Visa resultat

Resource efficient building for the future, AUT101

Goals and fullfilment of goals

1. Learning outcome 1

19 svarande

Very insufficient»		0		0%
Insufficient»		2		11%
Sufficient»		13		72%
Excellent»		3		16%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- But, the input from the course it self has not been sufficient. Very low input of lectures providing new perspectives etc. Most of the knowledge I"ve learnt is from research done on my own and from the previous coruse. I had expected more from the course on this level of the education. Especially the holistic approach has been absent in the overall requirements/discussion of the assignments ?!» (Insufficient)
- The learning process was not continous. We had pour supervision in architectural values and the holistic view on sustainable architecture. The learning has come from our self.» (Insufficient)
- I am confused! I think there has been a lack of clear strategies of the actual design of sustainable architecture. I would have liked more inspiring lectures from both engineers and architects about what actually works. It is often double messages so I find it hard to say if I have learned what is wrong and what is right. » (Sufficient)
- The field is pretty new still in academic meaning and I guess I have learned a great deal about possibilities and boundaries within the subject of sustainable architecture! » (Sufficient)
- The sufficiency in SD issues was mainly brought on by the students" motivation. The competition program was too narrow minded, single-focussed. » (Sufficient)
- I know a lot more about sus. architecture now, then I did before this course ...but, I think a lot of what we learned, we learned from our selves. I miss the discussion with the teachers about sus. architecture. We worked with it in different aspects during the first part in the course, but there are so many aspects that we didn´,t talk about. I know that there is not always right or wrong, but we should have got some help from the teatchers to really discuss different aspects during all parts in the course, then we would have learned a lot more!» (Sufficient)
- Many of lectures in relation with the project! That is the best way to learn and to apply all the advices we get!» (Excellent)

2. Learning outcome 2

19 svarande

Very insufficient»		0		0%
Insufficient»		1		5%
Sufficient»		12		66%
Excellent»		5		27%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.22

- ...nothing that we learned from the teachers, we had to solve it ourselves...» (Insufficient)
- I wish I would have a better "mind map" about this part, I still feel the information hasn´,t really landed. I guess the subject IS complicated, but I still would like to think I would master it a bit better.» (Sufficient)
- Energy & indoor climate were very (too?) strongly addressed.» (Sufficient)
- Thanks to the engineers and their teachers.» (Sufficient)
- To work with engineers was the best part of this semester, their knowledges are so useful for us, i cannot impagine my future work without a good and deep relation with engineers » (Excellent)

3. Learning outcome 3

19 svarande

Very insufficient»		0		0%
Insufficient»		5		26%
Sufficient»		10		52%
Excellent»		4		21%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 2.94

- We learned to do so by making mistakes, stronger comments at consultations may or may not have lead to learning this before finalizing the entry.» (Insufficient)
- From the jury assesment it becomes clear that the idea of a conceptual competition was not the basis of the evaluation. It seams like the jury"s assesment did not take this fully into consideration. the assesment also raises questions wheter the main focus of this competition was to manage an integrated design process in a sustainable perspective or to design "nice" architecure?? I am sorry to say the comments of the jury did not add much new to the discussion of the sustainability.» (Insufficient)
- Difficult to say, especially when the the critics isn´,t really about sus. architecture like the program said it should be. A lot of us tried to work with a strong sus. concept, but in the end the critic wasn´,t really about that aspect, instead it ended up beeing about good looking architecture. I think the idea should be that we also learn about sus. architecture, and get som feedback about it, during the critics, but we didn´,t... » (Insufficient)
- We where supposed to have it if you read the program, but we never got a comment on it, not in supervision nor in the jury assessment. It seems harder for the older generation to discuss a conceptual level. The sustainable holistic view on architecture was not at all mentioned by the jury. We have not been introduced to many updated projects. Dusty old projects made a long time ago was dominating. There is a lack of role models within this field of architecture!» (Insufficient)
- Afterwards I have come to conclusion that we our selves and the assistants should have been questioned us more about how our sollution responded to the programme. So, what I have learned afterwards might be sufficient.» (Sufficient)
- ..only that the competition time has been too short, co-operation with the engineers didn´,t really take off that well.» (Sufficient)

