Quartile 1

This course focusses on the translation of architectural idea in architectural detail. What is the relationship between the conceptual ideas of the architect and the de tailing and execution of a building? And what are the methods and tools which an architect has to translate ideas into a building?
By studying examples from architects during the lectures, the student learns about laying the relationship between idea and detail. The architects will also explain the details in their designs during these lectures. During work hours, the student will be guided in in dependently setting up and working out a detail according to a clear, definitive architectural concept.

Great course organization, modules section was neat and resourceful, timetables and team lists were posted way ahead, assignments were explained in depth.
Tutors had exponentially different approaches, some groups did not get the same amount of time spent with their tutors – potential future schedule (cca 20 min per group)
Teachers were receptive towards team working issues, however students could’ve had a better platform to review their project partners – peer review assignment to be potentially implemented.

Report requirements and weekly deliverables were explained in detail and in advance; the development of the project was methodical.
Lectures mainly focused on the architecture part of the course, rather than the technology one; course lost focus on the technical side and book wasn’t valued to its fullest potential – future lectures could evenly split between the architectural and technical sides.

Organized exam structure, convey material discussed in reader and lectures, example sheet was up to date and explanatory.
Detail part of the exam could have been touched upon more during course, not much exercise on technical detailing except for small stage in the report.

Actual course structure focuses mainly on the report, which did not give enough time to focus on the final exam, deadline of these two parts might have been too close to one another, however the amount was doable and left time for design changes and drafting.

Use of MS Notebook led to assessment of how other groups were progressing in the design and allowed for cooperation.
Potential idea for balancing tutor involvement could be a presentation of the mid and final reports of the whole group.
Site visit was appreciated and looked forward to by students, they looked forward to visiting a construction site in person, another plus for the multiple days scheduling.
Mid-term report upload does not have a retake possibility which many students complained about, as the first part of the report contained the most work and information.

The course consisted of a lecturing and report part. The lectures were given by different architects and they discussed on different examples of designs to explain certain concepts. In general, people enjoyed them.
The students were paired with random people for the report and assigned to a tutor. Every week there was a meeting with these tutors together with other groups. The process of making the report was described with weekly assignments which could be found on Canvas.
The schedule and other information for this was easy to find and well explained.
In addition, an explanation on how to work with ArchiCAD could also be found on Canvas which was very much appreciated by everyone.

The lectures were generally very interesting and well put together. There was a nice variance of architects who came to speak. They were also very nicely structured and organized.
However, for some lecture there was some confusion what the use was of the lecture. Some lectures consisted of only examples and it was unclear what was meant to be learned from them.
The project was well structured and the assignment for the report project was well explained. However, some of the tutors did not give enough explain things enough during the tutoring. For good feedback, each of the tutors was given an iPad, except for one due to the difficulty in finding people to tutor during the course in the beginning of the course. These iPads were a nice addition to the course, however not all tutors were fully skilled yet with the tools they had been given to give a proper explanation of their feedback.

In addition, some tutors started explaining in Dutch sometimes even though there were internationals present at the meeting.

For the rest, the online tutoring and the way it was organized of the project was appreciated, because we were all able to view each other’s work nicely.

For the exam, the lectures and parts of the book required for the course had to be studied. The information for the exam was easy to find. The students were also notified of the study material well in advance.

The workload of the entire report was to be divided between the two workpartners. Some people were not partnered nicely. Getting the wrong partner in this course seems especially to be a risk, because students doing multi can also be doing this course. For Multistudents, this course does not seem to have priority. This seems to be one of the reasons why workload was an issue for some students.
It is difficult for some people to learn to communicate the fact that the other people is doing too little (or too much) with his/her partner. However, it is also a good thing to learn to work with people you do not match well with. But then again, it may still be nice to find a way to help students in their way of overcoming this struggle.
Note: this year it was also more easy for students to dodge work or ghost on your team mate, because everything was online.

