Quartile 3

• The study guide was clear and to the point. However, could be a bit more elaborate. The Canvas page was also clear.
• There was no course book or material to learn next to the slides.
• The communication could have been better. Acoustics lectures were cancelled last minute and this could have been communicated better.
• The material that was discussed in this course was fun to learn, however, some students missed the overall relevance or application.
• Overall score of the course was a 7.7

• The lectures were good and formative, however, they were very short.
• The structure for the acoustics lectures was very clear.
• The structure of the wind lectures could be improved, because each week handled a different subject without building forward on the subjects that were handled the previous weeks it became difficult to understand what had to be learned for the exam.
• The wind tunnel testing lecture did not seem very relevant. Since there was no testing with it or demonstration
• Urban heat islands were only briefly mentioned. Some students mentioned they were interested in learning more about that.

• The assignments were a bit vague. Not always clear what was expected from the assignments or how it could be executed.
• More guidance with the software would be nice.
• Overall the assignments were fun to do.
• Presentation of the assignments was fun to see what other students came up with

• Multiple choice questions were doable with the information that was given during the lectures.
• The open questions for the acoustics part were focused a lot on the meaning of the formulas and therefore, very theoretical and less like practical calculations.
• It was very vague what was expected for the wind part of the exam.

• Workload was very doable and evenly spread over the quartile.
• 2 assignments in the last week could have been done differently; one halfway through the quartile and one at the end.
• Another option could be for both assignments an interim assignment showing already the methodology of the measurements that students want to carry out.

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 study guide was clear, however a bit outdated. Not all dates corresponded to the actual deadlines.
• The Canvas page was a little unclear. Difficult to find the right information.
• This course is different from other course given at the university. It does not really feel like a built environment course but more like a geography lesson sometimes. Differs on the person if this is perceived as positive or negative.
• Overall the communication was good. Announcements were used when extra information needed to be given.
• The setup of the course was nice.
• Overall score of the course was a 7.2.

• Very low pace and good quality lectures.
• Lecture notes were a great addition to the lectures. Some students mentioned that it would be nice if the notes could be uploaded on Canvas.
• More interaction during the lectures could be nice. For example asking students questions about the material.
• Getting more in-depth information would be nice.
• The guest lecture was a very nice addition to the course.

• From reading the study guide it was not completely clear what was expected of the assignment.
• There was no guidance for the assignment.
• The assignment was due before all the content was covered in the lectures.
• It would be nice to be able to see what other groups do. Maybe by showing examples in the lectures.
• The assignment was very doable with the information that was given during the lectures.
• One person mentioned the ability to form your own groups.

• Getting more information about the exam beforehand.
• There were some spelling mistakes and some questions were repeated.

• Course was evenly spread over the quartile.
• The deadline in week 6 was nice, this removed some of the pressure in week 8.

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.

• The study guide was a bit vague. It was not completely clear what was expected from the seminar every week.
• The course itself is very interesting. It offers a different, more philosophical point of view. A lot more creative than some of the other courses given at the university.
• The communications via the announcements worked really well.
• Overall score of the course was a 7.7

• Overall, lectures were extremely interesting. They offered a different perspective on architecture and spaces.
• The first lecture was a bit confusing, making the course very overwhelming during the first weeks.
• The recordings that were done by Jacob were also very nice if students weren’t able to go to a lecture.

• The assignments were very interesting.
• The information on what was needed was clear, however at the end some students were told they should have been more free and should have found their own way instead of following exactly what was expected. That this was wanted could have been communicated better at the beginning.
• Hand drawing was a nice way to improve the skills, although not all assignments were as useful.
• The grade that was given at the end did not really match the amount of work that was put into the assignment.

• The seminar did not really have a connection to the built environment.
• Because it was not always clear what was needed for the seminar, students had to catch up on a lot of work after the seminar sessions.
• Some students felt that this part of the course was a bit unnecessary. It was too much work besides the other two parts of the course.

• There were no practice exams and no information about the exam itself, for example about the type of questions.
• The exam questions corresponded to the information that was given during the lectures.

• The work was spread evenly over the 8 weeks.
• It was too much work for just one course.
• The three parts, lecture part, seminar part and workshop part, were a bit too much.
• Because of the high workload students were not able to put in the amount of effort they would have wanted to put in.
• Having this course be spread over one semester instead of one quartile would be a better fit.

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.