4. Learning outcome 4

19 svarande

Very insufficient»		0		0%
Insufficient»		3		15%
Sufficient»		11		57%
Excellent»		5		26%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- The competition was not about sustainable building. It was about low energy building.» (Insufficient)
- Again i missed the discussion. We learned a lot during lectures, but we never really got the possability to talk about it with the teachers. there is so many questions on the way and I think that this course could be so much better if there were space for questions and discussion. Thats what you learn from!» (Insufficient)
- » (Insufficient)
- It is a problem that we don"t learn about other materials than concrete and some wood and steel» (Sufficient)
- I wish I could have found more links between architectural issues and technique. The technical part was very advanced in opposition to the architectural thoughts.» (Sufficient)
- I really lack the holistic approach of sustainable thinking in general. Of course we have brought it with us from previous courses, but one could expect it to be an ongoing discussion.» (Sufficient)
- We have enough time to make our own researches, and to exchange our different point of view and knowledges regarding the project» (Excellent)

5. Learning outcome 5

19 svarande

Very insufficient»		0		0%
Insufficient»		3		16%
Sufficient»		12		66%
Excellent»		3		16%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 3

- We missed a lecture about the combining off different systems, cause the only "trustable" source we have during this short time is our engineer. They should of course, but we can"t discuss the systems very well with them cause we miss the basics.» (Insufficient)
- Hoping we could get a broader picture of this as a whole. Like with questions: Where does district heating come from? Is it sustainable? » (Insufficient)
- Varis Bokalders has bin a good idol for that... » (Insufficient)
- Maybe the competion and the work with the engineers were a bit too short...» (Sufficient)
- Unfortunately, too much time was lost on the architecture to really develop this fully.» (Sufficient)
- Varis Bokalders has been a good guide!» (Sufficient)
- Varis Bokalder"s book has been a good guide...» (No opinion)

6. Learning outcome 6

19 svarande

Very insufficient»		0		0%
Insufficient»		3		15%
Sufficient»		10		52%
Excellent»		6		31%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.15

- I think we had too little time to work with the engineers. Somehow we still worked each with our areas, so the co-operation was pretty short. I don´,t think i still really get the energy systems and combinations fully. Partly this can be lack of knowledge from the teachers, different people have been saying different things. » (Insufficient)
- Equal participation from more engineers would be benefitial for the results.» (Insufficient)
- A problem has been that the pre-knowledge of the architects and engenieers have been on different levels. It has resulted in a lot of elementary explainations and it could have saved us valuable time in the competition if there have been better/higher requirements of pre-knowledge in sustainable building to attend the competition.» (Sufficient)
- We learned a lot from our engineer. But if i could wich,the engineers should be more into the sus. thinking. » (Sufficient)
- It"s a problem when having too big differences in background knowledge. » (Sufficient)
- A contact with engineers knowing more about structures would be great. » (Excellent)
- Rewarding!» (Excellent)

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

No, the goals are to elementar»		1		5%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»		18		94%
No, the goals are too ambitious»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.94

- The ambition level is too low. I had expected much more input from the newest technologies, architecture etc. It is ok that research is a great part of the learning process, but one could at least expect to get lectures with the latest updates?!» (No, the goals are to elementar)
- like i said before, we have time to work and to make researches, and as it is a master program, we share with many of students coming for different countries, and who have different background in architecture!» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- The short time span and our very poor knowledge about different HVAC systems is a problem. I would rather have had the HVSC course before the competition or at least have started it earlier.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- I wish I could marked the three answers depending which topic it concerns, architecture or technique. Hight level upon technique» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- It is a logical continuation from 3A & 3B but should be about SD and not just low-energy.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- Same as last question. You can take the project so much longer with same level of pre-knowledge within the group. » (Yes, the goals are reasonable)

8. Are the goals reasonable in reltion to the scope and the amount of credtis

Too small scope in relation to credits»		1		5%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»		16		88%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»		1		5%

Genomsnitt: 2

- More time on the competion part would have been very useful!» (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)
- ...exept from the last competiotion part... we ended up spending one week prepearing a party for the norwegians!» (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)
- It has been very hard work!!! And the last 3D- party planning course? Better distribution of the courses please. » (Too wide scope in relation to credits)