Solutions:
Add a reflection moment in the planning (week 3 e.i.) of this course to discuss the teamwork of the groups. This is a good way of keeping taps on the workload of individual students.
Sometimes a student may not be aware that he is taking on too much work, until it is too late. At this time, a tutor saying that one of the group mates is doing too much and the other too little could be a good learning experience for the student.
A solution can also be for the tutors to ask directly to students. During this course, students may not have the feeling that there was a possibility of discussing this with the tutor.
Notifying students at the beginning of the course that notifying the tutor on bad teamwork at the beginning of the course may also help a lot. It will give students taking on too much work more confidence and it will give a warning on slacking students.
Note: last year it was asked to place the deadline of the report later. This had been done this year and was much appreciated.

In general the course got positive feedback.
The tutorials gave enough opportunities to ask questions about your design and the tutors were eager to help.

Looking at other firms gave a lot of inspiration for your own design which you normally would not immediately think of.

The teachers and student assistants all got good responses from the students.

The study guide was clear and the communication went well most of the time. Most communication was via the announcements in canvas but all students always look here so some of them missed information. There is a way to get announcements in your e-mail, so this could be explained in the first lecture for example.

There is a big difference between bachelors and pre-masters. Pre-masters had an easier time designing there building and where able to communicate better with the tutors. Pre-masters focus more on links between details and bachelors on creating details.
During lectures it is hard to satisfy both groups, that is why there are online lectures. Students can look up things they need to know, but it is up to them to actually do this. It will be best if there is a file with information concerning the entire course on canvas from the beginning. This way everybody always has access to it when they need it.

To let the students know these online lectures exist there should be an announcement in the first lecture.

There were a lot of details which needed to be learned, but none of these made it in the exam this time. It depends on what kind of detail the teachers decide to put in the exam.

From all of the details in the reader there were some which had some problems:

Bekkering Adams had unclear details, since a lot was going on here.
HHF was missing description which most details, these were most likely cut off from the picture.
Sometimes the tutors where contradicting each other which was quite confusing for some students. However this is also an academic skill which students need to learn to handle. The tutors where put in couples in such a way that they had combined conceptual and detailing knowledge.

During the entire course there where two hours of lectures each week. Mostly by the teachers themselves. There were also some guest lectures by the architecture firms we had to use for our project. The guest lectures where very interesting and useful to understand the firms better.
The other 4 hours each week were for the project tutoring. Here the students worked in couples and had the opportunity to ask questions to the teachers about their design. However it was quite unclear sometimes what had to be handed in final report.

There was a midterm in week 3 of the course, the progress of the students had to be handed in here.
In the end of the course the final report had to be handed and there was an exam during the finals week. Some students thought the exam was too long but on average student where fine with the length.

On average the students needed a bit more than 140 hours to complete this course.
The workload is a bit higher in the beginning of the course. This means there will be quite a lot of work during the first part of the course. However this is done on purpose, by letting the students hand in as much as possible as soon as possible, they will get more feedback and know better how to proceed during the second part.

The various aspects of for instance urban environment and the quality of life, are discussed from both a scientific and societal point of view. Important research and theories in the area are addressed and urban plans at different spatial levels will be presented.

The teachers were very approachable, which is nice. Everything was explained well. There were some struggles with the internet, audio and understanding of teams for some lecturers. Lastly, there were some students who really enjoyed the many topics and others who found it a bit bothersome.

The course is a lot of theory, many lectures and lots of reading material. Some found it difficult to concentrate, since everything was online. They would have preferred shorter lectures 2 times a week, or a bit compacter lectures in general. Furthermore, some students expressed that they would like if there was a bit more interaction during the lectures, for example with polls
The two projects were received by some as very nice, since they could really enhance their knowledge on the topics, however others would have preferred to do many small exercises, so they could study all topics in a bit more depth. This is a bit difficult to realize, since the assignments really need this depth. Some students did not really notice what the benefit was of the assignment on literature. By explaining this further, it could possibly help see the students what the purpose of it is.

Very clear what the subject matter was. The test fit well with the lectures and the literature. Some students did say that they would like to have questions as well on the presentation since it was assigned as material for the test. However, due to the new implementation of this due to the virus, it was not done yet.

