Old Curriculum

Below you can find the courses of the curriculum before revision of the bachelor. Some courses do have the same name as the new courses, however they are slightly different.

Applied Physical Science Conceptual

3NAB0
General

Organization
The structure and the organization of the course were relatively good. A problem that occurred in the planning was related to the hand-in homework’s and the online tests, which will be explained further in one of the following chapters.

Previous knowledge

Formula sheet
The formula sheet was well formulated and structured. However, there were many extra formulas that were never used.

Symbolic questions
There was confusion with these types of questions. In many occasions it was not clear to what extent the students had to “solve” these problems (how simplified the answer had to be).

Workload

In the opinion of people who have taken the course a couple of times the workload is increasing significantly.
Homework and online tests
In terms of organization it was quite confusing when the deadlines for the hand-in homework and the quizzes were changing every now and then. Furthermore, it did not make sense for the students to have a deadline at 8:00AM. Also, the deadlines were two days (day and a half) in the advance of the next tutorial. Therefore, this might be reconsidered and thus to be given more time to the students for these assignments.
The hand-in homework was graded without any fixed criteria, and as a result many people got completely different grades for the same type of correct solutions. Many said that they have even solved the task in the tutor hour and after the submission of the identical solutions the grades varied from 6 to 10 which seems a bit unfair.

General

Organization
The course improved substantially from last year, according to students who retook the course . Overall, the course got many good remarks from the students.

Language
Great use of English in the lectures, homework, and all the course content. Nonetheless, some students wonder why they couldn’t make use of a dictionary in the exam because it is their first time doing physics in a language other than their native one. It is worth mentioning that other courses allow translation dictionaries which facilitates this particular problem.

Previous knowledge
The general consensus was that the course was easy to follow once you got the flow of it. However, for some students without previous knowledge following the course was a challenge. In calculus, for example, the students were given basic exercises to work on and study before starting the course to be prepared and up to the level that they are expected to be. We believe a similar approach for this course could solve this problem.

Formula sheet
The formula sheet was not well formulated or well structured. There were extra unnecessary formulas while some of the important ones were missing. The order of the equations in the exam was different to the template provided on canvas which made it confusing.

Symbolic questions
There was confusion with these types of questions. In many occasions it was not clear to what extent the students had to “solve” these problems (how simplified the answer had to be).

Live streaming
The livestreaming presented no problems. High number of students watching.

Lectures/project

The lectures received a positive feedback. Students thought it was clear but more than that, it was enthusiastic and students felt supported and motivated.

Examination

Intermediate exam

This exam was a clear shock. It was initially met with anger because many people thought the number of questions were too much for the time given. Also, it was way harder than the online tests and homework exercises, leaving many students unprepared.

After the lecturer explained the problems, students felt that the exam wasn’t unfair and agreed that the topics were explained previously.

Final exam

Students were much happier with this exam, it was a lot more fair and the content met student’s expectations.

Workload

Homework

The homework helped a lot of students, but we got complaints about detailed solutions not being available until very late. We were told that the answers weren’t available as to discourage students to ‘copy’ answers. However, this measurement hinders students who want to learn and take out valuable time from the tutor sessions. The answers are very valuable to students and they are relevant for the self-studying time. The lack of answers also encourage making mistakes because there is no way to check them. The homework is also not graded, therefore there is nothing at stake.

Online tests

One of the issues that arose concerning the online tests is about answers being considered wrong if they weren’t written in the exact way the computer understands, even though they were correct, which made some students lose points unfairly. About the copying issue, it comes down to personal responsibility to not copy and use the tests to study the topics yourself.

Tutor sessions

There were mixed reviews regarding the tutor sessions. Some people had very supportive tutors while others had lousy ones. The method used for the Statics of Structures tutor hours is a very good example of a well-organized class. Given that the groups are bigger, there are less needs for tutors and therefore a better filtering.

General

The course schedule was quite unpractical as they were for long periods of time and in the evenings.

Lectures/project

Students were positive about the “hands-on” sessions.

Examination

The first examination was judged too difficult. Even though some points were added, it is still discouraging for students to take an exam which is not appropriate for their level from the very start. Furthermore, there has been great problems with the grades, which for a long time did not seem right for a lot of students. Even though the grades were adjusted, the actions that the course team has taken to adjust the grades of students were not clear (for instance, how much was added to the students’ exam result and what grades were taken into account for the final grade calculation). How were the grades calculated is a crucial information which should have clearly been communicated to all students.

Moreover, students have received multiple emails concerning resit registration which was confusing.

Workload

There has not been any complaints from students concerning the workload.

Course specific points

The questions presented during the lectures are quite difficult, perhaps even out of topic. On the other hand, at times, the questions were too easy. Furthermore, the level of homework exercises was generally different from the level of questions asked on online quizzes.

Architecture & City

7X1X0
General

As a general idea, the course was enjoyed and found interesting by most of the students. The course Information was a bit complicated and unknown, but it would be found and known by lecturers and on canvas.

Lectures/project

The lectures were entertaining and interesting for a lot of students, lectures motivated students to learn about the subject and participate.

Examination

Anyone who had studied, listened to the lectures, and paid attention to the information provided by the lecturers could pass the written exam. There were a few hiccups with the order and organization of the lectures and topics in the seminar section, but it wasn't too difficult to grasp the overall context of the course.

Workload

The workload for the year was a little excessive. This course could be described as time-consuming and attention-seeking. This course was mostly in the first quartile and was the most time consuming. It was difficult to stay on track with the other courses, but since most of the students enjoyed it, it wasn't a big deal.

