Course evaluations – Electives Quartile 3

Below you can find the courses taught in quartile 3.

 

 

7W9X0
Transportation Engineering

 

2016-2017

General

Clear study guide. All information needed was provided concise.
Planning and goals were also clear. Next year the course will be given separately from Urban Physics.
Therefor the course will slightly change, because the first three weeks were about Urban Physics.

Study Material

Nice that there were examples of tests provided and that there was a clear list of what had to be read.

Lectures

First three weeks about Urban Physics. Next year this will not be included in the course.
Good and clear lectures, no complaints.
It was nice to have every week an assignment, because the lectures were very theoretical and this
keeps you more focused. It is also very nice that this can be applicated in practice.

Examination

Good that there were examples. Assignment were also nice that it was a part of the examination so
you get motivated to do something. These small assignments were 20% and in the first three weeks
the intermediate test together with Urban Physics was 30%. Because next year this intermediate test
will not be in the program anymore, the small assignments will be more. Otherwise the exam will be
80%. Another solution for this will be that the articles will be tested apart from the exam, instead of
raising the percentage of the small assignments. Because now the articles are all self-study and the
teacher experiences that these are not read by all students.

2015 - 2016

General Urban Physics

 The study guide and material was very clear and synoptic. A few students have followed this course but it was a very well organized course. The first three lectures were sometimes a bit too much material from the course BMO. But the teachers will look after it. The cooperation with the teacher and the student was very good and appreciate.

General Transport Engineering

 This course started with three lectures from the course 7S0X0 Urban Physics. The study guide and material was very clear and synoptic. The course was very clear and interested for the student. The eight lectures from Transportation Engineering were very good. Unfortunately was there not enough time for all the study material.

 

7S0X0
Urban Physics

 

2017-2018

General

 In general the course was rated positive by the students, with an average mark of 7.5. The setup of the course was clear and convenient for the students. Furthermore, the difficulty of the course was rated average, so this does not need improvement.

Lectures/project

The lectures were evaluated nice by the students, for both the acoustics and the wind part of the course. Also the acoustics tutorials were considered pleasant by almost all of the students. The explanation of the acoustics assignment given by Sai were elaborated enough to fulfill the assignment individually, but the explanation of the wind assignment could have been more elaborated, because many students made the same mistakes, which could have been avoided if the steps of the wind tunnel were explained more in depth. This was the first time that the assignments were incorporated in the course, but the professor will take this comments into consideration for next year.

Examination

 The exam did not have large surprises and was not too long/too difficult. The presentations of the assignment took a bit long and many students left after a while, which is a shame. Maybe it would be more convenient to split up the presentations of the acoustics and the wind part, because the presentations of all groups are roughly the same and dividing in different groups leads to less presentations to be watched, so students will become more involved in the presentations.

Workload

 The total workload of the course was normal, but it was not equally divided over the quartile. Since both the assignments and the exam were in week 8/9, there was a really large peak around this time. Furthermore, the assignments could not be started before week 4/5, since the explanation was given around this time. This leads to a short period of time for a rather time consuming assignment. For next year, there will be taken a look to the division of workload, so that it hopefully will be more equal along the quartile.

2016-2017

General

Course was experienced good. There were not really problems with the course. Also everything was clear to the students, both assignments as what was expected at the exam.
Next year the courses, Urban Physics and Transportation Engineering, will be spit up in two completely different courses. The structure of the Urban Physics course will stay the same.

Study Material

Examples of test was nice. No surprises in the test.
Articles and slides were provided on time.

Lectures

Lectures were good.
Also the tutorial lectures were appreciated, a good opportunity to ask questions. But more interaction with the students would be appreciated.

Communication

Quick response on mails and teachers were willing to help.
Good use of Canvas and everything was on time on there. It was the first time the teachers had to work with this. Bert put it all together and did a good job.

Workload

The workload was a little bit low. During the week it didn’t cost that much time and then there were two assignment that needed to be handed in in the end. This maybe could be more spread during the weeks.