The workload was well spread. Every week a lecture and some reading material. For some students the first and second assignment happened to fall in the same week. They found the workload not as well spread, they were however able to ask for another date for the first assignment or hand in the second assignment earlier.

In general the course got positive feedback. The lectures were structured good. However the lecture room was sometimes too small for all students. It was a good thing that students got to present their projects in the lectures. However sometimes more focus could lay on this. The exam was also received positive. Some students did not expect the large amount of open questions, but overall this went well. In the studyguide there were some points missing. But this did not lead to confusion amongst students.

Lectures:
Lectures were good structured (also on canvas)
Sometimes, the red thread was missing in Mr. Waerden his lectures
Some lecturers have to talk a bit louder
The room in Auditorium was quite small to fit everyone in. So or a larger room, or video lectures would be nice.



Project (interim)

Interim provided clear feedback on your stage in the course
Realistic interim test
The interim obligated the students to read the literature
The interim could overlap more topics, instead of going really deeply in two of them (really depends on the students if this is applicable or not)
A shame that assignment 1 only had to be presented (not tested or something) sometimes people did not really listen to those presentations for they did not really have to learn this content.

Most of the students did not expect such a detailed exam with the interpretive open questions, they studied more the general topics so it would be nice if they are prepared that this is really another exam than the RET course for example.
Only a little practice material available for the final exam.
Could have been more interactive examples in the lectures to practice for the exam, for there were a lot of case exercises in the exam.
The final test was just /not doable in the three hours.
Good gradation of deepness in the content of the course: more focus on reality with the cases instead of only a MPC test about the theory.• Good gradation of deepness in the content of the course: more focus on reality with the cases instead of only a MPC test about the theory.

There weren’t a lot of criticism on the amount of workload. Most of the people did really like the ‘workload’ because the cases came close to reality and people could choose a city they like what makes them more enthusiastic about it.

In general Urban Planning is experienced as a nice course where the students learned a lot. The course material was interesting which motivated students to learn. The number of articles was experienced as quite high and some students struggled with that. The final exam on the computer was experienced positive, only the organization just before the exam was not experienced as pleasant.

The lectures were judge really well, both the content and the structure. The lecture slides had a clear setup and the course was well organized. The content of the lectures gave a broad view on urban planning and many relevant topics were addressed. Real-life problems were addressed, which motivated students to learn more about the spatial environment. Points which some students missed were the spatial policies and the urban planning of other countries. A more international view on the subject would be more interesting for some.

Generally, the students had a good experience with the final exam, which was made on the computer. One remark that was mentioned considering the content of the exam, was that too many facts were asked. The questions were too detailed about the material and not about the insight into urban planning in general. The first midterm assignment was experienced as an assignment that contributed much to the knowledge about spatial planning and it fitted well in the content of the course. The second midterm assignment was more seen as a professional skills assignment than a course-related assignment. Therefore, the note was made to make the second assignment into a professional skills assignment or make it more course related.

The workload of the course was overall well divided. Most students spend the appropriate amount of time on the course in relation with the ECTS points. However, the amount of literature was experienced as a lot. The number of articles was experienced as quite high, which did not motivate some students to study the articles.

The studyguide was clear and everything what needed was in the studyguide. It was evaluated with a clear till very clear.

The quality and quantity is evaluated as good. The different aspects of urban planning gives a clear structure to the course. The different lectures from different lecturer was experienced a fine. Every aspect was explained and experienced through a different lecturer, through this variation you remain alert and it stays fascinated.

Reading all the kind of articles take a lot of time.
But in combination with only 4 hour lectures every week it is doable for the students

The different kind of tests are explained every well and each student knows what to do. Also the students think the kind of examination/tests is usefull for the course. It is a combination were you already read the articles for you exam and immediately through the test review create a sort of thought of the aspect that you have to evaluate.

As the name of the course is already kind of revealing: this course is all about steel. The course is divided into two parts: steel and applied mechanics. The applied mechanics part covers the theory behind checking steel structures. Topics such as principle stresses, plastic theory and buckling are treated during applied mechanics. For the steel part, these topics are treated differently. The theory behind the behavior of material under certain conditions is applied in the Eurocode. For the steel part, students learn how to check a structure by use of the Eurocode. For both parts, an instruction session is organized which helps students to understand the material.

