Quartile 3

In general, the course was organized in a very clear and effective way. Communication with the teachers and student assistants was fast and effective. The study guide provided a lot of detail, especially for the wind part which was very helpful for studying and understanding the topic in more detail. The only ‘negative’ part of the course was using the MATLAB software as some students did not have any previous experience with this, which could take quite some time to figure out.

The lectures itself were very well organized with a lot of information and details in the PowerPoint slides. After the shift to the online education, the lectures itself were again very well organized by using the online video lectures.
Some more lecture hours could be planned for the acoustics part. The 1 lecture hour followed by 1 instruction hour is a bit little.

Both the final test and the assignments were organized again in a clear way. Including the midterm in the final test was indeed one of the better options regarding the corona policy.
For the assignments some more information could be provided. Especially a manual for using the MATLAB program which was needed for the wind assignment. In the bachelor course MATLAB is not part of any course or programme offered. However, it would be very useful to know how to work/use MATLAB academically and career wise. Therefore, it would be nice to incorporate MATLAB in a course (could even be a basic course for the bachelor) however, some more explanation on how to use the software would be very useful.
For the acoustics assignment, it would be helpful if the assignment is explained a bit earlier in the quartile. This leaves some more room/time to finish the assignment (which was in this case not a very big issue as the deadline had been extended due to the corona policy guidelines).

Overall, the course took quite some time, probably around 150 hours, which is a bit more than the state 140 hours. The workload for the wind assignment was especially higher than expected as figuring out how to use the MATLAB program took a significant amount of time, even when working in pairs. However, help with the MATLAB program was offered by mailing Ricci which helped indeed with the understanding of the software.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The course is about the geographically approach to the built environment. There were a lot of students from other departments that followed the course so it is good that no prescience is needed for the course. The course is mainly about the Netherlands and therefore may be difficult for international students. On the other hand, it can also interesting for them to learn about the Netherlands.

The lectures were pre recorded and therefore there was not a lot of interaction. Yet, Q&A sessions were held to make this interaction. The book really helped to understand the lectures. In the lectures, the lecturer can revere the book. Not sure how that would work if the lectures were offline.

The assignment was about the surroundings in the Brabant. The assignment was written. It would have been nice if students could work more together. The report was really divided into 4 parts.

The exam was a multiple choice exam and students reacted differently on the exam. The exam could be more difficult so that the students gain a better understanding of the subject.

The course was generally very clear introduced. The set-up of the course was very clear and every step in the course was well explained. The course was very Dutch orientated, which could cause problems for internationals, the mention for the project to collaborate with a Dutch person was very good. In the information about the course in the plan app could information be provided about the Dutch orientation of the course (an extra warning). The communication was mostly done by e-mail, placing for example the slides on Canvas would provide a more clear overview. The communication itself was very good and on time.

I enjoyed the lectures, especially because it gave a lot of insights in the developments of the land. The length of the lectures was great, not too long but still worth the go. The explanation during the lectures was very clear and the large amount of visual representations helped with keeping the interest of the attenders of the lecture. Adding a bit more information on the slides would make it easier to connect the visual representations on the slides with the test material. The lectures could reference more towards the reader, because sometimes the connection with the reader was a bit vague. It was very nice that the project was introduced with a lecture. This gave a clear explanation of what the subjects were that were researched in the project and the type of research that had to be done. There were some thing unclear about the project, for example the way that the maps could be represented in the report: what is expected? an illustrator drawing etc.

The examination material was clear from the start of the course. The example test was a good representation of the actual test. The test was on the short side with very specific questions. The test could maybe be a little larger, also providing more possibility to make more mistakes.

I think a student puts about 120 hours in this course. The workload of the course was on the lower side with some exceptions: the exam and the deadline of the report. To
keep students on track, requiring a small summary of each lecture would higher the workload but would be beneficial for students.

The solutions of the course during the corona times were very good. Students were not disadvantaged and the course showed a good flexibility without losing a lot of quality.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Beforehand, for little students it was clear that the course mainly discussed NetLogo and thus programming. Some experienced it as quite hard with not enough explanation but others really want to use it more often. In general, the layout of the course was not clear for everyone. And a lot of students hoped for a more theoretical course about smart cities instead of all the programming. The purpose of the course however was clear for students.

Quite different levels of the assignments, with the first ones being harder in comparison of the experience and received elaboration at that time. Weekly assignments were helpful for students to be actively concerned with the course. However, the last deadline was during Easter, which is not practical for students as they do not have any time off.

Despite not all students were present at some sessions with assignment explanations, a lot of requests appear for a weekly tutor session. Also, the fact that their grade would reduce if they asked for help did not motivate students to talk to the teachers. It is understandable that with programming, the only help can be given by providing the answer. However, it was not communicated well that students could ask for help if it required a theoretical answer.
Also, besides the general presentations students did not have any interaction with other groups. They experienced this as a lack of extra information on the assignment. By contact between different groups, students can find out if they are on track or if other students are doing better or are further ahead than them. Of course, they can arrange this themselves but sometimes that bar is quite high for students.

Interesting course, nice layout and good course structure. Not all cities are equally suitable for the assignment because some have slightly more obstacles than others. Putting USE on the map has been successful. Maybe students cooperate better because the subject was of interest. Lectures were more explanatory (first 2) which is a good method to explain the assignment.

The tutor sessions were useful. USE is sometimes experienced as 'vague', but a lot of the vagueness was removed during tutor sessions. Although, tutor session setup often communicated late and the general presentations were sometimes too much.

presentation with everyone was intense and perhaps too long. Some students had the idea 'what are we doing here' because other cities were also presented. The idea is to do the presentations of a slightly smaller size.