Examination

Assignments were fine and good doable. Good examination. Was really nice that there were examples provided so you had good chance to prepare yourself. No surprises on the exam.
Teachers were positive surprised about the exam results. It was very good made, while it was not easier or harder than the previous years. It is nice to see that everything is going well.

 

7W0X0
Landscape and Public Space

 

2016-2017

General

Overall this course was seen in a positive light. The content and structure were strengths, while small improvements are hoped to be seen in the lectures and reader.

Lectures / Project

The two hours of lectures a week was considered suitable by students. Although many students feel that lecture quality will improve with the lecturer’s confidence and fluency in English. This had been the first year professor Snijders had to work in English and he is still adjusting to this. Lectures were well structured and gave a wide range of examples, students found them a good complement to the reader.

Study Material

One reader was provided for the course. This was found to be clear and complete by students. The convenience of having all necessary information within one reader was appreciated. The continued editing of the document will likely improve its quality, as some parts contain language mistakes. The poor support of the faculty in the translation of course materials is believed to have made this particularly challenging for professors, who have to carry this work out themselves in their free time. Despite this, the professor continues to have a good attitude on the use of English. A student has already voluntarily come forward with editing improvements. Practice exam questions were a large help to students, in the future the provision of answers accompanying these would also be appreciated.

Examination

A final multiple choice exam and an interim assignment meant that the workload was spread evenly across the quartile. Both were found to be appropriate and test the student’s knowledge and skills in a variety of ways. A few exam questions had mistakes in them and this meant they were discounted from the exam, this was unfortunate and should be avoided as best as possible in the future. The assignment was seen as beneficial in the sense that it pushed students to go out and analyse a real life scenario. This was appreciated, and some students felt the demands could have been more elaborate than the five dwellings asked for. The alteration of this may not be possible however, as this assignment currently tests the learning goals
appropriately, and students come from a mixture of faculties. Professor Snijders needs to make sure it is relevant and doable by all students.

Communication

This took place predominantly through questions during lectures and email. This provided students enough opportunity to ask any necessary questions. Response to emails were quick. Students noticed some problems with the use of Canvas, Professor Snijders was aware of what caused the difficulty and this has already been addressed.

Course Specific Points

In the final lecture a tour was given of trees on campus, this was a strong point of the course; bringing the theory into practice. However because of the time of year the identification of trees was difficult, suggestions were made to identify these at another time of year and have a planned route in advance.

 

2015 - 2016

Study guide

 In the explanation of the assignment some things about the size of the area for research is unclear. 

Study material

 Not all links on OASE go directly to the material (article from Ad de Bont). To improve availability of the material the materials can (also) be provided through OASE. The readers is of good quality.

Lectures

The lectures’ quality is graded very high. Especially the guest lectures are appreciated. The workload of the course ‘Stedebouw en architectuur in context’ is said to prevent students from spending time on this course.

Examinations

 The assignment meets the exam material. The assignment is experienced useful and very interesting because of large part of the actual exam material being covered. There was enough time to do the final exam. Some of the images in the final exam questions were unclear (Question about the ‘slagenlandschap met/zonder bebouwing op kavels’). More example questions for the final exam are in demand.

7X9X0
Spatial Imagination

 

2017-2018

General

 In general students enjoyed the course, especially due to the diversity of different aspects. The teachers put a lot of effort in the course and were always willing to help. Also the connection of the three parts (investigating space) was very clear and repeated multiple times.

Lectures/project

 The lectures given by Jacob were very nice and students enjoyed the space scripts. Last year, students had trouble with studying the slides because they were not selfexplanatory. By making an audiobook of it, it is a new and nice way of learning the material. A good improvement compared with last year, however there is still a problem with copyright because students can change everything. They need to find a solution for next year. The seminar project was introduced with an introduction lecture. This was a little bit confusing because the teachers didn’t fixed the examination days
completely and start discussing it. After this meeting, everything was very clear and all the information was shared on time. Also the exposition at the end was very enjoyable. The drawing assignments placed on canvas were very clear. It was nice that there was a pre-review of the drawings to indicate if you were on the right track. For next year, they will probably make a schedule for the drawing classes to switch groups.