The information though perfectly aligns with the courses taken before, as expected.
Clear structure, good lecturers and the material was interesting, useful and well aligned with the rest of the bachelor.
Nice pace in the teachings, enough time per subject.

Clear table in study guide/
Better communication through announcements. Announcements were used, person could not have paid attention or announcements were missed.

Study guide was simple but clear.
Some information was in files other in modules.

Many students found this an intensive but useful course, where as long as students kept up and put their weekly hours into it, the course is achievable. The course is split in two parts where same topics were discussed in the same weeks. Thanks to this students could easily draw lines between the two parts and understand the correlations better. Especially in the last few weeks, the two parts overlaped very nicely.
Next to this, the study guide and timetable were well structured and clear. When things changed in the planning, these changes were well and timely communicated.

Throughout the course, instructions were given which students appreciated found very useful. The examples were well explained and prepared students well for the exam.
The lectures were generally rather well structured, however they did sometimes differ in terms of tempo. What students preferred were the lectures that combined using slides and working out examples on the board. This allowed students to follow along better in writing their notes without missing any steps. When complex calculations were being explained, students appreciated when lecturers would make repetitions or steps back.

The course has been given fully online. The applied mechanics part has been pre-recorded and the steel lectures were given live via conferences. Most students did experience this way of teaching as pleasant, as they were able to watch the lectures back and pause them sometimes. The course material was very useful and I think for most students worth their money, because it explained clearly the topics of the course and is still useful for future courses. The overall impression of most students was positive about the course.
Bert: Showed the other evaluation: students did evaluate the course much better compared to previous years. He thinks that the pandemic did help the course, because the use of canvas announcements was rather required than optional. He thinks that students see the course more structured. He states that this is something that they will keep doing for the next year.

The quality of the lectures differed per teacher. For steel, some technical errors occurred during the lectures. These errors occurred during the steel structures part, but did only occur once. Some students did have remarks about the English of Dianne van Hove. This could maybe be improved in order to make the material much better to understand. Bert Snijder his way of explaining was found good, but for some students a bit unorganized. The shifting back and forth between slides confused some students during the lecture.
Bert: his way of teaching, during lecturing he thinks of ways to make a specific subject more understandable and therefore uses graphs that already have been shown. He says that for next year he will try to do this less, so it won’t affect the quality of his lectures anymore.
There were some different opinions on using Powerpoint for pre-recording lectures, because students do not have the direct possibility to ask questions to the teacher. Feedback was also given about pausing the Powerpoint, as it can only be paused when present mode is off. Without present mode in Powerpoint, you cannot see when the pointer marked a certain point in the presentation (this is a thing that Bosco used a lot). If using conferences is not available, then maybe it is useful to convert the powerpoint into a video, then the video can be fully paused without losing some information. Bert: Bosco was on maternity leave, therefore she pre-recorded the lectures. If she was available to give live lectures, this form of lecturing was not chosen. If this type of education will be chosen again next year, the powerpoint will be exported as video.
For questions, tutoring sessions were given online. There were no remarks about this, most students found the instructions very helpful. The general remark about the instructions was to keep doing this in the next years, it really helps students understand the material and it forces them to perform exercises every week.
The order of topics was sometimes a bit odd for the steel structures. In lecture 4, the cross-sectional classes were discussed, only to learn more about it 2 weeks after it in week 6. Especially with resistance of cross sections, some students thought that it was more logical to shift the topic of week 6 (resistance of cross-section) more to the first weeks of the course.
Bert: The course set-up has been drastically changed since last year. The reason why resistance of cross-sections was planned odd was by mistake, for next year this chapter will be moved at a spot where it is in line with the rest of the material.