General

There is no separate study guide, but all the information is available on canvas. The number of ECTS however is not included in the general information. Next time, this can be added to make sure all necessary information is in the study guide. The target group is everyone in the first year of Architecture, Urbanism and Building Sciences.

Lectures/project

The lectures were of good quality and they were nice to follow. Another good aspect was the ability to ask questions in the q&a-sessions after the lectures.
It was great that the seminar part was still possible on campus, even with the COVID-19 measures.

Examination

It was very hard to work together on the sketchbook due to the COVID-measures. But compared to the years before this, it has been resolved quite nicely.
The take home exam was a nice alternative to a physical test. However, the total work was more than the mentioned 3-5 hours in the assignment. Then again, compared to the hours of study that would normally be the case, this is a big decrease in hours.
The past few years it was possible to see other students’ work. Unfortunately this was not possible this year.

Workload

The workload was just good enough. It is a good starting course that challenges you to think about the what’s and why’s of a building. While the workload was just good enough for most students, some students struggled with the amount of work that had to be put in. This can be due to the fact that this is the first course in their first year, which meant they still had to accommodate to university ways.

General

As a general idea, the course was enjoyed by most of the students. Information was communicated in clear and straight forward ways, the study guide was complete and the study material was interesting and useful.

Lectures/projects

The lectures were very enjoyable and they were inviting students to attend them. They were useful and providing students with new and fascinating information. The quality of these is very much appreciated among students.

The seminar part is a good analysis exercise which is appreciated since it teaches students a lot of practical information. Some issues were encountered here mostly regarding the consistency of the feedback sessions. There was a major difference between different tutors so maybe a Rubric table might be useful in this situation to keep certain objectivity upon the assignments. Also, some students did not know how to draw in isometry before this and it was quite difficult for them to provide high-quality 3D drawings, thing which was, of course, not really appreciated by the tutors. A similar situation was encountered at the model making part since it was the first glance into this kind of work for most of the students. However, maybe some more understanding regarding these can be taken into account.

Furthermore, for the seminar part, some tutors expected every model to be white or made of something else than foam which is defeating the purpose of buying the model kit which did not provide the required materials. This might be a situation which has to be discussed with the shop in Vertigo to decide on the proper materials needed for this course to be included in the material kit.

The concept sketchbook is a great idea to make students understand and acquire the meaning of the concepts explained in the lectures.

Examination

The exam was at least doable for somebody who actually studied and the information provided by the lecturers was synthesized very well in order to facilitate a proper understanding of the study material. Some people complained, however, that there were only screencasts from one lecturer and they could not understand exactly the slides from the other two. As a result, maybe that is a small improvement that can be done.

Workload

The workload was undoubtedly time-consuming but it wasn’t really a problem since the seminar was really engaging and so were the lectures and the sketchbook assignment.

General

The course consists of two parts: A lecture program and a seminar program. The lectures where given by three different teachers. They all were very enthusiastic. Most of the presentations had a good combination of words and visualization by means of pictures/images. The seminar part is very dense but also very useful. Students learned how to analyze different aspects of houses and their spaces. However, there are some points that could be improved. First of all the presentations of the lectures were put on canvas after the lecture was given. It would have been more useful to have them in advance of the lecture, so students can print them and write notes next to it during the lecture. The study guide of the seminar was very clear, but the information was contradicting to the information we got by e-mail. The e-mails should have been sent earlier. Most of the time an e-mail was sent on Tuesday night for the day after. Besides that, different supervisors had different expectations and provided a different set of feedback. The workload in general was too much.

Lectures/project

The lectures were really interesting to follow. They were very interactive and student learned a lot of them. Also the well spoken English of the teachers was pleasant to listen to. It was nice to have three hours of lectures and one hour for asking questions. It was good to have the ability to ask questions during the fourth hour instead of during the breaks. However, only the students who had questions stayed for the last hour while the others left. The fourth hour can be made mandatory for everyone since the questions can be helpful for all students instead of just for the student who asked the question. The book was nice to have, but has been barely used. It was hard to understand how the book could be used efficiently. Maybe it is possible to refer to the book during the lectures in order to give an example of how to study it. The quality of the feedback of the seminar was good. Each Wednesday every student pair had a short meeting with their supervisor to talk about how the project was going. The quantity of the feedback could have been better compared to the amount of work. Students only got feedback once a week. Maybe communicate more clear that students should better prepare themselves for the supervisions to make sure that the meetings are more efficient.
In the end the pain of working hard also pays of very much since some beautiful models and drawings were made. It was also good that the drawings had to be finished in the week before the exams. This caused less tress during the exam weeks.

Examination

The exam was straight forward and suited the subject. It was a nice balance between The the open and more straight forward questions. It was also good to have some multiple choice questions. The case and concept workbook was also a useful way to study the different concepts.
For next time students would like to have more old exams to practice as it is difficult to know what to expect from the exam.
Another idea is the multiple choice plus questions which are multiple choice questions where you have to give an explanation of why you chose the answer.

Workload

The workload in general is really high. The combination of the lectures, the concept workbook, the models and the drawings was a lot. The amount of work does not correspond to the number of ECTS. Especially the workload of the seminar was very much. This is created because it is dependent on the skills which the students have. These skills need to be learned, but then it needs to be done somewhere else. The teachers wanted to implement these skills, but that would add even more workload.

Course specific points

As the course progresses, the learning objectives became clearer, despite being a little vague when the course started. In the end the learning objectives of both the lectures and the seminar have been achieved.

