Geometry and Form7X7X0
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.
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.
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.
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.
Generally this was a very nice course. The division between lectures and practical work was very nice. Many students found the course very interesting and not extremely difficult (which is positive). You learn to think creative and the course is very divided which keeps it interesting. Most of the communication was done very clearly and the lectures were also very clear. For every deadline an announcement was send which was very nice. The study guide provided all the important information and there was enough assistance. What was really nice about this course was the amount of flexible time. Some students found it difficult to find information on Canvas, maybe this could be done in a more clear way.
The lectures were very nice. The amount of information was not to much and the lectures did not take to long. The explanation given was very helpful and the examples that were made on the blackboard were also very good. Another very positive point is that the homework could be made during the second part of the lectures with assistance. In this way a good balance between lectures and practical work was found.
The form part was subdivided in two assignments both with an introduction lecture. The two assignments were very interesting however the relation with architecture was not very clear. A better explanation of this relation will make the motivation for working on the assignment higher. Furthermore the explanation of the assignments could have been done better. Sometimes information that was important for the assignment was later given without mentioning it to everybody. This led to a lot of confusion which could have been avoided. The tutor sessions assistance were very nice, they were given in a very relaxed way.
The midterm test for the geometry part was very doable and enough practice material was provided. The test also did not take to long. The expected geometry
part for the second report was very clear explained. The point division was clear from the beginning.
The examination of the form part were two assignments. Both of the assignments were very nice to do and the deadlines and the necessary points that the final product had to fulfil were very clear. Maybe a better explanation with feedback of the final grade could be provided. The assignments themselves were very fun however quite large in workload. Many students enjoyed making them but because of time pressure they caused a lot of stress. An issue was the different information that was provided during tutor sessions. This information was sometimes different than what was in the assignment or it differed from the introduction lecture. This caused a lot of confusion and frustration among students. Providing good examples and a clear explanation without any adjustments during the process would be a solution for this problem.
The division of the workload was not equal for both parts. For the geometry part the workload was almost equal divided but for the form part there was a lot of workload on the end of the projects. The projects took also more time than expected beforehand. With several students the final product took about 30-40 hours. A lot of time went to figuring out how to make the assignments and not actually making the assignment. Giving a warning in the beginning of the project about the workload would be nice.
A possible improvement of the course could be to make the connection between the assignments and architecture a bit more clear (for example by showing buildings that are based on mathematical expressions). The set-up and especially the way of tutoring and the lectures was very clear. The relaxed character (to be able to ask questions in a more informal way) of the course is a very strong point and makes the course very enjoyable. All different assignments and the combination of lectures and practical work keep the course very interesting.
Matrices and Differential Equations2DBA0
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The course is experienced as very positive. The composition of the course was done very nicely. The interactive method of teaching had a very positive effect on the atmosphere during the lectures and it made the lectures very understandable. The workload of the course was on the lower side.
As has been said the lectures have been experienced as very positive. They did not took to long and the amount of subjects that were explained were very well balanced. Furthermore the lectures were experienced as very clear. They were not chaotic and the subjects were well-explained. The tutoring sessions were also experienced as very nice. It gave a good possibility to ask questions.
There was only one exam that counted for 100%. Maybe giving the possibility of a intermediate test would be nice. Having only one exam put a lot of pressure on passing this exam. The study materials that were provided were sufficient and gave good insights in the difficulty level of the test. The lectures and the practice exercises connected well with the difficulty level of the test. The test was of the same level as the lectures and the exercises, making these good preparations for the test. Many questions that were on the exam were already expected by students. The exam was on the shorter side which made mistakes count extra harsh. Extending the exam would give students more opportunities to make mistakes without being them very damaging for the final grade.
When a student followed the lectures and went to the tutor sessions the student had to do little preparation for the test. Keeping on track with the lectures was experienced as the key of passing this course. In the exam period the making of a few practice exams was seen as necessary to pass the test (if one had followed the lectures). A couple of students only spend 2 hours per week on the course and they passed the course easily. The workload was for these reasons not high and probably about 140 hours or less.
The set-up of the course was experienced as very pleasant. A small group of people gave enough possibilities to ask questions which was seen as very nice. The set-up almost felt like high school mathematics lessons which was experienced as very positive.
