Quartile 1

In general, the multidisciplinary project was graded with a sufficient. Students indicate that this course has a high relevance for the program. The project location came from a company. This caused the project to be practice oriented and increasing the relevance for the program. Another reason why the relevance of this project is very high may be due to the fact that students learn to work in multidisciplinary teams. Students need to learn to compromise their designs in order to find one good solution. It is new for students to work in one group to find in one design and to work in groups of multiple disciplines. This is not taught in another course before, and therefore, this is one of the biggest plusses of this course. This is also the main learning goal of this course and students indicate that this course is very learn full.
The organization of the course scored very low. This was mainly due to the fact that there was a lack of communication. A lot of information came late and was unorganized. The teacher realized that this was a problem during the project. He is currently working on a script for the student assistant which contains which mail needs to be send when. He has also indicated that he should guide and help the student assistant more. This is especially important as there will be more groups next year.

Students did not feel that the monitoring meetings were useful. A proposition is made to create agenda’s for this meeting so students know what to expect from the meetings. A few points of the agenda could be: planning, the amount of hours spent, and multidisciplinary problems. In this way, the monitor can keep track better on how the team is doing. Also, students have a place where they can ask help for their multidisciplinary problems.
Students have given the course a high grade on quality of the teachers. The teachers know a lot about the subject matter and helped students with it. This also caused the project to have a high score on having enough depth within the course. The course was also not too complex as students have indicated that they have enough prior knowledge for this course. So a nice balance was found in having good depth, without it being too complex. However, some tutoring sessions were considered too general and were not encouraging the multidisciplinary aspect.

The goal of the workshops in the beginning of the project is to help the students start with their project. This could be very useful, however, the workshops could be more structured. Now it was unclear that it was the basis of the project. If the researches fo the students would be shared via Canvas, the function of the workshops could also become clearer.

Rubrics were sent too late. The teacher indicates that it was the first time that they had it, and that it works better now. Another problem was that the rubrics and the study guide’s deliverables did not match. He has indicated that he is going to check this.
Another problem with the grading was that feedback came relatively late. Especially after the midterm of quartile 1. This caused the groups to miss one week. A way to improve this is by scanning the rubrics with the notes of the teachers and sending it to the students. In this way, students can already start working with the feedback. Also, the grades were given too late. The teacher was aware of this.

The PRV’s scored all insufficient. This could be mainly due to the fact that the students do not get any feedback. In this way, students scored a mark without knowing how to improve it. Therefore, they were not able to learn from it. With regards to the presentation skills, the feedback session was useful. However, the grader of this prv was not part of the feedback session and did not know what focus points there were.

Another point was that files got lost with the handing in of the final deadline. The teacher is going to reintroduce having the student assistant present during the deadline. In this way, the deliverables are checked immediately on presence.

The workload of the project was quite high. This is mainly due to the week before the deadlines. In this week, students work a lot. This could also be improved by the agenda’s for monitoring meetings as the progress of every week will be discussed.

The models become quite expensive and take up quite some time, but this should not happen. The teacher is looking for solutions such as giving a maximum budget, reserving x hours at Broeinest, and by looking for sponsoring at the project locations. However, it is not yet certain whether he would be able to help with this problem.
Students have indicated that the BPS part of the project was sometimes a little bit chaotic. This was mainly due to the fact that the teacher was new. The main teacher has indicated that the BPS teacher scores better with the students now and that they want to try to have a second teacher for BPS in the next semester.

Some problems occurred when the exposition had to move to Arnhem. The teacher admitted that he should not have done the exposition on such late notice and that he should not have send the obliging email. The late notice was mainly due to the fact that the company decided to do this exhibition very late. However, he also indicated that he missed enthusiasm from the students to be part of this opportunity. On the plus side, the students who were present at the final presentation at the project location indicated that this was a very useful experience as students were in contact with the clients. In this way, students got to learn what the important aspects of a project are.

Nice to gain insight in such a large variety of different aspects of the BPS-field

Canvas page was clear, so was the study guide. Did not use it much since there was no confusion for me about the structure of the course.
There was a lot of overlap with other courses so sometimes it was a bit repetitive.