The examination of the course consisted out of an open book midterm exam and a final exam, which was proctored. For the midterm, there were no remarks about using this type of examination. Most students were happy about this way of examination, because they could easy reach a high grade without putting extra effort in the course other than just following the lectures and making exercises.
For the preparation of the final exam, it was requested by some students that old exams from previous years could be helpful during studying. The final exam was problematic for some students. Some students had trouble reading the questions, there was no option to zoom. The points of the exam could be better divided over the questions, some students found it strange that for easier connections questions, one could earn more points than for the difficult applied mechanics questions. The time given for the final exam was not enough, not all students were able to finish the questions in time. This was also caused by the form of examination, doing the roomscan and making pictures of the answers afterwards was time consuming. Luckily, the answers could be handed in via canvas assignments, but it is understandable that this is not the most practical way. For next year, it could therefore be useful to evaluate if students will have enough time to finish their exam, taking into account the proctorio checks and making pictures of the answers.
Bert: prefers not using Ans delft because the way of submitting answers is troubling. The option of doing an open book for the final exam was considered, but the university disapproves this method without proctorio because its susceptibility to fraud.
The inspection was a bit chaotic, as there were two meetings for the different parts. There was for steel structures not a real elaboration on where points could be scored in the answering model. Putting points to every step in solving a problem could really help check your exam on missed points. It also did not help that the inspection was online, it is understandable that the course cannot do much about this. Hopefully, we can have the inspection offline next year.

Most students did not encounter a high workload for the course. The workload was found to be evenly spread over the quartile.

As has been said, the topic order could be revised again. This year, it has been clearly said that the Steel Structures formulas should not be learned by heart. For applied mechanics, this was not always the case which led to confusion before the exam whether the formulas should be learned or not. Maybe for next year, Bosco could state this in the beginning of the course for the applied mechanics part. There is still not a studyguide, only a program of the course (studyguide check below). However, no remarks have been made on the studyguide and the information that it contains is very clear, especially the program.
Bert: states clearly at the beginning of the course that it is not necessary to learn formulas by heart. For AM, Bosco thinks that not all formulas should be given, since most formulas can be determined if the material has been studied well. For next year, it will be communicated directly for AM that formulas should be learned.

The tudyguide was missing quite a lot information. Besides the missing information, students did like the studyguide because of the clear planning which was provided. The reason for the missing parts, is because there is already a lot of information about the course on Osiris.

The instructions were really useful for students, it was very useful that the practice assignments were explained. It makes the students more active to be busy with the course materials so the instructions could even be there more often.

For students, it was not really clear what or how they had to study for the final exam. A practice exam would be nice. The workbook was a nice addition for practice material and there were lecture notes with practice material but people had to buy this. Some people did not buy those notes, mainly because there already were steel lecture notes from a previous course which they thought would also be useful. But also because people did not know that there was practice material in there which could be really useful for the exam, so it did not look like it was worth the money. If students would know from the beginning on that the notes are that important, they would really consider buying it.
Students found the final exam a bit too long which caused the problem of making the last questions really fast and messy and missing points while the questions could be answered in the right way when there was more time.

The feedback on the exams (midterm and final) was really good. The marks were out really fast and students could take a look at their exams really fast.

For some students, it felt like the course was divided into two separate courses, namely ‘steel’ and ‘applied mechanics’. The students preferred to cover one part really good and more in depth instead of ‘a little bit of both’. Other students liked the combination of the two parts because of the combination between theory and application. The combination of the two could vary a bit more to make the connection between them a bit more clear.
Before the final exam, a lot of students thought that many formulas must be learned by heart. Mr. Snijder mentioned that this was not the case but this wasn’t clear to all students. For the next time, Mr. Snijder will make this clear at the beginning of the course.

Students found the course very relevant. The studyguide was not very elaborated, but almost everything was in there. Only the weights of the grades regarding the final grade of the course were missing. Next year it would be an option to mention in the studyguide that these can be found in Osiris, such that no misconceptions can occur.
The course materials and the usage of Canvas were clear

The teachers were enthusiastic when teaching this course. The Applied Mechanics part was graded better than the Steel Structures part, this is a common phenomenon and is likely because of time, (steel was lectured in the last two hours), but also because of consistency. (steel had more diverse subjects and was lectured by more than one teacher) The students were helped with practicing the exercises on the blackboard by the teacher. For the Steel Structures part this can maybe also be implemented such that it is more clear for the students and it won’t go too fast. An improvement relative to last year was that some small things were extra explained with usage of the blackboard. Also for the Connections part the lectures were less clear, because it went too fast because of time shortage.
It would therefore be better if the lectures were recorded, such that students can watch them back to better understand the calculations. Blackboard drawings, which are an important part during lectures, can be seen afterwards as well.

