Course evaluations – Electives Quartile 2

Below you can find the courses taught in quartile 2.

 

 

7X7X0
Transvorm I: Geometry and Form

 

2017-2018

General

 Very nice assignment and something different than normal courses. However, students did not get the connection between the geometry & form. Responsible teacher says to this; students already connect the geometry & form part without knowing it. A cone, cylinder or cube are already rotation bodies and students work with these forms during the forming part. Nevertheless, maybe a more mathematical report would make this connection stronger. Another point that can be improved for next year is to make a study guide. This year, most of the information was available on canvas. However, some important information, for instance some information about a retake, were not available online.

Lectures/project

 For the geometry part, there was a good coherence between the lectures and the exam. The teacher elaborated everything in a very clear way with many examples. For the project, the introduction presentation gave a nice kick-off. The time schedule every Thursday worked well and students liked the individual attention in smaller groups. For next year, a template with requirements which are mandatory in the report would be nice for the students. This year, there was some turbidity about it and people did not know what to include.

Examination

 The geometry exam contained exercises made during the seminar and was very clear. Also the exam of last year was very helpful. For the forming part, the midterm deadline did not seem to have a meaning. The teacher says to this, that it was only a deadline for students to divide their study load.

Workload

 It was appreciated that the exam was in week 5. This divided the workload and after the exam, students could fully focus on the forming part. Also the forming part was separated into four parts and this reduced the workload at the end.

2016-2017

Lectures

Quality and quantity was fine; the paste was good and coherence between lectures and exam was fine. The lecturer took into account that the students were architecture and not mathematics students. Good quality English

Coaching

Quality of the coaching was good. Students say that the tutors are nice and easily approachable.

The opinion about the quantity of coaching differs from student to student. Quotes vary from saying the coaching was minimal and didn’t help much, to students saying that it was minimal but just enough. Explanations given for this, are noisiness in the workshop and large amount of students and only two tutors. Most students state that this wasn’t a real problem because of the approachability of the tutors, but it could be improved.

  • Teachers state that assertiveness and an active learning attitude is asked from students. This is part of the academic mindset that fits studying at University. The practical issues about the workshop environment will be improved for the next time.

Communication

Different opinions were given about the communication. Students found the use of canvas good, but wish there was a link to the student email-address for updates.

Assignment

Some of the assignments descriptions were unclear. This was mostly with the last assignments, but they were kept vaguely on purpose to a create more room for students to be creative. Also the assignments were evenly distributed throughout the quartile. Students gave a point for improvement, namely that the Geometry could be better embedded in the assignments. The teacher let us know that they were already planning on it. They also want to concentrate more on the relationship between the course and architecture in general, since students also let us know that that relationship sometimes was unclear.

Workload

Students state that the workload was average or mostly depending on how much work you want to put in yourself. All reactions were positive. Students appreciate that the exam for Geometrizing was halfway during the quartile, so after that focus could be on the Forming part completely (or other courses).

  • Teachers agree that the workload is indeed very dependent on the approach and ambitions of the student.

Learning goals

Opinions about the learning goals differ between students. Some say that the goals were clear and they achieved them; others say the general goal of the course was vague and therefore they don’t know if they achieved the goals. Students acknowledge that some of the goals became more clear while working on the forming assignment.

  • The learning objectives have to be found out by students during the making process of the course. Although this is stated and explained at the beginning of the course, teachers realize that an active and curious attitude is required to fully understand the meaning of the course. This is something that is related to the content of the course and also to the intrinsic motivation of students. (Trying) to explain and elaborate this beforehand would take away from the ‘discovering’ aspect of this course and the development of the student throughout the course. The only thing that could possibly be done to make students aware of their own input and responsibility is mentioning this to them during the tutoring. Still, an active input from students is expected.

General

The course is considered much fun and was graded between a 7 and a 10 out of 10.