Education and course administration

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

Very little»		2		11%
Rather little»		9		52%
Rather big»		6		35%
Very big»		0		0%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 2.23

- more books and alternative sources should be suggested» (Very little)
- Research was up to the students. The previous courses were enough background for the architects, but not for the engineers.» (Very little)
- It would be nice with a list of books that are relevant litterature for the course. Especially books about energy systems and installations. The ingeneer books can be hard to understand. This course should be providing more references and facts about energy for architects. In that way we can question the ingeneers and have a better discussion!» (Rather little)
- Course litterature found by research on my own! But very low standard/ambition/level of innovation on the lectures!» (Rather little)
- Course litterature? We found it by our own! And used a lot of the materials that we was given by Lena Falkheden and Björn Malbert, they are perfect rolemodels of engaged teachers that is updated on their issues and chare there knowlage with the students!» (Rather little)
- Course literature and internet (even though there was very little time and knowledge to judge what was reasonable)» (Rather big)
- Only literature found by my self.» (No opinion)

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

Very bad»		4		21%
Rather bad»		6		31%
Rather well»		8		42%
Very well»		1		5%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 2.31

- In general the information and means of informantions has been very unstructured. It has sometimes been by e-mail and sometimes just a paper put up in the studio... It has resulted in a lot of unessasary misunderstandings and an uneven input of information within the group. Not everyone has been working in the studio, why this is not a good place for communication! There has been very little space for discussion and it has not been encouraged to question i.e. the program, rather it has been difficult to get through with different opionions... I have also felt a lack of trust in the students responsability and capability. we are an ambitious and committed class that take responsability with doubting, but then we need to be included in whatever discussion and desissons are made! » (Very bad)
- Very bad organization, very bad communication. Uneven input of information within the group. A lot of misunderstandings during the whole semester. The trust in the students is lacking. Talk to us, introduce us to the developer or what ever problem... Let us be a part of our own education and form it to something better. This is very strange as there are many good examples of successful teachers on this master program. Lena Falkheden and Björn Malbert are extremely good examples for this. I really miss a cooperation between courses on the program. » (Very bad)
- One information channel would have been better (either mail or studieportalen). Clearer information on what information is for architects only/mainly (even though I"ve learned a lot from trying to join everything) and what we can expect to happen.» (Rather bad)
- The practicalities frame should be more "set" before the students get into the course. Including a course assistant could help solve this.» (Rather bad)
- Not very well, there were a lot of missunderstanding and uneven input of information within the group.» (Rather bad)

Work environment

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

Very bad»		1		5%
Rather bad»		5		26%
Rather well»		5		26%
Very well»		8		42%
I have not asked for assistance»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- No space for discussions. Very bad supervision of architectural values and sustainable holistic approaches. » (Very bad)
- The consultations were too short and you should have planned a break in between-at lest to be able to catch up.A lot of things felt unplanned.» (Rather bad)
- Of course it was given that we could not have so much assistance since it was a competition, but still it become clear for many of us that some elementary guiding to know if the project was on the right track or not, would have been helpful, sine this still is an education.» (Rather bad)
- At least between the students and the headteatcher... there has not bin space for question and discussion only a lot of one way communication! Again Lena Falkheden and Björn Malbert are wounderful exampels of how this could work. This is a masterprogram and the teatchers should learn from eachother and take care of each others knowladge... the different cources have to cooperate with eachother if this masterprogram should be about all the sus. aspects!» (Rather bad)
- Teachers are always within reach.» (Rather well)

12. Consultations

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		7		36%
Rather good»		11		57%
Excellent»		1		5%