Recorded lectures were nice also for learning for the exam.
Lot of theory, actual application to buildings in the lectures is sometimes missing.
Good structure in lecture topics.
The fire safety engineering lecture started with examples and assumed pre knowledge on the theory which we did not have. > From the lectures it did not became very clear what we exactly had to learn for the exam

With this part of the course it is important that it isn’t assumed the students have a lot of pre-knowledge already. It also might be useful if some example exercises were done during the lectures.
Light lectures: Were sometimes hard to follow without having followed other light related courses, structure of the lectures was sometimes missing and a lot of information was told but it did not feel as 1 coherent lecture.

The lectures and readers were meant to complement each other, but sometimes it felt as if we were meant to search all the information by yourself in the reader.
Was more vague because you had to investigate your own house.

Some houses are more difficult to do calculations on (for example houses that have ‘stadsverwarming’). Giving the students some guidance/tips on the type of house they should pick could prevent students from picking a house that is (too) difficult for the assignment.
More information in how to use the different programs.
There was not really an explanation on how to use the programs Velux and Kobra. The Q&A session for the assignment was held before anyone had started with these programs (since these are only used in part three), so it would be nice to have some extra explanation on these two programs to help students with making a start.
For the assignment not enough information was given for someone with little understanding of these aspects to start and end properly.
o Suggestion: More frequent meetings to ask questions about the assignment

During the assignment it was assumed that all students had pre-knowledge, which wasn’t the case for the students for PT.

For student who aren’t really good in this course the assignment was very difficult because these students didn’t know how to start of what the results meant exactly. Because they didn’t really understand the results it was hard to explain them in their report.
The assignment was vague on some points (for people that did not follow other BPS-courses).
Sometimes it was unclear what was asked of the students (for example with the part about heat capacity).
Hard to find requirements for the assignment since a lot is in Dutch.
One part of the assignment requires the student to look something up in the Building Code. All of the information in the Building Code is in Dutch, making it harder for international students to find the information. The only thing that the students needed to look up was the ventilation rate, so maybe give the students this number. This because being able to look something up in the Building Code isn’t necessarily relevant for this assignment.

Practice exams provided a clear indication how the exam would look like.
.Could use more practice questions.
It is difficult to offer more practice questions because it limits the questions that can be put in the exam.

Something that might help the students is a session where everyone makes some practice questions together.
.Sufficient time to make the exam.
.Formula sheet was clear.
The sheet of psychometric was a little hard to use. It offered more information than some students expected and students found it hard to find out what information could be retrieved from the diagrams on the sheet to do certain calculations. Especially the Mollier chart was difficult to understand for some students. Some of the terms that were used in the diagrams were unclear for students.
Maybe some extra time during the lectures to make some example exercises could help.
Large gap between theory and questions questions were hard to answer with only the theory.

The exam is about the learning goals stated on canvas, the rest of the information offered by the reader is basic knowledge that could be useful for the students.
Learn how to use tables on the exam > hard to figure that out on you own.

Course was evenly spread over the quartile
Challenging course for someone who is not specifically interested in BPS, especially the assignment was challenging.
In the quality survey the course was rated as pretty difficult. But it is unclear if this is because of the amount of information/how deep the information goes. There are also people who aren’t interested in these type of courses, which made it even more challenging for them.

With this course especially architects are meant to see that the aspects that are explained in this course are very important when designing a building. This is done by making them use different programs.
Deadline for the PRV was nice > motivated to start on the report earlier.

The course was composed of an assignment (30%) and a final examination (70%). Every week, there were two lectures about either heat, light, acoustics, air & moisture, psychrometrics, air distribution or FSE given by different lecturers. The course was clearly organised, both the canvas page and the study guide provided all the necessary information. The assignment gave an insight in how the theory could be used in practise. The PRV writing that was included at the assignment was useful, the TU/e Langue centre provide useful feedback for the final report.

Sometimes the lectures had a lot of similarities with the first-year course IBPM, especially for acoustics and lighting, this made some part of the lectures as a repetition of that course. According to Rick Kramer this was due to the fact that also students from other faculties follow this course, which made it understandable. Overall the lectures gave a lot of information to make a good start in BPS.

