Evalueringsrapport-forside for referansegruppe:
Studiepoeng: 15 stp
Emneansvarlig: Førsteamanuensis Matthias Haase
Referansegruppe: Nava Shahin, Zhang Chuanzhong, Kristian Stenerud Skeie
Gjennomført evalueringsmøte1 dato: 28 februar 2012
Gjennomført evalueringsmøte2 dato: 23 april
Gjennomført evalueringsmøte3 dato:
Final reference group evaluation AAR4616 – Integrated Energy Design Project
Conclusion - Green
The reference group was appointed by the students on the first evaluation meeting 28 th February. On this meeting both students, subject teacher Matthias Haase and Vit. ass. Therese Svarte were present. Students feedback on the undergoing course was discussed in plenum. It was agreed that the reference-group was responsible of organization forthcoming meetings and collecting feedback among students. The reference-group would act as the connection between the students and the subject teacher. It was also decided (as students from both theory course AAR4926 and the corresponding design project course AAR 4616 were present) that the reference-group would report for both courses.
A second meeting was held among the students April 21 st , to evaluate the second phase of the courses. The results were presented to the subject teacher Matthias Haase and Vitass. Therese Svarte on the second evaluation meeting 23 rd April. After this meeting some correspondence has also been carried out by email.
Course content: “The students design a range of projects with focus on integrated energy design and interdisciplinary co-operation between building professionals. Both domestic and non-domestic buildings are addressed, as well as new and existing building structures. Co-operation with the Faculty of Engineering Sciences and Technology.” (ntnu.edu/studies/courses/AAR4616)
Learning Outcome: “The students learn to integrate energy systems in architectural design, and practice the interdisciplinary procedures necessary to ensure a successful functioning of these systems in architecture.” (ntnu.edu/studies/courses/AAR4616)
The course description and learning outcome corresponded with the course experience.
Guidance was given on a regular basis throughout the semester in addition to feedback given in presentations (Haase, Gustavsen, Lolli, Finocchiaro, Monsen).
After phase 1 students asked for more consistency in the organization of guidance, as some felt that time was not always equally distributed among the groups and that guidance was sometimes rushed. This was met by improving punctuality and keeping track of time.
After phase 2 students requested for more architectural guidance. In response a final design revision with Per Monsen was arranged.
Progression and connection to theory course
The connection to the theory course was discussed in the beginning of the course. After phase 1 some student felt that the intensive lecture rows that were held in the first month left little time for design studio work. The notion was strengthened by the parallel joint assignment with IVT-students that urged for a rapid evolvement of the design as it proved difficult to keep things on a conceptual level when collaborating.
Seminars and lectures in the theory course spanned a great diversity and scope, with researchers presenting up-to-date research, architects and building professionals from the outside presenting projects and lectures with faculty staff that focused on more in-depth topics. Especially the seminars were of inspirational character and was seen as valuable input in the design process. However some of the students mention in reference meetings that the connection to the design course and implementation in the design project could be more articulated. Having guidance with the same lecturers as in the theory course compensated for some of the “theory to practice” gap, as it was possible to get more specific advice on the application of IED design theory and building physics, for instance.
In phase 3 the use of the energy simulation tool PHPP and introduction of a theory course assignment brought some challenges due to the size and complexity of the barn projects. From our experience PHPP demands a great level of detail and therefore needs to run side by side of design detailing. Students only taking part in the theory course reported that there was little time to get into the project from the assignment was given until the PHPP report delivery.
In the reference-group meetings it was also discussed whether having a range of small scale design projects would provide more opportunities to investigate and follow different alternative design routes and apply the knowledge from lectures.
At all the presentations there were people from Camphill Rotvoll present, giving the projects the sense of a client to address. The people from Camphill also brought valuable input to the groups and were helpful to answer questions and to give background information at the field trips. In addition to Ass. Prof. Matthias Haase and other faculty staff, Paul Woodville siv.ark. RIBA and Per Monsen siv.ark. MNAL was present on all project presentations. The involvement of several professionals gave a broader critique to the presentations and they successfully complemented each other.
The course participants were mainly students of MSc. Sustainable Architecture, but the exchange students that also took the courses were a positive addition to the group. In the future it should be strived for more than 12 students. Also norwegian architecture students, as it would be a strength socially and could contribute to integrating the master program into the faculty. In terms of what the IED courses offers, both through individual learning and corporation across disciplines, more students needs to know about these courses.