BAU Studio

71NX0
General

The course is well organized and the level difficulty is challenging enough for the students to progress forward without feeling discouraged. However, some resources that are provided are only in Dutch, which makes it difficult for non-Dutch students to choose what information to use for their projects.
BAU studio touches on a variety of possibilities for future self-development. It should be noted that career prospects should be presented to students to help them choose the best track or mix of tracks for them.
General coherence between deadlines within the course as well as coherence between courses will reduce stress and enhance better results. The organization of different activities should be clearer.

Study Material

A-project: The workload is different in the beginning and the end of the project. The deliverables were clearly stated.
B-project: The different tracks need better representation and distinguishing. There should be an emphasis on the possibilities to mix tracks and how mixing works together.
Digital drawing: Video materials need a bit of improvement. On the other hand, handouts were clear and useful. Maybe a quick guide for AutoCAD will help students with using the program for Building Technology. The assignments were diverse and allowed for freedom in the designs. Parallels between the programs and the projects will help students remember how to use the programs and allow for more creativity in the projects.
Hand Drawing: The scoring for hand drawing was well explained, however many of the files were not that well organized. The students may prefer a combined explanation for assignment and pre-assignment. Video materials were helpful and a good reference to base each person’s drawings on. More open classes would help students improve.
Professional skills: It gave insight to the students on what they should improve in order to work efficiently in a team. The planning assignment is a complex one, and students have to invest enough time to do it properly to avoid feeling overwhelmed. It helps the students understand that planning the contents of their courses is important. Teaches students to deal with problems independently and in a group.
U-project: There were clear and full explanation in the study guide. The professors and teaching assistants provided important insights. A general introduction to referencing in the beginning of the course is needed in order to make sure students reference all projects before their U-project correctly. The site visit was refreshing for students.

Examination

Scoring of the different project was sufficiently explained in the study guides. There were no clear criteria for all projects for digital media. Feedback for students is very important and therefore the grading forms should continue to be provided to the students after their projects. This helps with understanding how the grading works.

Workload

The project and assignments were not that hard to complete. The greatest difficulty came from confusion because of many deadlines of assignments and pre-assignments.

Structure

Online materials were very helpful; however, future improvement can make them even better. The different study guides go in depth on different level. Most video materials were short and understandable.

General

Overall, people liked the course. It was well organized, clearly structured and it had a clear goal. The U, A and B assignments were good and all had the same level of difficulty. The extra media and skills assignments were sometimes unclear. Since there were so many different assignments, students sometimes had trouble with quantity and workload.

Project

The projects were well handled especially given the circumstances. The course had to switch from offline to online in de middle but that was handled well. It was very nice that the course was offline in q1.

The media and skills assignments were less structured. The media and skills assignments were often unclear, especially the professional skills in the beginning. This can also be because of the amount of assignments can make things confusing. The AutoCAD sessions were difficult to follow on campus while the illustrator, photoshop and InDesign sessions were videos and they worked better. The drawing video were long but worth to watch.

Workload

Lots of people had trouble with the huge amount of assignments. The large amount can get quite chaotic.

Structure

Wednesday to Wednesday schedule was very confusing. May seem unimportant but can lead to serious problems.

General

The course was well organized. It had a clear structure and the students had enough time to go through every phase of the design process. In general, there were several issues with clarity concerning the projects and the media and skills training. The handouts were not that clear for some students, this would lead to some confusion under students. However, the help of the tutors and teachers fixed a large part of this uncertainty.

Study material

Media and Skills:
The handouts were short and minimalistic, this resulted in them not being that clear for some students. After getting some more information the handouts turned out to be pretty helpful. They did their core purpose namely explaining the assignment step by step. A good additional handout would be an AutoCAD handout since most students are not familiar with the program.

Projects:
Overall the study material was good. Especially for the U-assignment, the study material was very clear and students knew right away what to do. For the A-assignment were no real comments on the study material. For the B-assignment the study material could have been better, students found the study guide a bit messy.

Examination

Due to the fact that the final product was not stated in every study guide that clear, it was difficult for students to see if they met the end goals of the projects and media assignments.
Furthermore, the way of the examination was suitable for this course.

Workload

Students found the workload quite high, especially in the beginning. This is also due to the fact that students were not used to the way of education at the university. However, after this course, students were positive since this course provided them with the right work attitude.

General

BAU Studio 1 consists of two parts, the media instructions and the studio assignments. This evaluation focusses on the studio assignments, the media instructions are handled in a separate evaluation.
For BAU Studio 1, there are three projects of four weeks in which the students get to know the three main directions within the built environment (USRE, AUDE and BSPD). For every direction, students had to make a project.
In this evaluation, feedback on the projects is given, furthermore positive points about the course are stated.

Lectures/project

U-assignment (USRE):
- With the U-assignment, there were multiple unofficial example rapports (good and bad ones) in circulation, this led to some confusion. Although example rapports make copying easy, they do provide students with a framework, so they know what is expected from them. This is especially important since the students are new and aren’t familiar with the universities way of working.
We suggest publishing example rapports, with feedback on them, via the official channels.
- The explanation of the APA-style for sources was insufficient. Since not everybody is familiar with this technique, more information about this should be provided.
- We have heard from students of higher years that the U-assignment isn’t representative for the USRE direction. We cannot confirm this however, as we don’t have enough knowledge about this.