Genomsnitt: 2.68

- Quite inspiring but did not question so much. Hard to keep the consultaion on a good level- conceptual/project/competition. If this is about a competition, the consultation should focus on competition instead of "ordinary project". It would have been good with extra consultation only about presentation and how to think in a competition entry.» (Rather bad)
- The consultations that were there lacked hard (good&bad) criticism, mainly due to the Swedish soft mentality. We need more black and white, not just the gray.» (Rather bad)
- The input from the engenieering team of teachers has been very good.» (Rather bad)
- Same as above. The engineers has been better than the architects during the consultations.» (Rather bad)
- Sometimes too short, and i think that we can be more criticized on our different projects...» (Rather good)
- The possibility that we have consultations is very good, but we would have like to heard charper critics. The best critics we had were after the competitions, so we felt that the teachers during the consultations thought more then they have said, to let us free to work in our directions, what"s good in one way but you can be blocked in an idea without knowing.» (Rather good)
- The time we had was good. I would have liked a bit less architectural focus and more help to start.» (Rather good)
- ...from the assistents it has bin rather good... but maby they should have bin more discussion about the sus. parts in the projects. Not only "do this and that", but also an explination about why this is the best solution. The engineers have bin better than the achitects to explain those questions.» (Rather good)

13. Group work - intercultural cooperation (within Chalmers)

19 svarande

Very problematic»		1		5%
Problematic»		4		21%
No problem»		6		31%
Enrichening»		8		42%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- perfect until the competition !» (Problematic)
- It has been problematic in the sense that the pre-knowledge on sustainable issues has differed a lot between scandinavien and non-scandinavien students. Though it is also a great difference between the students that have attended the Strömstad course this autumn. It is not so very much about cultural background as about the pre-knowledge on the sustainable field that has been decisive. Which also underlines the importance of the a collaboration between the master programs!» (Problematic)
- Sometimes there has been to great cultural differences and hard to cooperate because of this. But there are many good examples of when everything has been good as well. » (Problematic)
- Some of the swedish students did not accept to work in intercultural group for the competition, which was really a shame. » (No problem)
- ...there has bin no problem with the intercultural cooperation, instead the problem has bin that we came to this course with different backgrounds on sus. development... There where a much wider meening of what sus. dev was between the student that took the course "Sus.dev. in a nothern context", then from the others...» (No problem)
- so interesting to work with people from everywhere in the world!» (Enrichening)
- I think a mixture of Swedish and international people is very important, because of the different backgrounds, opinions and the way of working. » (Enrichening)

14. Cooperation between professions - arch/engineer

19 svarande

No learning or exchange of experience»		0		0%
Some exchange, but not enough»		10		52%
Sufficient learning and exchange»		2		10%
Much learning and exchange of experience»		7		36%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- We missed some short lectures, cause we are four architects expecting everything from one engineer, and we have no choise then believe them. Just to be more sure of ourself and to get an glimp of what they are questioning, discussing.» (Some exchange, but not enough)
- Here the problem lies within the time frame, not in people.» (Some exchange, but not enough)
- A common studio could be helpfull. Cooperation is too much up to the students now.» (Some exchange, but not enough)
- during the competition, the engenieer was not here !» (Some exchange, but not enough)
- Again: The same with everyone should have the same pre-knowledge before attending this course. Architect or engineer. And again lack of cooperation between courses within the master program. » (Some exchange, but not enough)
- Very interesting. Structure engineers would have been useful too!» (Much learning and exchange of experience)
- We were lucky to work with 2 nice engineers (from Island and Spain) who were really interesting in designing the project, helping us to find the good solutions and to link architecture with environmental and energy issues.» (Much learning and exchange of experience)
- it has been a great experience, it should have like this in other courses» (Much learning and exchange of experience)
- It gave good input to the competion entry, but here the cultural and pre-knowlegde differenses became visible. Better requirements for attending this course would eliminate this kind of problems.» (Much learning and exchange of experience)

15. How was the cooperation with Norwegian students in Trondheim

16 svarande

Very bad»		6		37%
Rather bad»		7		43%
Rather good»		3		18%
Excellent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.81