2015 - 2016
General
 The course received a grade of 7,8 by the students. Most of the points that students said there were problems with, the teachers already recognized.
Study material
The study material, referring to the study material of Geometry, was easy to find and students found that the study material was of good quality. The study guide had all the mandatory information, but the planning was a bit unclear, since this also changed throughout the quartile. This change was not foreseen and so this will probably be solved for next year.
Lectures
 The lectures were of sufficient amount and the quality was good. This concerns the lectures of Geometry. These lectures were also well balanced; the distribution between lecture and time to make assignments was good. The study material connected well with the examination questions and the questions were clear. Students found it difficult that they did not receive grades of the assignments in between. This made it very difficult for students to estimate whether they were doing the assignments right. The teachers did not give these grades on purpose, because last year they noticed that students flunked the Geometry test, because their grades were high enough. But they recognize that it is difficult for students to estimate whether they are doing the assignments right. So it is an option to give some general notes on the first assignments.
Assignment
Some of the assignments descriptions were unclear. This was mostly with the last assignments, but they were kept vaguely on purpose to a create more room for students to be creative. Also the assignments were evenly distributed throughout the quartile. Students gave a point for improvement, namely that the Geometry could be better embedded in the assignments. The teacher let us know that they were already planning on it. They also want to concentrate more on the relationship between the course and architecture in general, since students also let us know that that relationship sometimes was unclear.

0SEUC0
Future of Mobility

This course has not been evaluated yet

7S5X0
Acoustic Awareness

 

2015 - 2016
General
The study material was of good quality, but there was no study guide available for this course.
Lectures
The students are missing some immersion in the lectures. The subjects are very general and are only introducing acoustics. The students who have chosen this acoustic subject are generally interesting in acoustics and want some lectures with more depth.
Assignment
The exercise of this course was very clear. Also the guidance was very good. One little point about the peer review from week four is that the students didn’t have enough time for it. But overall this part of the course has enough quality according the students.

0HEAU0
Light and Experience

 

2017-2018

General

 The general information about the course is very complete. The overall score of this course is 6.8.

There is one responsible  teacher Antal Haans and six co-lecturers. The studyguide was complete and very clear. An extensive overview over the eight weeks. Which gave you a clear image what to expect every week. Furthermore the studyguide had everything that was necessary. There was a good way of communication. And everything was very clear. 

Lectures/project

 There was a lecture part and a project part. For the lectures different lecturer were invited. These lecturer were really interesting and informative. The different lecturers told us different stories from different aspect of light. It gave insight into the possibilities with light.

The project part consists of a PACT-assignment. It were different cases which had their own different connection with light. It were many different cases, so everyone could choose something he/she liked.  During the project part there was enough tutoring and furthermore the lecturer continued. There was a good balance between this two parts. 

Examination

 The examination consists of different parts. The homework assignment which was a introduction too light in a office room. It was a really good assignment. A interim test, final test. And the PACT-assignment. All parts contribute equally and relatively to your end-grade.

Workload

 There was a evenly spread workload. Overall every week had his own workload, which was spread evenly during the eight weeks.

Course Specific Points

 The assignment were great and contributed in the process during the course of light and experience.

2016-2017

Study Guide

The study guide was complete and informative. Regular updates kept it reliable and students made good use of it. The large number of professors within the course made coordination challenging and was the cause of these alterations. The number of updates would ideally be reduced in the future.

Study Material

Students felt that the book was of high quality and the quantity of material was large but the strong connection between study material and lectures made this manageable. Some students found the number of external articles made them a bit hard to keep track of. The course is moving towards using just one book, and trying to reduce these articles, as they are very in depth and are not considered to be in a style which suits the broad departmental backgrounds of students.
The practice exam questions provided with answers really helped students prepare for the exams.

Coaching

Tutoring varied between PACT cases. The general consensus was that this was of good quality but could have been more frequent. Some students felt that the opportunity to have a graded first draft would have helped them. The infrequent meeting with tutors was attributed to the short during of the assignment, and this will be improved in the future.