The assignment (30%) was about the energy calculations and reduction for your own home, this was interesting because the theory could be put into practice. For some students it was hard to make the right calculations because they had a complex home or an apartment. Next year there will be a short instruction on how students can deal with this. The assignment was interesting and in line with the course.
The Final exam (70%) was at the level of the study material. The practice exam gave a good example how the final exam looked.

The workload for this course was on average, aside from following the lectures and making the assignment, there was sufficient time for self-study. The workload was evenly distributed over the whole course.

The course was composed of an assignment (30%) and a final examination (70%). Every week, there were two lectures about either heat, light, acoustics, air & moisture, psychometrics, air distribution or FSE given by different lecturers.
Overall, the course had a good organization such as a clear canvas page, a complete study guide, the assignment fitted to the course and the examination was on the level of the assignment.
The PRV was composed of use of language and structure of the assignment which was very useful. Although it was a shame that everybody passed the PRV even when they did not hand in the assignment.

The lectures were clear although sometimes difficult to follow because the lectures were 4 hours long and online. The lectures made a real effort to create some interaction in the lectures.
The project did not have any explanation although you could ask questions in the lecture and the level of the assignment was in line with the course so the answers were practically given in the lectures. There was some confusion about the grades of the assignment. Students were confused where the grades were based on. Henk Schellen showed this to Wies and Quirine after which the grading seemed like a good method. Henk Schellen will try to make sure that every student can see the rubrics.

The examination was on the level of the study material.

Aside from following the lectures, you did not have to do much. Therefore, the workload of the course was evenly distributed and did not contain a lot of time.

An improvement for the course could be handling less subjects so the course can go more in depth. Hopefully by the evaluation of the bachelor for 2022-2023, this will be taken into consideration.

In general, the course was executed well. However, in the study guide there were some things missing, like the midterm and registration requirements. The planning in the study guide could be a little more detailed.

The assignment was really useful to learn the basic calculations, and
calculate in reality if it works or not. Furthermore, it made it really amusing to
do because you had to do the calculations on your own house.

The assignment provides a clear view on the reality of BPS!

Larger assignment than expected for a lot of students.

Some programs which were needed for the assignment were in Dutch.

The information for the assignment was placed on an unordinary place on
canvas: in the assignment page where you mostly only have to hand in the
assignment. It would be more clearly to have only one PDF file with all the info
for the assignment in it than half in a PP an half in the assignment page. This
file will be made next year.

The lecturers were really enthousiastic.

The theory was very clear.

There could have been more worked-out examples in the lectures and
readers, maybe also with some interaction during the lectures (or an extra
working hour) This for we learn via doing and not only via seeing.With learning it would also be very beneficial to add this.

There could have been a clearer structure on Canvas per week/topic of the lectures, for now it was quite vague which lecture belonged to which week.

There were too many readers, sometimes they were a bit overlapping or some less important info could be left out (for some topics were already discussed in IBMP/not handled in the final exam)

The intermediate exam was really useful to know if you are on track for the course.
The final exam was quite easy compared to the theory and a lot of questions were from old exams.

There were Dutch diagrams in the exam.

The assignment took more time than expected. Furthermore, the time was irregular divided over the period.

Students were very happy about one teacher, he had an enthusiastic and interactive way of lecturing. Another teacher had improved greatly on his English compared to last year. A general conclusion, with exception to one, is that enthusiasm was not really visible from the teachers. Also, the content was not always as exciting. Usually lecturers limited themselves to the content on the slides, some trivial content that is still significant to the subject might make a lecture more interesting. Students said that they skipped some lectures because they thought the content was not useful for them, especially for lectures of the final weeks. The teacher thinks that this is a choice of the students themselves.

There were many opportunities to consult a teacher about the assignment. A teacher was present during these sessions and helped students well. However, some students said he didn’t really put too much time in individual calculations at all times. The reason for this is unclear.

The final exam contained some mistakes. They were not checked beforehand and caused a lot of confusion. The teacher was aware of this right after the exam and already went after it to make sure it would not happen again. Also, some exam questions resembled old. The responsible teacher thinks this phenomenon cannot be avoided since questions will become too far-fetched and difficult or irrelevant.

Sufficient. Dutch teachers have a tendency to mix in Dutch words when they can’t find the English one. This made following the lecture harder than it needs to be, especially for nonDutch speakers. As mentioned before, one teacher has improved a lot.