History of European Architecture and Urbanism7X3X0
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.
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.
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.
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.
There was no outcome of the student surveys, what probably means that there is not that much criticism on the lecture, so that’s a great first point of ‘criticism’
Very interesting lecture topics and lecture reader.
Sometimes the stories went a bit too fast during the lecture; the lecturer really has his knowledge about the content, but some parts were hard to get/write down.
- For some groups it was hard to smoothly work together in a combination of premaster-bachelor students. This since most Pre-masters never had worked before with Illustrator and InDesign, so maybe it would be great to set these programs as foreknowledge/organize a small extra Program class for them.
- It would be better to have 2x2 lectures instead 1x4 for the concentration of the students. (also taking in account the bad air conditions of IPO)
+ The cities for the project really fitted well to the lectures and the reader. + The lecturer was enthusiastic
+ The project really worked out as an investigation, so not only just mapping, but with a specific research question to find out.
+ The project was really doable in time, also due to the fact that a lot of students had the Architecture and Urbanism project course beforehand, with the same set-up.
+ Great exercises during the lectures; the students were really involved to think out loud.
- The interim test felt a bit like a high school ‘stamp’ (copy-paste) test, but from the other side it is useful and essential that students know all the important historical buildings.
- There could have been more practice test -assignments- to prepare for the essay.
+ The final test was from real university level with both its open and enclosed questions.
Just right, especially if students have done Architecture & Urbanism before, cause then they are familiar with the booklet template, Illustrator and Essay writing.
Urban Projects and Finance7U7X0
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
At the end of the course, the teacher gave examples of exam questions, which was beneficial for the final exam.
- The course material was not completely clear.
It was hard for Psychology & Technology students to understand the sketching programs, for they have never worked with it before. They really should have some pre-knowledge for these sketching programs.
The expected excel skills were often too complex.
+ Kind lecturer with a fast response on answers
+ Great knowledge from the lecturer.
+ Great examples on canvas.
+ The lecturers were very motivated, what made the students motivated.
+ The lectures had sufficient depth.
+ The lectures are very interactive
+ Fun Materials during lecture.
+ Realistic representating project.
+ Relevant information
+ Great level of final test.
Concrete and Masonry Structures7P9X0
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.
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.
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.
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.
- The crack formula was really long and difficult to understand, maybe it has to be cut into smaller, less complex parts. This problem showed itself off in the exam, and a lot of students had trouble with this.
Solution: Before the exam it could be explained that students have to know those kind of formulas. But mr. Bos also thinks that he can ask this next level questions at the University, cause it was only the last, most complex question (for the high grades) and it was also a question by which the students who practices better could differentiate themselves of the others.
+ The information on Canvas was clear and structured.
+ The teachers had a good level of English.
- Sometimes it was hard to recognise the difference between which part of the lecture/content was about Eurocode, and which part about structural mechanic rules. This was a bit confusing
Improvement: The next time, the focus on the Eurocode should be earlier in the lecture period. The goal of the course is to make students find their ways in the Eurocode; that they have to PRINT it at the beginning and make notes on it. This will be elaborated in the Introduction lecture of next year.
+ Relevant lecture topics as the Eurocode, Capita Selecta etc.; Interesting topics about our current world.
+The lectures show the relationship between theory and calculations. In this manner, people also get the idea on what the complex formulas are based.
- There was only one exam, that did not really correspond to the practice test and the assignment. E.g.: Formulas had to be derivative in the exam, this was not the case in the preparing exercises.
Mr Bos reacts on this: than it will be too much a copy-paste idea and the course gets too easy then. People need to know this theory by heart, because they have to know those base rules if they start their construction jobs. This is not possible by only asking for copy-paste exercises.
-The layout of the exam should be improved to make it more understandable. Mr Bos will improve this next year.
-There was no practice material for the exam question about slabs.
-It seemed like the Masonry calculations were not needed for the exam, whereas a lot of its calculations were explained in the lecture. Perhaps this part could be integrated more in the final exam.
+ Great that there were weekly exercise deadlines, this kept students up with their work. Furthermore, students have to reproduce the theory by themselves in this manner, not only watching the lecturer.