Lectures

Lecture quality and quantity was considered very good by students. The diversity amongst lecturers and subject matter was appreciated, as well as the enthusiasm from lecturers..

Workload

Students felt that the workload was fair but could perhaps be more evenly distributed across the quartile. Towards the end of the quartile the PACT assignment, intermediate and final tests all weighed heavily on students. Suggestions for improving this were the earlier placement of the intermediate test (covering less of the subject matter), or the earlier beginning of the PACT assignment. The interim exam was placed earlier in the previous year but this meant that not all subject material was covered which led to complaints. The most likely solution is the earlier beginning of PACT which professors are in support of and was already intended for this year. Unfortunately because of scheduling conflicts this did not work as intended this year.

Communication

Although students noticed some difficulties with adapting to the new canvas system, they were pleased with the professors use of it to communicate and provide study material. It was easy for students to ask questions during lectures or via email.

Assignment and Examination

The two assignments were considered suitable by students. The PACT case assignment was found a bit vague, and large. Students would have liked longer to work on this, perhaps by starting earlier in the quartile. Professor Haans agrees with this. Perhaps the provision of example reports would improve student understanding. The option to choose an assignment was appreciated by students.
Students felt as though the intermediate exam prepared them well for the final exam but that there were not many questions. The final exam contained a very specific open question which a number of students found surprising and somewhat unfair. Students felt that there had been no indication that this depth of knowledge would be required for the final exam. Perhaps the provision of more practice questions would help students prepare. It is challenging to provide students with more questions as there is a limited pool of approved questions to choose from. The diversity of students from different departments in the course means that reactions to the question types are very different and this type of open question is typical within the sustainable innovation department.

2DBA0
Matrices and Differential Equations

 

2017-2018

General

 Last year this course was considered a failure, the department reorganized the course by changing the teacher and the program. Also, to make sure the course went well this time, the course was evaluated by the B-council after a few weeks in the quartile to make sure the quality improved. The final evaluation is written below.

Study guide

 The studyguide was one of the weaker points in this course. In the beginning of the quartile before the course started, there was no studyguide. Instead, the three main subjects were given, and more info was given as time passed. After each lecture on Monday, the studyguide was updated to make sure there was a clear overview of all materials and subjects. Students would rather have a complete program beforehand. Andrea explained that she had limited time to prepare a studyguide. In earlier conversations with her, she explained this and stated that next year a complete schedule will be provided in the beginning of the course.

Communication between teachers and students was improved significantly regarding last year. Students could ask their questions without any difficulties. Teachers were able to answer them or rephrase the subjects they were explaining in a good way. 

Study materials

 For almost any subject in the program, there was a reference to literature in which it was elaborated more. Sufficient amounts of practice exercises were provided, as well as answers. The same goes for practice exams.

Lectures/Tutoring

 All regular lectures were given on Mondays. The structure of the lectures was very clear and easy to follow because of the relatively slow pace. By using the blackboard rather than a slideshow, the information was easy to absorb. Lots of students were satisfied with this. During these lectures there was not too much room for questions by students, but they have the opportunity to ask them during breaks or tutoring sessions on Wednesdays.

Tutoring sessions were given on Wednesday in two separate groups. Andrea Fuster guided one group, Jasper Hoeksma took care of the other one. Questions and guided example questions were done during these hours. It was unclear if two groups were necessary, but to ensure good quality it was done this way. Next time it will also be done like this.

Examination

 There was only a final exam, students would rather have an intermediate exam. With this, there is more emphasis on the early subjects of the course, it also gives a small opportunity to compensate for a bad result. The exam itself was a bit too short and a bit too easy. Andrea agrees with the comments, she found it difficult to estimate the level of the course and wanted to make it rather easy instead of too difficult, all while fine-tuning and finding the perfect balance. Even though the exam was considered rather easy, the passing rate was 64%, which is relatively average.