Students were more present at the Applied Mechanics part instead of the Steel Structures part. It would therefore be better to switch those two on Thursday afternoon

The experience of the midterm was good. There was also an example of a midterm which helped the students to prepare for it. For the final exam there was no practice exam, but it would be better to have at least one uploaded on Canvas. Then students also had known that there were no theory questions in the exam and only calculations. Students also wish to have an example of a formula sheet and to add the amount of points you can score per question in the exam. Another thing was that most of the students experienced that the exam was too long for the amount of time we got.

The workload was fine. This was also spread very evenly during the quartile.

The study guide of the course was not really elaborate, but all the information needed could be found in it, only the locations of the interim test were unclear, especially the location of the 2nd interim test, which was announced 1 hour before the beginning of the test. This was mainly because of the fact that the Matrix building was closed for renovation.
Apart from the communication of the location of this test, the communication was good, except that there was no email sent that the second part of the steel lecture notes were available at the reception.
The lecture notes of steel were expensive compared to the applied mechanics lecture notes (€75 vs. freely available on Canvas)

The mechanics lectures were good, there was a pleasant variety between theory and worked out exercises. Unfortunately the syllabus and the lectures were at some points not coherent in the method of solving an exercise.
The lectures of the steel part were useful as well, but sometimes there was a lack of context, making the understanding of the subject matter somewhat difficult

Overall both the interim exam and the final exam did not have many surprises, although the final exam was a bit long.

Overall really good manageable, but planning of the 2nd interim test was unfavourable with regards to the multidisciplinary project. It would be more convenient to switch this test to the end of week 6.

It would be nice to have more coherence between the steel and the applied mechanics part of the course. There is an overlap between the two parts of the course, but it would be more convenient to show this more often in the lectures, so that the students learn how to use the knowledge of applied mechanics in steel structures and vice-versa.

In general, the course itself was well organized. This could be seen in, for example, the feedback sessions that were available for the assignment, which were indeed very useful. However, the most important feedback point in general for the course would be to not let everything be about the ‘self-study’ aspect. Having Canvas as a guideline is handy, however, when the topics are explained during the lectures learning these topics are easier to learn as they were already roughly explained.

For the lectures, it would be nice to explain what the modules are about especially indicating and explaining the different assessment tools. For example, the interactive lecture with Rishi was very useful to get a better understanding of the concepts.
Some of the articles available are quite vague. Having some extra explanation about them would solve some unclarity.

In addition, the discussions during the lectures are not very efficient. This would work better in smaller groups, and in smaller lecture rooms.

When leaving it all to the self-study aspect there is not a clear overview of what should be known for the final exam. The quizlets that were available were quite useful for studying of the final exam. However, sometimes it was a bit unclear where the information came from. Therefore, indicating were this information came from would save some research time while studying.
Lastly, for the examination having a mock exam would be very helpful to solve some unclarity about the exam. This could, for example, be done by giving one exam question per module to indicate the dept that is required to the final exam. Which again gives a better understanding of how one needs to study for the final exam.

The workload was quite alright for the course. However, splitting the assignment in two parts would help to distribute the workload more evenly, as now all the work needs to be finished in the same exam week. This did cause some stress and problems sometimes.

As the course is offered by the department of the built environment, there should be a bit more built environment focus. This does not necessarily mean during the lectures, but is more focused on the assignment. Having some of the topics more focused and oriented towards the built environment would be convenient for many students.

The course USE design for a sustainable future is currently changing a lot. They are looking together with experts on how to give this course in the best way. One of the changes they recently introduced is making it an online course. The idea is that students can gain their knowledge at home, while watching videos or reading documents and during the lectures have some discussions about these topics.
The learning line USE design for a sustainable future is offered by the Built environment. A lot of built environment students therefore choose this use learning line. Most students assumed it would have a focus on or is relation to the built environment. However, this course is mainly focussed on sustainability and critical thinking, and has no relation to the built environment. Since most students assumed otherwise, this led to some disappointments.