Examination

 The exam was clear and closely related to the lectures. All the other grades were given on time with enough feedback (drawings). For next year there can be a +/- intermediate grading for the seminar.

Workload

More than 50% of the responders of the enquete said that they spend more than the indicated 140 hours on this course. Maybe the three parts are to elaborated. All the deadlines in the exam week is not ideal. However, it gave students more time to finish their work and this was appreciated. For next year, they will keep an extra eye on projects which are too ambitious and cost too much time.

Course Specific Points

It is nice to see the improvements of the course and the teachers use always a new theme for the seminar.

2016-2017

General

Most of the students enjoyed the course. There were some difficulties with Canvas, which will hopefully be resolved next year. There was a problem with the grading of the course. It was changed by the teachers and communicated, but once the grades were known they were processed wrong. This lead to students not having the right grades in Osiris. The teachers are working on getting this right. They did let us know that any mistakes made in the favour of the student will not be taken back.

Lectures / Project

The lectures were received well by all the students. The study material from the lectures was good, but the slides from the lectures were not all self-explanatory, so sometimes this was difficult for student when studying. The teachers are working on it. However the exam about the lectures was very well made. The seminar project was also found very nice by students. Student especially liked that the examination went along with an exposition and presentation for the other students. The third part of the course consisted of the drawing sessions. They were well received by students.

Workload

The workload was okay and quite evenly distributed over the quartile.

Connection between the different parts of the course

Students found that the three different part of the course did not relate that well. The seminar project was well related with the lectures, however the drawing sessions seem to be outside of it. The drawing sessions should be more intertwined with the course, since they are very useful, but now viewed by most students as something unrelated. The teachers are looking into making the drawing session more integrated in the course.

2015 - 2016

Study material

Students found that there was no study material. However the teachers said that the source material was indeed study material. They urge students to look more closely at the sources they use and link these to the source material so they can share these with their fellow students and learn from it.

Communication

 The communication was alright, but it was somewhat lacking during the workshop days. The communication between the teachers was unclear. A lot of students wanted to switch groups and the communication per email wan unclear. Next time students think it is better when there are clear rules on why student are allowed to switch. This time it went as far as students just switching because they wanted to be in a group with their friends. This caused a lot of confusion.

Workload

 The workload was experienced by students as high, because a lot of material needs to be produced. The teachers found it peculiar that the students seem to have a problem with the drawings. This takes a lot of time for students which makes the workload of the project high. Students often wait till the last coaching to really start drawing, because then their plan can’t change anymore. Students let us know that they felt they needed to work over the Christmas holiday to finish their project. This was not the meaning of the teachers and Mr. Das learned from the email he sent; he wanted to make the last week less stressed not realizing the impact it had on the students.

Course specific

 Students had problems with the group model that needed to be made. There were no clear agreements between teachers. The teachers see this as part of the learning process, but recognize that clearer agreements would go a long way. The teachers asked us if the learning goals are clear and if this is read. Students often don’t have much attention for this and more for what needs to be done. If there needs to be more attention for the learning goals, it could be better embedded in the course.

 

7HK30
Physics of Light & Lighting Design

 

This course has not been evaluated yet.

7S6X0
The Science of Sound

 

This course has not been evaluated yet.

7M6X0
Project Smart Cities

 

2015 - 2016

General

 The students give their compliments for the course. It was well put together and the teachers were open to the feedback from the students. Also the guidance of the teachers is very enlightening. Moreover, the lectures a well put together. The project fits well with the material and the question that had to be answered were clear.

Study material

 The study guide was very clear. Some things could be explained better and the teachers will work on the study material for next year. Furthermore, the use of NetLogo is quite time consuming. Student did wonder if this would be the best program, but it does go very well with the course. More explanation of the program could be a good idea. The teachers will look into this. The workload for the course was experienced slightly high, due to learning NetLogo for the first time. Therefore thee students found this righteous.

Communication

 The teachers were always quick to respond to emails and there was always the opportunity to come to their office as the students ran into some problems. The students were very positive about this.

