|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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.
LP 3 ARK176_V13_Design systemsStatus: AvslutadÖppen 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 goalsThe 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 1To explain systems thinking and its relevance for design, architecture and planning.16 svarande
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) 2. Learning outcome 2To select systems thinking approaches that are relevant for a specific design, architecture or planning task.16 svarande
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) 3. Learning outcome 3To structure, challenge and expose knowledge (or lack thereof) about the interdependencies of a design problem through systems thinking.16 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.14 4. Learning outcome 4To tentatively analyze and synthesize complex knowledge by employing systems thinking, i.e., by combining and integrating different systems approaches.16 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.87 - Still it is hard to combine different approaches and to use them as basis for one another. » (Insufficiently) 5. Learning outcome 5To 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
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) 6. Learning outcome 6To 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
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
Genomsnitt: 2 8. Are the goals reasonable in relation to the scope and amount of credits?16 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.06 Education and course administration9. What support have you got for your learning from course literature and other material?16 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.73 - more than from lectures» (Rather big) 10. How did the organisation, memoranda, direct information etc. function?16 svarande
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) Work environment11. How do you rate the possibilities to get assistance and ask questions?16 svarande
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) 12. How has the cooperation between you and students in your group been?15 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.6 - Everybody was not that interested in the subject. » (Rather good) Concluding questions13. What is your overall opinion of the course?16 svarande
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) 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. »
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0%