Below you can find the courses taught in quartile 1. The evaluation of BAU studio 1 can be found in quartile 2.
Architecture & City7X1X0
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The course was taught by Emiel van Berkum and all of the necessary information was always on canvas and easy to find.
The lectures were livestreamed on Canvas. The contents were explained quite well but there were multiple connection issues, both when watching live and when watching the recordings, due to too many people watching at once. This is mostly the university’s fault however, as they claimed that they were ready to have entire classes online when in fact they weren’t. They did however manage to fix this eventually so it shouldn’t be an issue for future courses.
While the online tests and the midterm exam were well received, most people found the final exam to be too difficult, especially compared to exams from previous years and to the exam for calculus variant 2. However the class average for the final exam (4.1) didn’t stray much from last year’s (4.2). Furthermore both the first and the last open questions were standard questions for their respective topics, while the second question should have been recognized from the homework.
Many students also found that the final exam didn’t accurately represent the course since there was a heavy focus on integration but the lecturer reminded us that integration occupied almost one third of the entire course.
We brought up providing more difficult exercises in preparation for the exam as a possible solution. The lecturer stated that that was the purpose of putting the previous exams on canvas but, since the answers were also given, it’s probable that students only understood the answers to a specific question without fully understanding how to solve it.
A common issue with the online tests was that, along with the lengthy exercises, setting up proctorio had too much of an impact on time constraints. We mentioned that it would be better if we could do it outside of the time dedicated to the exam. While this is currently being discussed by the people responsible, it is not yet possible to do on ANS at the moment. Another solution to manage time better is to allow copying and pasting with LaTeX, since this format is very much encouraged but also takes a lot of time to type out. Since copying and pasting to cheat would be picked up by Proctorio this shouldn’t be a concern and will therefore be taken into consideration for future exams.
On average the amount of time students dedicated to the course lined up with the number of credits (140 hours) and the workload was manageable and helpful for the course.
The overall structure of the course and the setup of the Canvas page received general praise.
The tutors were approachable and knowledgeable about the subject but in the end didn’t provide much help with mastering the subject. We therefore spent some time discussing how the tutor meetings should proceed. The group sessions usually worked because students would help each other but this didn’t always translate well online where many people would switch their webcams off for the duration of the meeting. The conclusion was that keeping the webcams on should be more encouraged without being pushed too much.