7S7X0
Materialisation of Facades and Roofs

 

2017-2018

General

 The results of the evaluations are sufficient. The communication via the mail was clear and the planning of the lectures was well elaborated in the studyguide. Because of the different lecturers, it was not always clear which lecture was obliged and useful and which lecture was given to explain the assignments.

The course originated as a combination between Architecture and Building Physics/Structural Design. The amount of architecture students was disappointing according the lecturers. They would like to see this improved in the upcoming years. This course can be very helpful in gaining knowledge concerning different disciplines.

Lectures

 The lectures were divided into different subjects. Every subject was teached by its own lecturer, which made the division between the subjects more clear. However, there was no real cohesion between the slides and readers of all subjects.

Assignments

 The first assignment was a cycling tour in Eindhoven. Like every year, it was experienced as too long, but educative. The expectations are sometimes too high as regards the knowledge of the students.

The second assignment was of a high level. It was interesting, because it gave insight in a certain branch of the work field. Next year, the quality of the study material of the second assignments will be improved.

Examination

 During the final exam students had the possibility to use the course book. This was provided by the responsible lecturers of the course. The book helped making the exam, but was sometimes necessary to make questions, while the book was not mandatory to learn.

The course provided enough practice material, which made it clear what to expect at the final exam.

The responsible of the course were happy with the results of the final exam. It was much improved with respect to last year.

Study material

 The reader of the façade-part is very outdated. This is disadvantageous because the subject is constantly evolving, and the knowledge of the students should be up-to-date.

2016-2017

Study Guide

Study guide was clear and complete.

Study material

A clear structure was missing between different topics within the study materials. This will be
improved by making a more structured table of contents, in combination with mentioning relations
between topics during the lectures.
One of the problems this course is struggling with, is the fact that there is too much information
available on the subject. Therefore, it was needed that a selection was made and that could cause
the fact that people are less interested to follow lectures, because it is a lot of information about a
lot of different topics. During the lectures this could be solved by telling this problem at the
beginning of the course and trying to find a way to make the topics more structured.

Communication

There were some miscommunications about deadlines and extra lectures.

Workload

Is considered to be high. Next year, at the beginning of the course, there will be a clear explanation of the use of the course and its topics, to make people more aware of that.

Assignment

Even though it was made shorter this year, the bike trip still was considered to be very long. Besides that, some questions could be made more specific, or explained more thoroughly beforehand. The
assignment that included making a video about a fabrication process was received really good by the
students.

 

2015 - 2016

General

The quality of the lectures, but also of the study material is rated as good by the students.

Study material

 The study material is still not finished yet. Last year this was also a problem. This is because they want to keep improving it until they are content with it. They hope the study material will reach its final form next year.

Workload

 Students think the work pressure of this course is way too high. The ‘bike-exercise’ was way too long and the course material was also too much according to the students. The teacher suggest to only learn the parts which come forward in the lectures, but it has become clear that students need a clear description of what they do and do not have to learn.

7P1X0
Experimental reasearch of structures and materials

2015 - 2016 Timber Structures

Study material

 There was no real study guide, only a time planning with percentages for the tests. The percentages changed a few times, but were clear in the end. The study material was clear and good, but it was known a little late what exactly needed to be studied for the tests. It would be of use to the students if the material was offered in a printed form.

Lectures

 The quality of both the lectures of ir. Leijten and ir. Vermeltfoort were good and given with a lot of enthusiasm. However more material could have been covered and the students missed a little depth. It was nice that the lectures were given totally separately, but that there was still a clear communication between the two lecturers and the students. The time pressure was perceived as good and evenly spread out. The tests were good and clear, but the assignment did not really connect to the study material. However students are in general positive about the assignment as they can get some practical knowledge.

Course specific

 The course was generally appreciated and gained a mark of 7.0. The course was not as expected for everyone. As some people missed depth in the structural timber part and people though that they would do an actual experiment in the experimental research part. The lab visit was appreciated, but could have been a little more extensive (not three times an LVDT). For the ST part there were not a lot of exercises on exam level, also not all the answers were available, which made it hard to see if you were right. The ER part gave sample exams which really helped the students and it was much appreciated.