2016-2017

General

The course received a 5 in the CHEOPS surveys. There were various problems with this course, as regards the lectures, study materials and tests. Therefore, we decided to evaluate this course more elaborate than we normally do (see ‘Changes for next year’).

Lectures

The lectures were one of these problems. The amount of lectures was sufficient. The quality however was less well received by the students. A lot of things were presumed as basic knowledge and were not explained.

Especially the coaching sessions where a problem as the methods, used during the lectures, were not the methods used during the coaching. Also the communication between the students and the teachers was a problem.

Study Material

There was almost no study material and everything was in Dutch. The reader was not finished and there was a lack of answers and elaborations of exercises. Students indicated that this made it unnecessarily hard for them to study for the course.

Workload

The workload was assessed as good. There was not too much and not too little work that had to be done. 

Changes for next year

Because we got many complaints from several students (bachelors as well as pre-masters) CHEOPS, Mollier and KOers decided to do an investigation to find out what the problems were and how they could be solved. The conclusion was that there should be made some big changes next year. We presented our results to the Program Director of our department and to Emiel van Berkum of the department of Computer Science and Mathematics (the course is provided by that department). They agreed on the seriousness of the matter and promised to search for a solution for the problems for next year. The exact solution is not yet made up, but there will be made some major changes and CHEOPS, Mollier and KOers will monitor the progress. 

2015 - 2016

Study Guide

The study guide of this year was not complete. It was not clear what was expected of the students, which subjects would be part of the course, what the study material was and what would be the learning objectives. The vision of Mr. Van Hassel, the responsible lecturer, is that students should derive this information from the lectures. The students indicated that they would really appreciate it if the study guide would contain this information, so that they would know in advance that Van Hassel takes a different approach than the average lecturer.

Lectures

Many students, however indicate that they do not dare to ask questions, because Van Hassel asks the same question back immediately. Students indicate that they find this embarrassing, but this is absolutely not what Van Hassel wants to achieve with this. What he does want to achieve is that students start thinking for themselves and not just absorb all the information ready made from the lecturers.

Communications

The main problem was the students’ lack of understanding of the teaching approach of Van Hassel. Van Hassel indicated that he would add an explanation of his teaching approach and learning objectives to the study guide and that he would explain it during the first lecture, so that students would understand why the course is build up like this and why he acts in this way during his lectures.

Examination

The exams were (almost) the same as the previous years. The members of the B-council stated that this did not correspond to the teaching approach of Van Hassel, that wants students to think for themselves, not just reproduce. Van Hassel stated that if he would make the tests more difficult, almost all students would fail. Therefore he has no intention to alter this.

 

7X3X0
History of European Architecture and Urbanism
2017-2018

General

Overall the course is very good. Students see it as one of the more useful courses within the bachelor. Also the seminar part was seen as nice and useful in combination with the lectures. All teachers for the course were seen as very good.

The next part is to improve the reader of the course, including pictures. The teacher would like to have a translated version before the retake. 

Lectures/project

 The lectures were very good, however the students would like the slides to become available. However this is not possible due to copyright of all pictures. And next to that the video lectures are available with slides included. The connection between the seminars and the lectures could become a little bit more clear. The time management of the seminar part could be a little bit more strict.

Examination

 Students found the time for the examination too short, but according to the teacher this is a sufficient amount of time and will not be changed. In the US the same exam was given, in only 1,5 hours.

Workload

 The workload for the course is quite high, but this cannot be lowered. The teacher would even like more hours of lectures in the coming years, since the pace of the lectures now is very high.

2016-2017

Study Materials

The material is provided in different languages, this is confusing. It should be completely in English before next year, because of the international students. There will be about 20 to 30 international students next year, therefor it should really be provided in English next year. According to the teacher this is impossible in terms of planning. Too much about the course is changing at the same time (also content wise). The reader is being made into a textbook, but this will take more time.

