I found the organization of the course very scattered and confusing. Especially that we were not communicated about the course until the day before, that the calendar constantly changed (understandable to a certain extent, but..) and was not complete at the beginning, and that expectations for assignments were frustratingly unclear. » (Rather bad)

Work environment

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

16 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»2 12%
Rather well»8 50%
Very well»6 37%
I have not asked for assistance»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.25

- Some tutors did not wan to explain for example what leverage points are a second time even though several students asked for it. » (Rather well)
- Anna Maria and Annika were great resources and always very open and giving for consultations. » (Rather well)
- It would have been nice to meet Karl-Henric more, since he is the one resposible for the course. It was difficult to know who to ask, and he is supposed to be the expert in these questions, but rarely seen in the classroom during the course. His overall opions, with a bit of enthusiasm, would have been most appreciated.» (Rather well)

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

15 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»6 40%
Very good»9 60%
I have not tried to cooperate»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- Everybody was not that interested in the subject. » (Rather good)
- Groupwork went very well for me. It was nice to have a diversity of students (background, nationality, etc.) in the group. » (Very good)

Concluding questions

13. What is your overall opinion of the course?

16 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
Passed»6 37%
Good»5 31%
Very good»5 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.93

- There are a need of improvement and profiling of the different course elements involved. The physical space provided I experienced as extremely poor due to lack of space, bad ventilation and unclear instructions.» (Passed)
- It was ok, even though it left many doors open, and it did not wrap everything up in a good way. We just did the same task twice (describing a site, and implement systems thinking on another). In the end the two tasks did not differ to a great extent, they were basically the same...» (Passed)
- I think the content of the course is very good and very useful and applicable to all disciplines of design. I think it is very important that we are taught this material and learn to apply it to projects in our discipline. However, I found the organization and layout of the course very frustrating --- all the lectures were thrown at us (with each lecturer emphasizing that normally they have weeks to teach the material they were forced to give us in one day) and then we had to somehow muddle doing the maps, etc. ourselves to try to try to figure out how to actually do them. It was also very difficult to get motivated about the first project when we were given a random site that we knew very little about and may have had very little interest in. I also took the Reality Studio and I think that the design systems course was incredibly useful for the reality studio projects. I think one better way of organizing would be to combine the two courses into one big 30 credit semester course. And then take several weeks at the beginning for design systems and make the site for the first project Zanzibar Stone Town (or Kisumu, etc.) which would both help motivate the design systems work and give us more time to get introduced to the reality studio context. And then to have it be a course requirement to use design systems in the final reality studio projects. » (Passed)
- I had such hiigh expectations on the course!! It was fun, and I draw a lot of lines, arrows and circles, but even when really thinking about it, I don"t know what I learned. I learned that systems thinking is a method, but not to the point that I would use it in my professional work further on. It"s just all to vague and the problems to solve "to constructed" to feel real. A lot of nice words but without actual knowledge after 7,5 credits.» (Passed)
- worked alone» (Good)

14. What should be preserved next year?

- Meadows literature is a keeper also the lectures about bio-mimicry. »
- seminars, change of groups for new inspiration, movies and biomimicry»
- Biomimicry lecture»
- team work!»
- working within different groups, guest lectures»
- Most of the lectures and workshops were good! ( But none on skype from finland, did not feel good...)»
- see above»
- To work with hand drawings instead of computer tools»
- bio mimicry»
- everything»
- The lecture by the two guys lecturing about "backtracking" system services. The desk critic. The litterature which was quite good. »

15. What shuold be changed the nest year?

- The overall structure is in need of improvement.»
- maybe a bit too complext at times, to much to grasp»
- A greater variety of the two group work. I felt as we did the same thing two times.»
- Guest lecture should be more clear about the goals. »
- more discussion »
- more lectures at the beginning, more definitions and a clearer structure, more into depth, less workshops»
- THe two tasks could be more different, and more into on the different aspects, ie leverage points...»
- see above»
- Show less system design methods but to learn more about each.»
- incorporation of the course into reality studio site should be from onset.»
- Use more illustrative ways to explore leverage points and designm criteria»
- some evaluation aspects so much is expected from the student yet there was little input by the teachers»
- More structure. More lectures on how systems mapping have really influenced the design of architecture. Less fealing of "lets do this to make it look like you"ve gone into deep in those issues!" The grading system also feels strange, and it would be nice to know wheteher you would benefit grade-wise" from doing additional assignments.»

16. Other comments

- In a sense I got the feeling that to many elements where crammed in without an overall focus.. as a student it often felt like stumble in the dark keeping on guessing the right answer. All though there often are no right answers in system dynamics or system thinking it would have been easier to fell that you are on the right track if the course structure and goals would have been more clear and pronounced through out the different course element. »
- Thank you for showing another perspective of thinking about architecture!»
- Am confident I got a new Ideas.»
- the course is quite complex and needs more teaching time»
- The struture of the course needs to be more professional. I was sometimes almost a bit emberassed to the exchenge students that this was a masters course at Chalmers. Low demands. »

Kursutvärderingssystem från