Lectures were not scheduled every week, and were sometimes filled with discussions and sometimes with a lecture. For students it was a bit unclear when a lecture was given, when there was a chance for discussion and when nothing was scheduled. This resulted in only a few students attending the lectures.
A possible solution to this problem is to make it very clear when a lecture is given, when there is chance for discussion and when nothing is scheduled. This can be done in the reader for example. Information about the lectures was now given through announcements or messages in canvas, but the risk of this is that students do not check it (on time). In the reader students can already see it weeks on beforehand, and take it into account.
Another solution could be that the first hour is filled with a lecture, and after a small break the students are invited for a discussion. In this way the students know what awaits them if they join the discussion and they can decide for themselves whether they want to stay or not.
Another problem that occurred with the lectures was that during discussions only the first and second rows were participating. Lecture halls are not the best place to have a discussion, since rows at the top cannot always hear the first rows speaking and the other way around. Smaller rooms with fewer people could be more inviting for students to join the discussion.
Besides lectures, a project had to be made in groups of four students. Overall, students liked the fact that they could choose the groups themselves. Some deadlines were set during the quartile for groups to upload the report so far. Before the final deadline, students had to peer review each other. The students were very happy that they had the chance to give feedback to each other. For some students however, it was unclear who had to peer review who and how to contact these groups. During the course evaluation the idea came up to give every group a team captain, whose name and email address is shown on canvas. In this way, groups know who to contact. Also a table could be added on canvas indicating which group should peer review who. Confusion can hopefully be prevented in this way.
The mark of the final exam was known very fast, which was pleasant for the students. The mark of the report however, took a lot of weeks. When the marks were known, no feedback was given. Till this moment on, still no feedback is given. The feedback is coming, but due to the lack of teachers and student assistants this takes a lot of time. Also some students would have liked more feedback on their report during the quartile. The only feedback received now, was the feedback of fellow students during the peer review. To accomplish this, more student assistant would be required, according to the teacher.

The examination in this course is existing of a report which counts for 45% and a final exam which counts for 55%.
During the quartile, different modules with study material were presented on canvas. In the beginning, only module 1 was accessible and the rest was closed. The students could access the next module, by completing an online test of the previous module. The numbers however, showed that a lot of students did not finish the online tests and therefore did not gain access to the next modules. For some students this might have resulted in working on the project without study material. Also, most students only started learning the modules before the exam, because no deadlines were set on completing the modules.
During the course evaluation, we discussed whether the modules should be opened from the start, giving students the possibility to work on topics whenever suited, or whether the online test should be marked, forcing students to work with the study material already during the quartile. A possible compromise would be to only set one or two deadlines during the quartile, to stimulate students to work on the modules, but not forcing them to make an online test before every module.

The workload experienced by the students was lower than in other courses. This is also due to the fact that most students did not work on the modules during the quartile, and did all the learning before the exam. A possible solution to this problem is to increase the workload of the modules during the quartile. Also the workload on the report could be increased, to reach more hours spend on this course.

The outcome of the survey about this course had mixed results, some good and some bad points. The studyguide was considered good, and more complete than last year. The level of English was also considered good. Some points of improvement are especially in the contents of the lectures, and the connection of these to the final examination, and the organisation of the files and assignments of the course.

The lectures for this course were seen as sufficient by students. They gave some context about the concept and definition of sustainability. However, some students said that they did not find the lectures very interesting, since there were very diverse topics. They also found that the concept of sustainability was hardly mentioned during the course, and especially in the final exam. The teacher said that this could be because there is an incorrect definition about sustainability and the course among students. Many of them think that this course will address design in a sustainable way, and that it is more technical. This could be made clearer at the beginning of the course, or before choosing, by giving a different description of the course. The teacher stated as well that they did not have a clear direction for this course yet, since it is relatively ‘young’, but this is a big improvement compared to last year. A last comment by students said that there was not enough connection between the lectures and the study materials, especially for the final exam. Only two hours of lectures were given about the majority of the study material. The teacher said that this was because of Arjen Kirkels, the co-lecturer of the course, reducing his involvement due to time pressure. He was the one responsible for the reader, and could only give this many lectures.
There were also some tutoring sessions for the essay assignment. The quantity and quality of these sessions was overall seen as sufficient. They did help quite a bit in defining and explaining the precise essay assignment. There were some students though, who did not need these sessions and did not attend them, so it was a useful addition for students who did not understand the assignment.

