Course evaluations – Electives Quartile 4

Below you can find the courses taught in quartile 4.



Geographic Modeling of the Built Environment
 Overall, this course is graded with a 6. The students experienced the course as interesting and promising, however, the first part is qualified as too basic and too elaborated. The workload of this course is equally distributed through the quartile. For next year, the course can be improved by making a more elaborate study guide and improve the level of English.

Urban Case Study


This course has not been evaluated yet.

Mobility and Logistics


This course has not been evaluated yet.

Introduction building performance


This course has not been evaluated yet.

Research in Urbanism and Architecture 1




 The course is in general graded with a 7. The Pecha Kucha event is experienced as very nice and a refreshing way of presenting. The study guide is complete and supported with extra files including an elaboration on the different steps.


 For the tutoring, some groups did not experience a high and sufficient level of feedback from the tutor (Muxi). The feedback was very basic and not constructive. Also, the English was sometimes hard to follow and this made communicating hard. However, on the other hand, the peer reviews from the others students are experienced as very useful and you learned a lot from each other.


 The workload was experienced quite high. You needed to plan a lot of meetings together with your group members and worked together on the literature grid or paper. This was sometimes hard to achieve because 5 group members all follow different courses in different timeslots.



Overall this course was seen positively. It provided a first impression of research to students in a vibrant way. Communication was strong and students found the weekly ‘roadmap’ guidelines very helpful.

Study Material

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


Lecture quality and quantity was seen as good by students, and complementary to the progress of the assignment. Students were supported each week in a tutor session in which they were encouraged to give group feedback. This was seen as useful, but a heavier weigh in of the professors/tutors would have been appreciated by some students.


Examination of the course took place through an interim assignment submission, final PechaKucha presentation, final paper and peer review. Students felt that this spread the workload evenly across the quartile and tested students abilities in a broad number of ways.


The workload was experienced by students as being high, but made manageable by the spreading of it throughout the quartile.

Course Specific

The initial surprise of students at the intensity and general content of the course was thought to have been avoidable if the course description was more detailed and reflective of the course content.



 The course is graded with an 8. Students found it a very interesting course and learned a lot, the course is very open minded and you can really make it your own project. The course takes a different point of view than other ‘regular’ courses. It approaches urbanism from the rather subjective and personal experience-based side, rather than from a technical side.
 The tutor explains everything very elaborated and she knows what she wants to see as results, but this does not take away that you have to come up with your own idea’s to achieve this. Besides this, the schedule for the afternoon was also appreciated among the students. One meeting per week was enough.
 The workload of this course was quite significant because the course consisted of 4 different parts that needed to be combined in 1 matrix. Also, the finished materials needed to be improved each week. However, when all team members worked together on the course in an efficient way, most students did not experience a high deadline stress.
Course Specific Points
 At the beginning it was not 100%  clear what to do in Antwerp. Therefore, students needed to visit the city twice. For next year, maybe it is possible to choose for a Dutch city. This makes it easier to travel.

Tectonics and Materiality


 The course was in general evaluated positive. Students learned to think in a creative but defined way.

The start of the course could go better. Both assignments could be explained better, as some students did not know how to start or what was expected from them. Although it is understandable the teachers do not want to wipe out the creativity right away by giving some examples, some more defined set of guidelines good be given.
Another issue was the studyguide. The course did not have a file with all information but had everything on CANVAS itself. Because most courses still use a single file for the studyguide, every course uses CANVAS in a different way and the fact that students were not used to using CANVAs as a studyguide made information sometimes hard to find.

 The guidance hours were experienced as very useful. Critical and useful feedback was given by the tutors. It was nice that at the guidance hours of the second assignment you could also see the work of others and learn from the feedback they got. Perhaps this is also a good idea for the first assignment.
 For both assignments it was clear what needed to be handed in. The deadlines given were doable, as the workload was not too high (but also not to low). One improvement point is that the grades for the first assignment were not given. The meant that students did not know how they performed.

Sounds Good!


This course has not been evaluated yet.

Design of structures


This course has not been evaluated yet.

use project

Use Design for a Sustainable Future – Project
2016 - 2017


The information comes from the evaluator, the two lecture followers and two people who filled in the survey. The evaluator and the people who filled in the survey followed the assignment of the Eindhoven Mix given by Daan Lammers. The lecture followers are from the group given by Faas Moonen. Therefor most information is about the Eindhoven Mix. There is some more general information about other groups, but mostly about the Eindhoven Mix.

Study Guide

There was an overall study guide that provided basic information. But in the groups themselves there wasn’t a real studyguide. Therefor it was sometimes hard to understand the assignment and that also the assignment stayed a bit vague throughout the course. Advice is to make a better description of the assignment and/or make a clear goal for the students to work towards.


Faas Moonen cancelled three times towards the end of the project, while at the end of the project this coaching was more needed than before. Daan Lammers always was present, he gave good feedback. A problem with Daan is that he can be very long-winded and vague with the point that he eventually wants to make with his story. For the coaches it was difficult to think in another discipline. Also the fact that the students needed to find their own subject was difficult for them.


There was sufficient communication but not always even clear, that’s probably also because the assignment seemed vague to the students and they didn’t get a clear picture.


According some, the study load was good to little. The distribution of the load is also good. Approximately 50% of the students are from the Built Environment. There were tasks that were not within the Built Environment line of work, these tasks were taken over by other students. A group can be coached max 1 time a week. The coaches don’t know what happens the rest of the week. Students need to encourage each other and divide the tasks themselves. With this course this went pretty well. Students of the Built Environment did not especially learn from the other students. The case was that these students learned a lot from the students of the Built Environment.

Assignment and Examination

The largest problem was that the assignment was vague. This vagueness is characteristic for the course and USE in general. Inspiration can come from a lot of directions. Especially for the technical people it is difficult to cope with the gamma side of the subject. It is about Human sciences which is a theme not often elaborated within the TU/e program. The students need to be pulled out of their comfort zone, this way interesting projects arise. With other courses, the buildup of assignments is clearer. For the students it was unclear what direction the assignment needed to go. Staying too long in the stage of the problem exploration can discourage people. Advice, things that need to change. Each group needs a studyguide. They need more handholds for the project. Also the connection with previous courses can be done better. Is was separated since it was not a build-environment course. The courses can have a better connection by letting the theory of previous courses return in the project. The intermediate was not really a test. It was no different from what was done every week. The method of testing is impositoned by the university. There is not much that can be done there. Teachers can however shape it a little. From one side, you want to give the students a handle which they can hold onto, but in practice this most often is messy. There can only be waited how it finally turns out. There should be taken a look at expectation management in the studyguide. Try to prevent that students panic, vagueness is part of the course,