- workshops? We didn´,t really meet the Norwegian students at all I think.. I guegg this is because no co-operation was organized so everyone more or less stuck to their groups» (?)
- I was not able to come to Trondheim so I don"t know...» (?)
- not existing, but socially it worked» (Very bad)
- There was no cooperation.» (Very bad)
- There has"nt been any collaboration. I can not understand why we have a common competition when the intention was not to make an international competition? it would have been a great oppertunity for both countries to measure the quality of education and compare the knowledge level. It seams like one is afraid to expose the education for such an evaluation... Why pretend to have a coporataion when there is no exchange??» (Very bad)
- There were no cooperation! We went to some lectures together, but that was all, no worshops as we were told. Why have a cooperation whan there is no exchange!?» (Very bad)
- I cant understand why we have a cooperation when it is really two parallel courses with parallel results. Why pretend to have a cooperation when there is no exchange? Afraid of the results showing too big differences between the two schools? Workshops? Cooperation? We went to the same lectures and made individual analysis of the site. I don"t call that cooperation. » (Very bad)
- I had the feeling that the exchange with the Norvegian students was very limited.» (Rather bad)
- There was no contact at all, the workshop we"ve got was a lecture, without cooperation. » (Rather bad)

16. How was the exchange with Norway - in general

Very bad»		4		22%
Rather bad»		4		22%
Rather good»		10		55%
Excellent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- There was no interaction.» (Very bad)
- No exchange due to the way the collaboration was planned. no common workshop? no international ranking? just the same site..» (Very bad)
- There were no cooperation!» (Very bad)
- It is a great idea! But only if it is an exchange... As it was now, the exchange was not existing. » (Very bad)
- There was not much exchange at all...» (Rather bad)
- I liked fact that we visited two kindergartens, but I would have liked to talk more with the teachers from the kindergarten in Bröset. The conversation we had was good but very short.» (Rather good)
- The trip was a nice start but since we neither knew each other well nor the architects (at all) we put more focus on getting to know each other which was good. The lectures in Norway felt unorganized. Why start with a coffee break and why listen to the same presentation twice?» (Rather good)
- Norwegian quite cold. I only spoke to resamus student. Is it the same everywhere ?» (Rather good)

17. How was the conference in Trondheim

irrelevant»		0		0%
partly relevant»		11		64%
relevant»		5		29%
Very relevant»		1		5%

Genomsnitt: 2.41

- I was not able to come to Trondheim so I don"t know...» (?)
- The presentations should have been more planned together instead of each person taking about their own small project.» (partly relevant)
- It suits the SD-track and such oportunities should be used. Relevance to the competition is limited though.» (partly relevant)
- difficult for english speaking» (partly relevant)
- Some interesting lectures. Would have been good with a sum up seminar as the conference raised a lot of questions for the students.» (partly relevant)
- It was interesting and relevant for the education in general, but it did not give many inpu to the competition program.» (relevant)
- Very intesting, but it had nothing to do with the exchange or the cooperation, it just happend to be there when we were in trondheim...» (relevant)

18. Learning from the jurys assessment

19 svarande

Did not give any learning or points for reflection»		0		0%
Some learning and points for reflection»		13		68%
Gave valuable learning and points for reflection»		4		21%
Excellent lesson»		2		10%

Genomsnitt: 2.42

- I think we really missed the second engineer with the "building physics" background, to give more relevant critics. I would have liked to hear both from the men and women architect, just very short, instead of just from one person, cause they have a different opinion. Hopefully the written assessment gives a broader view. » (Some learning and points for reflection)
- The jurys commitment to the competition was somewhat on the surface » (Some learning and points for reflection)
- At least it gave an idea of how a jury works» (Some learning and points for reflection)
- Some interesting comments, but there was a lack of in-depth knowledge. This is a learning competition, not an actual one. Feedback is very important.» (Some learning and points for reflection)
- From the perspective of sustainability (which was the focus of this competion) there was not many new questions or aspects raised. One could say that this is due to fact that the jury is picked from the "normal" architecture sphere, which could be good in some ways. But is"nt the aim of this course that we should extend our sustainable knowledge? Bade rates for sustainability discussion - good to learn how a competition work.» (Some learning and points for reflection)
- From the sus. architecture point if wiew, there were no learning and points for reflection. The critics where about everything else than about sus. arch! » (Some learning and points for reflection)
- From a sustainability point of view it was not good at all, no interesting questions where raised, no relevant discussions. This was the purpose of the course and the assessment should have extended our knowledge within this field! The fact that the jury came from the architectural sphere was interesting and we learnt some about competitions. Again lack of role models... » (Some learning and points for reflection)