A-assignment (AUDE):
- For the analysis of the A-assignment, some groups were allowed to spread the analysis over the entire group while in other groups, everyone had to do the entire analysis on their own. Furthermore, the analysis wasn’t really used in the project itself. We think the analysis should be shortened and there should be consistency about what should be done by who between tutor groups.
- It was unclear how the A-assignment should be incorporated into the U-assignment, this should be explained more clearly.

B-assignment (BPSD):
- There was a presentation halfway the project (6 dec 2017) which explained a lot. This presentation was useful but should’ve been given earlier in the project.
- The workshops of the B-assignments took a lot of time, this could maybe be lessened. Especially the workshop with light and sound measurements was useless as we didn’t really learn anything. Although the workshops took quite some time, they were useful.

Workload

The time management for all three projects was pour. It was for all three projects quite unclear what had to be done and what the goals of the project where in the first weeks. Due to this, most of the work on the projects was done in the third week. There wasn’t really a fourth week to work on the projects since the projects had to be handed in at the Monday of the fourth week.
There was a broad schedule for what had to be done every week. This schedule was quite good, but the distribution of the schedule didn’t work. Less time should be spent on analysing while more time should be spent on the projects themselves. Furthermore, the assignments should be better explained in the first week.

Course specific points

- The communication between tutors didn’t always work well. Some tutors weren’t informed sufficiently about the projects. Different tutors said different things. Some tutors gave more explanations than others. Some groups had to make things which other groups didn’t have to make. There should thus be more coherence between tutors and tutor groups.
+ The explanations at the beginning of each week were really helpful!
+ It was very easy to ask tutors and teachers for help. The tutors and teachers were very approachable.
+ Tutors consistently used the English language.
+ It was good that groups had the same tutors for the entire project, this makes it easier to ask them for help!
+ The studio sessions aided collaboration.
+ Tutors had a lot of general knowledge about a lot of things.

Summary

The studio assignments are a great way to introduce students to the three directions of the built environment. The assignments are very informative and interesting, and they are a more pleasant way of learning than lectures.

BAU Studio 2

7N3X0
General

BAU Studio 2 starts with choosing a project, because in BAU Studio 2 you follow one project instead of three. Apart from the location on the Heistraat and Bloemenplein the three projects are completely separate. In the A project students design student housing along with some hand drawing and urbanism assignments. The B project also assigns students to design student housing but this time take all BPS and SED parts that come with it into account. For the U project the students come up with a way to improve healthy living in the dedicated neighbourhood.

Lectures/project

The Blue button software was not the optimal way for lectures/meetings for the B project. Just using Microsoft teams might have been a better alternative for the students. Also for the B-project it was sometimes unclear to which level of detail should be thought about, since this wasn’t specified in the study guide. The study guide of the U-project also could have been a bit more specific, because sometimes this lead to confusion. For the A project it sometimes felt like the assignments didn’t match the rest of the project. For the rest everything was well executed.

Examination

At the end of each project students would get a final grade and some feedback. There were also some grades in-between where students would get some extra feedback. This was a good system and worked well. Only the A-project sometimes lacked good feedback, especially for the urbanism assignment, with which students could continue their project.

Workload

Overall the workload was very well distributed for all three projects, and projects had a fair amount of workload compared to the amount of ECTS.

Canvas

The course was organised via one canvas page. Which sometimes led to all students being invited for a meeting which was meant for only B-project students, or all students being reminded of a hand drawing deadline that only A-project students had to hand in.

Building Technology

7T2X0
General

The course was well organized and was helpful to learn about the basic structural information’s. It was a bit time consuming, but it was helpful.

In general people were satisfied with the lectures and projects. The lectures had to be online due to this it was quite hard to follow and focus for most of the students since this is a course which requires great deal of attention. Supervisions helped a lot, but some students were lost and did not know what or how to do the drawings before the supervisions it was quite a struggle. It would be much easier to have few examples or more detailed explanations about the weekly assignments because explanations in the assignments were a bit confusing for the most.

Examination

The examination consisted of few drawings which is different for every individual. It was a little perplexing for some students. The exam took up a lot of time during the exam week because the assignment demanded a lot of attention to detail. It is doable if you understand the weekly assignments and consider the supervisor's feedback every week.

Workload

Workload was a bit more than expected but everyone had a partner, this situation caused few problems because not everyone was really focused, and the teachers couldn’t see the workload on everyone. In general, this course is a bit time consuming but most of the student found this course effective and informative.

General

Overall, students liked the course. It was well structured and there were good assignments. The tutors sessions were less useful online since sometimes the markings were not clear readable. Last remark about the course is that the communication around the final test were unclear.

Lectures/project

The lectures were clear and useful. Most students watched the lectures.

The assignments were a lot. Since it was online, it was harder to work together and to do the assignments together. The online environment made it difficult to read the marks that the tutors drawn on the drawing. Yet, it was useful to upload the drawings in the program so that everybody could access the drawings. Also, the difference between the tutors in the tutorsessions were big. Some tutors took the time to check all the drawings while other did one example drawing.

Examination

The communication around the final test was unclear a lot of times and can be improved. The final test was different then other year but in the circumstances, it was good.

Workload

The workload for the assignment was big especially if your groupmate quit the course.

General

The lectures were given by one teacher and the person feedback was given by a different teacher / assistant every week. This led to the feedback sessions being inconsistent in quality and in what was expected from the students.

Lectures/project

During the week there were lectures given in lectures rooms, and on the Friday there was a personal feedback on the assignments you had during that week. This worked quite well because you could combine the information that you learned in the lectures into the assignment and then see if you understood it correctly.

Examination

The examinations were exactly as to be expected, it was clearly communicated to the students what they could expect on the exam and what they should learn for it.