Lectures and Tutoring

The lectures are considered good, they provided all information for the exam. Sometimes students complained that the lectures were sometimes a little bit long. However, this is still in process because the lecture part was changed in comparison to earlier years.
It was nice that the lectures are recorded. But because of the recorded lectures there were less people at the actual lectures. It is too bad that not many people showed up to the evening lectures. Student attendance fluctuates, but in the second half (the evening lectures) it was systematic that there were not many students during the evening lectures. This is not good for the lectures, because students loose the opportunity to ask questions.

Workload

Workload experienced as too much, but it was possible to spread the workload out over the quartile.
According to the teacher there is no easy way to reduce the workload, without impacting the quality or the content of the course. Another possible approach is to organize the course better, in order to (help students) to spread the workload better over the quartile. Also if students would read the reader every week instead of at the end, this would already help them to spread the workload. This is now mostly applicable for the lecture part. It could be nice to help students spread out the workload for the seminars in a similar way. The fact that there is an intermediate presentation already helps very much. To create more intermediate deadlines is a difficult point, because if there are too many deadlines, students are only ‘running between deadlines’ (also in combination with other courses), which is not beneficial for the spreading of workload for any course.
The workload for lecture part was minimal and this was perceived as good.

Assignment and Examination

The lecture part was all clear, preparation for the exam during the lectures was very helpful.
For the seminars it was clear what was expected. No complaints about the assignment or the tutors.

7U7X0
Urban Projects and Finance

 

2017-2018
General
 This year, this course was provided in the Bachelor College for the first time, before it was only provided in the Graduate School. It is now a part of a coherent elective package, and pre-master students can follow this course. Students graded this course with an 8,3, which is very positive. They also found it enjoyable, and the lecturer was very clear and enthusiastic. The study guide was clear as well, there were only a few small comments.
Lectures/project
 The lectures were found to be very clear and useful, the lecturer could tell his story in a comprehensive and structured way. Beside the lectures, there were three individual calculation assignments and one group assignment. The group assignment was explained clearly, but there was too little feedback availability, since there was only one teacher for all the groups. However, students did find the given feedback useful. The individual assignments were a bit vague, and some students found that they did not have enough knowledge to do these. Some elaboration before these assignments or some example exercises could be helpful. It could also help to build up the difficulty of the assignments, to let students get used to the exercises.
Examination
 There were some mandatory articles as study material, but students found that the connection with the lectures was lacking a bit. The articles were meant to be a deepening addition to the lectures. Some articles were also in Dutch, which is not desirable. This was also the case for the group assignment, the master plan of the project was in Dutch. To accommodate this, it was told that the international students had to be divided, to minimize their disadvantage. For now, this is sufficiently solved, but this could be a problem if the number of international students increases. Overall, students found the structure of the group assignment positive. 
Workload
 The workload for this course was normal, if you understood the assignments sufficiently. Some students found that they did not have enough knowledge for the individual assignments, which resulted in extra workload. The workload was well-spread, because of the individual assignments having to be finished first, and then the group assignments, there was no overlap.
Course Specific Points
 This course had a very good connection to practice, which students really appreciated. The lecturer had a lot of experience in the working field, which he often talked about. A disadvantage that comes with this, as previously mentioned, is that it is a Dutch project with documents in Dutch.

7S8X0
Building Services

 

2017-2018

General

 The course is graded lower than last year, while nothing much has changed. The study guide was a bit confusing and hard to read. The PowerPoint presentations were also confusing, students advised to make them more coherent and in the same lay-out.

Lectures/project

 This year the lectures were divided in theory- and guest lectures. After every lecture, the teacher evaluated the theory, which was experienced as useful. This gave clear guidelines on how to continue. The setup of the assignment and lectures was experienced as good.

Examination

 The feedback after the assignment was useful, it gave clear insight in what to improve. However, the way the assignment was graded was not clear and was not very elaborated according to the students.

Course Specific Points

 At the end of the course, the teacher gave examples of exam questions, which was beneficial for the final exam.

2016-2017

General

The teacher has had three different reviews this year. The first years of this course the reviews were a little negative, but through the years they got better and this year the course got a 6.5 average. Also, the teacher let the students grade the lectures and they got a 6.8. The general survey gave an average of 6.3.