• Variation between more theoretical part and then application to practice is good
• Canvas page was clear, The file section for the assignments was a bit chaotic, However, manageable.
• Suggestion: maybe add the lecture slides of the guest lectures also to the module section for the corresponding week
• More in-depth knowledge about physical and chemical properties of different building materials were considered relevant for the bachelor program of AUBS.
• People were generally very positive! (total average score of 8.4)

• Attendance for tutoring and lectures: 71-80%
• The lecture slides were clear and very informative
• The availability of the lecture slides and the slides with notes after the lecture were useful to learn for the final exam
• Short recap and quiz of content of previous lecture was nice and caused to actively participate in the lectures.
• The large amount of information was processed in the lecture in a good way since the lectures were not too long and an at a nice pace.
• Guest lectures were a nice addition to the course to see how material use is considered in the field of architecture.

• Concepts of the assignments were good, great combination of theory and practice
• Tutoring session was informative to open discussion and share knowledge with other groups
• Bike tour was considered rather long (however, fun). It was hard to plan a day-long bike tour with a group of 3 full-time students and also trying to have relatively nice weather in the begin of April.

• Practice exam was nice to practice with open questions and representable for the level of difficulty of the exam.

• Course was evenly spread over the quartile.
• The workload was considered doable and comparable to 140 hours (5 ECTS).

This interdisciplinary course between building physics and architecture gives students knowledge about the materialization of buildings. The main structure of the course was clear, especially the lecture part was super clear and compact each week. The architecture part was a bit more chaotic and not completely clear what we could expect from the lecture. The quality of the teachers was good, and the lectures were explained in a clear and detailed way. It was always nice and interesting to listen to the lecturers of Florent Gauvin. Also, the lectures that Tom Veeger gave were interesting but less structured. What is positive about this course is that theory and practice are both shown, this is very rare in a bachelor course.

The lectures on materials were very clear and compact. This made it easy to understand the study material correctly. Also, the build-up of the lectures worked well, with Performance, Applications, and Durability. In the end, many subjects related to each other, which made the material easier to understand. In the beginning, it was not clear if the lecture part of Tom Veeger also would be part of the exam, this will be better clarified next year. These lectures were interesting, especially the guest lectures, they help to get a view of the “real world”/practice. However these lectures felt unstructured and were not planned clearly, also it could be interesting if the lectures have topics each week.

The first assignment was about the redesign of the façade of the Gemini building. The assignment was interesting and learned knowledge from the lecture part could be applied, but the assignment came too early in the course. For the assignment itself, it was sometimes not clear what would be expected and which parts needed to be redesigned, this will be clarified next year in a more clear description.

The second assignment was a bike tour through Eindhoven. It was a nice assignment because you were “forced” to look in practice at the buildings. Sometimes the questions for the buildings were not completely clear and it felt that some questions took more time than others. It would have been nice to have more contact hours with a tutor about the assignment, especially for the renovation project, since a student learns the most from the feedback from a tutor.

The exam was as expected, all questions could be answered with the use of the material of the lecture slides, as indicated. The exam was long, but doable in the provided time. The questions were clear, but the box to write down the answer was multiple times too small. Maybe extra space at the end of the exam could be provided.

The workload was average for this course, it was not too much or too less. The assignments took some time, especially the bike tour, but they were interesting.

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.

The course was quite interesting because the course was focused on research. They need to program certain trends in NETLogo. And how they affect future urban life. When asked they students really enjoyed it.

Sometimes the deliverables are a bit vague. Sometimes stuff has to be added in the report that is not mentioned in the study guide or grading rubric. NETLogo was difficult if you didn’t have any prior experience in coding/programming. The classes for learning NETLogo were insufficient according to some students.
The tutor hours being after the lecture do not give students enough time to work on the lecture and ask about it.

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.

It is a nice in-depth course that deals with light in relation to the architectural world, but also with other disciplines like computer sciences and psychology, which makes this course interesting for everyone interested in the lighting field. The communication and studyguide were both clear, only some small things in communication were not completely smooth, but this had to do with dependence on teachers from other faculties. The course was completely given on-campus, but for people who could not attend for a valid reason, online lectures were arranged.

The lectures were given by six different lectures from different faculties, each one specialized in its topic. For students who followed light courses earlier in their curriculum, many things are familiar, but in this course, these parts are treated in more depth. There was also a guest lecture from someone from Signify, which was very interesting.

5 Assignments had to be completed in a group of four. Assignments 1 and 2 were sessions in the BPS lab, here the lecture material was applied in practice. Assignment 3 was about making and executing a measurement plan. Assignment 4 was an interesting lab session in the chemical-engineering lab, where new materials and techniques were shown. Eventually, this assignment did not count, because of some problems during the lab session. Assignment 5 was about designing with the program DIAlux.

The exam was as expected, all questions could be answered with the use of the material of the lecture slides, as indicated. All questions were multiple-choice, and there was also a nice bonus question. The exam was doable in the provided time.

The workload was average for this course, it was not too much or too less. The assignments took sometimes some time, but it was evenly distributed over the whole quartile.