Workload

There were quite a complaints about the workloads, that drawing all the required drawings took way too long. But the amount of time was actually reasonable within the required time scheduled for the course.

General

The course was built up very well, and the relevance was high. It was well received by students. Only students don’t have enough prior knowledge with respect to technical drawing. This year for the first time, the teacher did not give a lecture on technical drawing. He put up a file on canvas instead. Students might not have read this file. A live lecture would give better information to students, then a file.

In general people were satisfied with the lectures and projects. The lectures and drawings related well to each other. There was enough time to ask questions, and a nice atmosphere all around.

Dutch images and videos: The teacher recieves this complaint every year, he will check if there are English videos available.

Random breaks: Next year, there will be a vote for whether to have random breaks or not. The teacher states that people lose focus when they have to follow a lecture for a longer time. That is the reason he does these random breaks.

More feedback on drawings: Students want more feedback on their personal drawings. It was not clear to students, that there was a possibility to ask the teacher or any other tutor for personal feedback. According to the teacher, there is not enough time to make remarks on the drawings of every student. Next year, the teacher will start sending mails every week with commonly made mistakes on the drawings.

Smaller feedback groups: There was insufficient time to ask for feedback because a lot of students wanted feedback at the same time on Friday morning. A solution would be to organize the feedback as with Architecture and the city (have smaller groups rotate over the morning). The teacher thinks it is a very good idea to let the students do the sketches as homework before Friday (if there is time available), and let them have feedback in smaller groups during the morning.

More instruction hours: See above, students get better feedback from the new feedback system.

Students want to see the perfect drawing: The teacher says that a lot of correctly drawn parts of the drawings are already present in the slides. The teacher also shows a lot of good drawings made by other students during the first few minutes of the lectures. Also, when there is more feedback, they can get a better picture of the perfect drawing.

Examination

The content of the exam was clear from the start of the course. The online practice questions were useful for learning.

Theory question answers: the theory questions were graded incorrectly according to some students. The teacher says that he wants to check these cases himself, because most of the time they miss something crucial in their answer.

Drawing part: The teacher says there was a lot of discussion during the inspection. He graded the drawings on general impression of the drawings. People would get points for the more challenging parts of the drawings, not for the easy parts of the drawing. The teacher will make clear to students that the drawings will not get graded on what is present and what not, but on general impression. The teacher is also willing to provide the perfect drawing after the exam.

Workload

On average 140 -170 hours were spend on this course per student. There was a good balance between theory and practice exercises. However, students would want more time to submit the assignment. The teacher has organized a week for every topic, and does not want overlap between subjects, so students don’t get confused.

Course Specific Points

The teacher agrees that the inspection was a mess, and should be organized better. The teacher agrees there should be a subscription for the inspection next year, and he will arrange it. A good thing was that, for students who barely failed the course, the teacher was willing to give some extra points because a lot of the exam was based on interpretation. The teacher also agrees that they should have gotten better feedback, which will be provided next year because there will be less students and a better organization.

Lectures/project

The lecturer was very enthusiastic and made sure that everyone was paying attention. The interaction between the student and the teacher was good as a result of the questions asked during the classes.
During the lectures there where real life examples. Through this you know why you were learning this. These examples made the course also very interesting.
The questions that were discussed before each topic were really good. By doing this students really need to think what they already know. It is also a good introduction for a topic.
The power points were well informed. They supported the story of the teacher really well.

Examination

It was very clear what to study for the exam. You knew what was expected from you.
Students should have more study material for the exam. For example have example drawings that are good and complete so you know how to draw the drawings correct on the exam.

Workload

Overall the workload was good, the drawings were well divided over the weeks. Except for one week, in this week students had to make 10 drawings. Compared to other weeks this was a lot.
The instructions provided for the examination revision was very helpful. The students knew how to go about studying for the exams.

Data analytics

2IAB0
General

The course was well structured and it was clear what had to be done. Small note: the canvas page was not always clear because it was sorted by action and not by day.

Lectures/project

The video lectures and problems. The course responsibles did not have access to the video's and therefore had to ask central services.
The programming was not very memorable, that was because the idea is what to look for not to remember everything. It is fine to look those kind of things up. If you got 79 points for the assignment, you failed and you had to redo it. Maybe make smaller parts (which has to down side that there are more assignments).

Examination

During the exam, you were not able to go back which made it more difficult to know how much time to spend on a question. For every question, you had 3 minutes. This year it was not possible to go back. The system does not allow it because it avoids cheating.

Workload

The graded assignments were a lot during the GA and homework hand-in dates. It would help if the deadline were on different dates and students had more time.

General

This course has great potential as data is something every engineer has to work with. Parts of the course are worked out well, but there is still quite some room for improvement. The lectures where quite clear, so apart from some minor issues we wouldn’t change all too much about this. The project should put more focus on the data analytics part of the course and less on programming. This programming comes with a high workload while it isn’t informative for Built Environment students. The course should put more emphasises on changing the mindset of students instead of letting us copy and paste code we do not understand. We have found the following feedback from our own experience, from other students and from a survey under first year Built Environment students.