19. Learning from the final seminars

19 svarande

Did not give any learning or points for reflection»		0		0%
Some learning and points for reflection»		12		63%
Gave valuable learning and points for reflection»		5		26%
Excellent lesson»		2		10%

Genomsnitt: 2.47

- Some more comments was given here, but only after strong complaints of the students beforehand.» (Some learning and points for reflection)
- All the questions raised about the frame of the competition (international ranking, jury etc.) should be seen as a very important discussion, and it really shows how important it is to be informed in advance about the given rules of the framework, which was not fullfilled in this case. I hope the responsibles of this course take self-critisism on how an unclear information about the competiton framework caused a lot of questions and frustration after the assesment... » (Some learning and points for reflection)
- The responsible for this course could have some self-criticism. It chould be good for the development of this course and the next year students. A lot of things were said that hadn´,t bin brought up before... It felt like the teachers didn´,t dare to say there own opinion about the projects before the critics from the jury. Should it be like that if there is no wright of wrong? They should be able to give there own opinion!» (Some learning and points for reflection)
- But still confusing.. Is this about learning how to do energy efficient architecture or learning how to do a competition? I think both are important questions. Maybe it would have been better with two seminars. One for discussing energy efficient architecture and one for competition. This would have given better knowledge and experienses from the course.» (Gave valuable learning and points for reflection)
- Most of them have been very nice-not to hard and time to reflect, repeat and learn» (Gave valuable learning and points for reflection)
- The critics we"ve got after the competition were the right ones, charper and more relevant. It is very important to have this discussion, maybe we should have got this also with the jury, for the ones who wanted. » (Excellent lesson)

20. Post competition phase - pause for lectures and detailing

19 svarande

No learning»		5		26%
Some learning and points for reflection»		12		63%
Gave valuable learning and points for reflection»		2		10%
Much learning and enrichening period»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.84

- There was nothing planed, only making a party for the norwigens» (No learning)
- One lecture! Then the rest of the time was about preparing the party for the norweigans... » (No learning)
- More lectures! Or, write an assay on how you think your entry responed to the tasks in the programme. I thinh it would be good to reflect more. If there would be an essay it would be good with guiding questions so that there is a point of departure for the essay.» (Some learning and points for reflection)
- Most important is that you should have told us what we"re expected to do (if anything) most of us we"re really tired so the low-intense time have been nice but I always have the feeling of that this is not ok-we don"t ever have that slow time in other courses and if you take it it will strike you back with loads of work the week thereafter.» (Some learning and points for reflection)
- The lectures were good, but otherwise not so inspiring period. But nevertheless it was nice to have more relaxing period.» (Some learning and points for reflection)
- Some interesting lectures. No relevance to the competition however.» (Some learning and points for reflection)
- It is very nice to have lectures and meetings after the competition to have some reflection and learning from what has been done» (Gave valuable learning and points for reflection)

Concluding questions

21. What is your overall opinion of the course?

Very bad»		0		0%
Bad»		4		21%
Passed»		3		15%
Good»		10		52%
Very good»		2		10%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

- We learned by our own not from the teacher» (Bad)
- Good intentions for the course but not at all carried out on a level where you feel participation and a fruitfull dialog between students and responsibles of the course.» (Bad)
- The intention with the course is good!!!, but it need to be developed! Better communication between the teatchers and the student is needed!» (Bad)
- The intention of the course is very good, but it is performed in a poor way. Lack of communication through out the whole course and semester especially! More focus on what the focus should have been according to the program. For example that there should be no compromises between good architecture and sustainable architecture. Then learn us that!!!» (Bad)
- I learned a lot but the course culd be so much better if it was more well organized.» (Good)
- I really like the cooperation.» (Good)
- I feel that i have learn a lot and that i am different now..i will come back to my city with new questions and goals! i think i can make something in my school, which is not so aware of environmental issues and sustainable development. and i am a bit proud to have taken part of this course ans this competition!» (Very good)
- unforgettable course and experience.» (Very good)

22. What should be preserved next year?

23. What shuold be changed the nest year?

24. Other comments