Study material

When the teacher started the course he found out that there are a lot of other studies like psychology and technology. The assignment was a little complicated and boring for them, therefore the teacher tried to think of another assignment that was better for the students. This assignment was cancelled last minute, so he had to improvise. In the end there was done a lot research on schools and he was content.

Lectures

The students thought there was a big difference of the quality of the lectures. This was because of the many different students, of which some did not have enough pre-knowledge. The surveys during the lectures were a good way to keep up the quality of the lectures and keep the teacher sharp.

Communication

There was made good use of canvas and the grade of the exam was given very fast. Clear communication.

Workload

Was considered fine, even without enough pre-knowledge. There was a big improvement compared to the last couple of years.
Maybe start explaining the assignment a little earlier. The communication with the schools was a little hard sometimes, making the students get behind. In the end, everyone had a school, though. The teacher did say that he explained the assignment in the first lecture.

Examination

Students knew what they could expect and thought that the exam was good. It would be nice to have more material to practice.

2015 - 2016

General

This course is experienced as a combinations of course. There is little relation between the lectures.

Study material

 The course reader contains a lot of spelling errors. Also the material on ‘fire in buildings’ was not available because of an incorrect file link.

Examination

 There was little relation between the first assignment (control assignment) and the course lectures. Because of that students don’t know if the applied knowledge is useful in work practice. The description of the second assignment (building services design) was not clear. This resulted in students and teachers having different expectations. This problem was well solved by extending the time reserved for the assignment. In general the assignment was too hard. This is because students did not have enough knowledge, mainly because the lectures were behind on schedule. Also the building to make a building services design for, was too complex.

7P9X0
Concrete and Masonry Structures

 

2017-2018

General

In general the course is evaluated positive, there were no large surprises in the subject matter and the course it not considered too difficult, but it had enough depth. Most of the students enjoyed the course. The setup of the course is good and it is well organised. The course is taken by both third year bachelors and pre-master students. In the start of the course, the level of those two groups varied a lot, and the lecturers seemed to have problems to understand what was already common knowledge. After some weeks this improved a lot.

The concrete capita selecta item (lectures about practical examples of concrete which were not part of the exam) were interesting and evaluated extremely positive by many students. 

Lectures/project

 The lectures of the concrete part were interesting and useful. Both the lecturers T.A.M. Salet and S.N.M. Wijte could tell their story in a comprehensive and structured way. However the lectures of the masonry part, given by A.T. Vermeltfoort were not evaluated positive. The lectures were not considered structured, a lot of context missed and the lectures were chaotic and not really motivating. The slides of this part were not published online and the reading material was not easy to learn as well, it was not very clear.

Examination

 The final exam was considered a bit long, several students were not able to finish the exam in time properly. Furthermore, the use of the GTB tables came as a surprise for many students, especially the bachelor students. In their opinion this was not mentioned very well, and the use of those tables was not elaborated during the lectures or the exercise sessions, so they were not able to make those exercises as they wished, because they never practised with those tables.

Workload

 The workload of the course is normal. On average the students spend around 140 hours on this course, which is the amount of hours prescribed for this course.

2016-2017

Lectures and tutoring

The concrete lectures were perceived as good and of high quality. A comment on the masonry lectures was that the teacher sometimes rushed through the examples.

During the tutoring hours, sometimes a lot of time was spent on relatively easy subjects and not that much time on more difficult subjects. There were a few mistakes in the examples and the teacher was not always fully prepared in the opinion of the students.

Study Materials

The study materials of concrete were clear and good to understand. There were mixed thoughts about the masonry study materials. Some people said that it was easy to read, but others said that the reader was not complete and that a lot of explanation missed. A thing that definitely needs to be changed is that some parts of the reader and some images are in German.

Course Specific

Everyone was positive about the capita selecta. This is definitely a strong point of the course.