Lectures/project

The lectures are quite clear, but it is often hard to find the connection between the lectures and the project. Furthermore, the lecture rooms where often quite noisy and the Blauwe Zaal isn’t really suitable for this course as there is no possibility to take notes.
For the project, although it is stated that this is not the case, it feels like you need basic skills in programming to understand what you are doing. Built Environment students have no affinity with programming and so people either put a disproportionate amount of time in the course to kind of understand what is going on or they copy code from others. This doesn’t seem to be the intention of the course to us. We would thus suggest putting more emphasises on the data analytics part and less on the programming part, or even skipping the Python programming part altogether. Most Built Environment students don’t have any direct benefit of learning a programming language and 8 weeks isn’t enough time to learn a programming language, most people didn’t learn anything about programming altogether even though they put a lot of time in it. Another option would be to divide the course in an A, B and C part where each part is more adjusted to different studies, just like for the courses Calculus and Applied Physical Sciences.

The lab sessions are a great way of asking for help and so we should definitely recommend keeping this, but it would be even better if the groups where smaller or if there were more tutors per group, as students had to wait quite often until they got help.

Examination

The final exam was easily doable if you learned for the course, which is a good point. The poster presentations where also good organized and there was a clear rubric. The examination part of this course is done well.

Workload

The workload for the lecture part is fine, but the project part, especially the programming, took a disproportionate amount of time since students didn’t know exactly what they were doing. This should definitely be fixed next year by critically looking at what kind of programming should be included. You should take into account that Built Environment students don’t have any kind of affinity with programming and so the project should be clear, informative and it should be doable in a reasonable amount of time.

Introduction to Building Physics and Materials Science

7S3X0
General

The course was interesting, very extensive, at times the organization was lacking a bit. The material and all the information expected to be known is a lot, however, the multiple-choice exam is relatively easy.

Project

The project was short and interesting. It being only for the beginning of the quartile made it easier for students to focus after that on only studying. The rubric was well formulated. If it features a bit from all parts of the course, it will make more sense to students. It is a great opportunity to introduce job prospects of this track and why students should choose it.

Lectures

The presentations were heavy. By being online, it made it difficult for students to follow at times. Having a recording was very helpful for a great part of the students. Sometimes the presentations were too colorful/distracting; some of the pictures might be of better quality. More exercises will be appreciated and they will help students understand the material in the long term. Students complained that there is not enough stress on important material rather than a lot of confusing information to remember by heart. Feedback classes and exercises classes should be done in person.

Quizzes

The organization was hectic. The changes to the instructions made some students struggle a lot to fit in the provided time. Something to think about is how can all the emotions be reduced after the quiz, because part of the students found it difficult to focus after. Overall, a nice idea to make sure the students are following the lectures. The repetition of the material made sure students get familiar with the topics and gain understanding of them.

Examinations

More examples and exercises with solutions will be of great help for the students. The exam was relatively easy. Professors were ready to answering questions at all times.

Workload

The workload was nicely distributed. No peaks were present.

General

The course was split up into two parts, Material Sciences taught by Jos Brouwers and Florent Gauvin, and Introduction to Building Physics taught by Twan van Hooff, Maarten Hornikx, and Mariëlle Aarts. Information regarding the course was communicated through canvas and canvas announcements.
In general announcements and course, planning was well done, with the expectation of a few late announcements that were uploaded late in the week. The course provided enough information and aid to keep students on track for their exams. The assignment for this course was properly explained and was a good addition to the course. The feedback provided for this assignment was helpful and provided students with further insight into IBPM.

Lectures/project

The lectures for the first part of the course were held online using Microsoft teams, while the second half of the course provided pre-recorded video lectures. The contents were well explained and relevant. The lectures were well organized and for the pre-recorded video lectures there was an accompanying Q&A session, which allowed students to ask questions and get a better understanding of the course material.
Some lectures, especially in the first part of the course, were a little disorganized when it came to the slides and the sequences in which they were explained. However, having the lecture slides uploaded did help with revisiting the content and getting a better understanding. Some lectures were too long with no organized breaks, which resulted in some students losing their concentration. A suggestion for future lectures is to provide a short break after a couple of minutes for students to refresh.

Examination

For this course, there were multiple quizzes throughout the quartile, after each lecture. The quizzes were great when it came to understanding the style questions students should expect for their exam. The quizzes were not available for students to review after which could have helped in the review process. The timing regarding the quizzes was not always appreciated and maybe better planning would help with this issue.
The intermediate exam was a good representation of the final exam in terms of the questions and was well organized. The questions also aided in the revision for the final exam. Besides the intermediate test, there were also some practice questions provided that helped in the study process, however, more past papers and extra questions would have been more appreciated by students.
The end exam was held both on-campus and online (for students unable to go to campus). In general, the exam was well received by the students and accurately represented the course since the questions were similar to the quiz and practice questions.

Workload

On average the amount of time students dedicated to the course matched with the number of credits for this course (140 hours). The workload was overall manageable, especially when information on upcoming lectures and videos was uploaded early - giving students enough time to plan.

Planning

The overall structure of the course was understandable and well communicated. The teachers were approachable and knowledgeable on the subject - making the course interesting.
Something that could benefit the course structure is making an overall planning for both parts of the course and uploading it at the start of th quartile, this makes the course clear and students are then able to plan ahead with a complete overview of the course.
Another thing that would benefit the course and the way it is received by students is, as mentioned above, allocating specific breaks after a couple of minutes during the lectures. As well as, changing the time in which the students had to complete the quiz. This was not a problem for every student but there was a lot of feedback given on this aspect. Some students did not appreciate having to be tested on a lecture right at the end, they would much prefer to do it at the beginning of the next lecture. This, of course, is a preference for some students and not all - so any adjustments or improvements on this aspect would have t be well evaluated with the perspective and input of a number of different students.

General

First of all the readers had a lot of mistakes, that could easily be improved.