For the interim examination, the study materials were clearly explained. This examination was very theoretical and quite reproductive, which was not experienced as positive by all students. Some more understanding and insight questions could be an improvement. However, this was not the case with the final examination, these questions were much more insightful than reproductive. There were some other comments about the final examinations though. Students found that the load for the final exam was quite high, especially compared to the rest of the course. There was a lot of reading to do, and this was not covered much in the lectures, so the material was new. There was an imbalance between the distribution and quantity of the lectures about the study material and the importance of the subjects on the exam itself. This could be a point of improvement for next year.
However, compared to last year, the interim test has been improved a lot. Last year, there was much temptation for students to cheat on this examination, due to the format in which the test was taken. This was on computers in a lecture hall, which made the possibility of cheating quite high. Switching to an examination on paper has made quite a difference this year.
Furthermore, there were some comments about the explanation of the essay assignment. There was no good overview of the assignment, and you had to look in many different places to put the whole exact assignment together. The tutoring sessions did contribute to making it clearer. This shortage of assignment explanation is also strongly related to the organisation and communication of the course.

There were many comments about the communication and organisation of this course. Most students found that the communication was a bit excessive. Many (in the students’ opinion) unnecessary e-mails were sent, which made it difficult to find e-mails that contained important information, for example about the essay assignment. This was also related to the system used, Canvas. The teacher did not know that the announcements made on Canvas, arrive as e-mails to the students. Another problem that occured, related to Canvas, is that the explanation of the examinations were spread about different sections in the website, which made it difficult to find everything together. This could perhaps be put more extensive in the studyguide, if it is all known beforehand for the teachers.
Students were positive about the speed and quality of replies sent in response to their questions.

The workload for this course was not experienced as very high during the lecture weeks. However, the workload increased much before the final examination, since there was a lot of study material to read and study.

Students meet with a mentor on a weekly basis. The assignments should be grounded in a basic understanding of the user, contextual and technical requirements of innovative light applications, and original technical research and design work.

The studyguide is perceived as not very useful. The biggest reason for this is because of the 3rd parties (Har Hollands/municipality) that were involved next to the students and the teachers. The final assignment changed a lot over time, making a studyguide less useful in the early stages. It would have been nice if this was arranged beforehand.

The university teachers had some good coaching, the people from Har Hollands did not look too interested at the students. Information provided by the 3rd parties was often not sufficient and responses took too long. The teacher however made the best out of it.

There was pretty much no study material, all knowledge was acquired from previous courses on light.

Unevenly distributed. About 80% of the work had to be done in the last two weeks. In some weeks during the middle stages, almost nothing was done.

Since it is a project, the grading was relatively subjective. The use of rubrics was executed well. Deadlines were provided, although students sometimes had to ask for it specifically because it was unclear for them.

The involvement of external companies is a good way to prepare students for the real world. Student think that the experience is really worth it. However, it is important to make sure that communication between involved parties (students/teachers/company) runs smoothly. This was one of the main issues during the course. The teacher considered to leave out 3rd parties next time, but this won’t be necessary. If communications between involved parties is improved, the learning experience for the students will improve as well. Especially when composing an assignment, it would be nice if teachers and involved companies work together a lot. If teachers act as an intermediate party between the students and companies, everything should go more smoothly.

Overall the course went well. There were some difficulties, especially in communication, but they were mainly caused by 3rd parties that were involved. The teaching staff of the university did the best they could.

The core of the course is to design and analyze a smart mobility concept for Eindhoven. By reporting the insights gained form the previous courses.