The course is not experienced as one whole, because of the combination of different subjects. Maybe reducing this or making the different parts less specific would be helpful. Now it feels like multiple courses in one.

Overall this course is considered to be difficult. Moreover, Quartile 3 is considered as the most difficult quartile in the first year. It would be better to pair IBPM with easier courses, in a different quartile.

Lectures/project

Materials part:
The plastic garage project was very hard for students from different faculties outside of the built environment. These students do not have the pre-knowledge architecture students have. Combining the teams with students from different faculties has a positive effect on the assignment because students from the built environment could share their pre-knowledge. On the other hand, there were some complaints from students who said their partner did not work hard enough. These students ended up doing more than their partner.
The plastic garage assignment was experienced to be quite vague. It would be good if a clear rubric is provided. Though it was mentioned that there was a rubric, a lot of the students weren’t sure where to find it.
The lectures for material science were not experienced very interesting by students. Due to the enormous amount of information given.
People don’t know where to start learning, because the information was to much.
Going through the study guide for material science was also a problem due to all the grammatical mistakes. Particularly considering that this increased the time that the students spent revising during the midterms.

building physics part:
We heard from a lot of students that the lectures are hard to follow and remember. A lot of information and especially formulas are given in a short period of time. This results in confusion. If the lectures contain more examples and explanations, they would become more interesting and therefore better to remember. The lighting part, on the other hand, had a lot of examples, was very interesting and had a really enthusiastic lecturer.
The different parts are experienced to be very to specific. The different parts are very big and it is therefore hard to know where to start learning and what is important information to learn. It is simply not doable to study every detail.

Examination

Learning for the exam was hard, since there were not a lot of exercises with only an number as answer and not a calculation. This way most students had no idea what they did wrong, when their answer wasn’t right.
If there was more study material (calculation by the exercises) the exam would be fine. For the exam of this year, there was a mistake in one of the questions. The right answer was missing, this made it very confusing.

Workload

The workload was overall good. The one thing is that the intermediate test is quite a big and important test. This is different from other courses, but not really a bad thing.

Realization Exploitation and Transformation

7U4X0

Statics of structures

7P3X0
General

The course overall was nicely organized except for the coordination between homework and the topics covered in the last lectures. The lectures for the Equilibrium of Structures' part of the course were very helpful and the material was explained in a comprehensive way. However, the lectures on Structural Design did not cover what students expected even though they were found very interesting and interactive. The final exam was generally considered harder than the examples given in the lectures.

Lectures/project

Equilibrium of Structures

Most of the time the lectures were very nicely structured and very helpful. However sometimes, most of the lecture time was spent on solving a problem. The waste of time came from the calculations which could be left out for individual work. Another important note is that both methods – the method of the cross product and the method of the equilibrium equations were nicely explained which gave opportunity for the students to choose.

If the lectures are more focused on the conceptual explaining of the tasks than the way of calculating, their quality may be improved and the results of the students.

Structural Design

The lectures did not cover the material that the students were expected to know in the exam. That caused a lot of confusion. They were given a book of 200 pages, without emphasis on what is important and what is not. Therefore, it would be nice if next year the lectures explain in more detail the main concepts and tasks.

Canopy assignment

Many students experienced difficulties when using Technosoft so it would be nice if there were more sources provided for the use of the software program since there are no explanations, for example on YouTube.

Examination

Equilibrium of Structures

The tasks given in the exam were relatively the same level of difficulty as the ones given in the lectures. However, all of them were very time consuming and it why students considered them as harder that the examples given was the time span, they had to solve both them and the second part of the exam.

Structural Design

A significant part of the examples given in the exam were emphasized neither in the lectures nor in the study book. Most of the students got stuck on these exercises and did not have enough time to finish the exam.

Workload

The workload was balanced. The idea of having hand-in homework was good because it stimulated students to study regularly.

Homework and graded hand-in in the TA's sessions

There was an organization problem between the homework theme and the last theme covered in the lecture. Most weeks the students were given homework on material that had not been explained in the lectures. This caused a lot of confusion and panic since the homework was preparation for a possible graded hand-in. Furthermore, it demotivated the students to study weekly.

General

The course consists of two parts, one part that focuses on Applied Mechanics and one part that focuses on Structural Design. Applied Mechanics has mandatory tutor sessions and Structural Design has an assignment.

Applied Mechanics

The lectures for this part are received very well. The lecturer is clear and explains the course material very well. The lectures are logically structured and explain the concepts well without too much or too little context. Exercises are solved directly on the blackboard during the lectures which helps the students to understand the calculations as well besides the theoretical background.
The tutor sessions are helpful for understanding the calculations and how to execute them. Because of the mandatory presence the student is forced to stay on track with the course. However, sometimes in the quartile the tutor sessions did not follow the lectures exactly. This resulted in the fact that during the tutor sessions students were not able to solve the exercises because the material was not taught yet during the lectures. Some tutors did in these cases give some additional explanation such that the students could proceed. This did vary between tutors.

Structural Design

For the Structural Design part there were multiple lecturers that are responsible for their own respective parts. It was sometimes unclear what exactly the main goal of the lecture was. This was due to the structure of the lectures which was not very clear. Sometimes a lot of information was given but the essence of the lecture was unclear. The slides are structured poorly often and come across as messy. Especially compared to the well-structured and neat slides of the Applied Mechanics part.
The assignment had a clear explanation and a template that helped students with what to do. In the beginning it was a bit messy with the allocation of the buildings. This was also a problem for international students since there is only a limited amount of buildings of a certain type in Eindhoven and travelling outside of Eindhoven for this assignment is for those students time consuming and expensive.

Examination

Besides the mandatory tutor sessions and the assignment there is a final exam. This exam is divided into an Applied Mechanics and Structural Design part. The Applied Mechanics part is clear for most students since there was a lot of material to practice. However, it was not clear what was exactly expected from the students for the Structural Design part. No real exercises or examples were given of what to expect on the exam for this part.

Practical Organization

In general the course was structured very clear and logically. The information provided was limited, i.e. a very compressed study guide, yet plenty. However, the teachers responsible for the Structural Design part were impossible to contact outside of the lectures. This is very unpractical especially for simple pragmatic questions. The room organization may not directly be in control of the course staff, but it was not organized very well. During 4-hour lectures students had to switch between rooms and there were often problems with microphones and the live feed because of this switch. The person responsible for recording the lectures should pay attention during the parts of Applied Mechanics where exercises are solved on the board. It was experienced that sometimes the camera tracked the lecturer too slowly making it hard to follow along.

General

The Propaedeutic Council has generally not received many complaints concerning the Statics of Structures course in itself. However, students thought that the tutoring groups had too many people. Sometimes, the tutors seemed to be overwhelmed by the number of students they had to face in a classroom; hence, more personal tutoring in smaller groups may be more efficient and motivating for the students, and possibly for the tutors as well.

Lectures/project

It was quite impractical to receive the lecture slides by email, and would have been better to have them all uploaded on Canvas directly. However, students thought that the lectures were good. The Structural Design assignment was seen as a little vague, the level of detail that was expected for it was not easy to estimate.

Examination

Intermediate exam: Students were unsatisfied with the fact that only the final elaboration would be considered for marking, and that the elaboration process (on the scrap paper) was not taken into account. Furthermore, some students were surprised and unhappy about the fact that no extra-time was given to them even if they were entitled receive it. Finally, the layout of the exam was quite impractical: there was too little space to write down the answers (nor some parts of their elaboration). The study material was good.
Final exam: Firstly, lot of students did not expect it to be a second part to the exam concerning Structural Design. Having a full-length trial exam on Canvas would perhaps allow students to understand what the exam is made up of better. The fact that the two parts of the exam were given separately made it difficult for students to manage their time and they could not estimate the time that it would take them to do the Structural Design part without having seen it. It would be better to be given both parts at the same time. In the Structural Design part of the exam, some questions were very vague – it was difficult to understand what was expected. In addition, some questions seemed to require a lot of details to be answered fully, yet the number of points and the space given for the answer did not correspond to that level of detail. Hence, it was difficult to know how far one had to elaborate their answer for their answer to be counted as ‘correct’. Some questions of the Structural Design were never tackled during the lectures, and the level of detail that seemed to be expected to answer them was too high – students cannot be expected to learn such a long reader in such depth. It has been suggested that the Stuctural Design part of the exam should be a multiple choice one.

Workload

The workload to pass the course, for most students, seems to correspond to the number of ECTSs given for the course. The Propaedeutic Council has not received any complaints concerning the workload for the course, except for the Stuctural Design part of the exam relative to the level of detail that was expected.

USE Basic Ethics and History of Technology

0SAB0
Studyguide

The studyguide is divided in two parts: a general studyguide(A) and one for the assignment(B).
The general studyguide(A) contains a lot of information about the course. It shows for example a clear planning, information about the examinations and other general information. It also shows which books to buy. But because CHEOPS didn’t receive these books to put on their list of books to buy, a lot of students did not have the books.
The studyguide for the assignment(B) was a lot more complicated. The two studyguides itself were named as “A” and “B”, but within studyguide B they also spoke of part “A” and “B”. Together with the confusing explanation of the assignment was this studyguide pretty hard to read.

Lectures

The whole course is divided in two parts: the history part and the ethics part. The lectures were for both parts really good. The teachers were enthusiastic which made the presentations more interesting. The idea to have a dialogue with the students during the lecture was nice and even though there wasn’t always much response from the students, it was interesting to hear those different ideas.

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

Assignments

The assignments for both parts had their flaws. For the first assignment about the historical analysis, it was for students not clear in which group they were, what their assignment was about and where/when they had to attend the tutor hours. Also the planning could be better. In the first two weeks it was unclear we even had an assignment and at the first tutorial we already had to have read a lot of articles and chose a research question. This was for a lot of students unclear. For the poster we had to make, was it ambiguous what the poster should be about. Whether we had to present our research and how we found our results or explain what our case was and what our results were.
In general you could say that there was a lack of clear information. A better communication between students and teachers would have clarified a lot of issues. A last point is about the wide scale of USE. Because USE is giving on a very broad scale with many different teachers, it was sometimes difficult to be on the same page. The assignment was interpreted in many ways by the students. This created a lot of confusion among the students. For example, in studyguide B, at week 2, point 2a. Here is asked to give two past challenges and later at 2b is asked for two future challenges. However, point 6-2 states that there are only 2 challenges per category.

Examinations

The examination consists of three parts. First the online weekly tests. These were not that hard, as you could use the book for help. It was a good way to check whether you understood the chapters. Because the questions looked a lot like the ones on the final exam, it was a good preparation. It would have been nice to have a timer next to the questions, because it wasn’t clear how much time you had left.
The second part of the grade was from the assignment. This grade was made of the grades of both the assignments you had to make, which were again divided in two separate grades: one for your work as a group and for your individual part. This was done to make sure each student got the grade they deserved.
At last is the final exam. It consisted of multiple choice questions which were doable, because of the weekly quizzes.