0x010088F6312065A70A44B630A6848498EAD80093CFEAFE161DC94D83C7C5C9A5A748B8

I am including the comment below from 2022 as it still seem valid. Feedback from students in 2022 and 2023 showed some dissatisfaction with this issue:1.   Students wish for a deeper insight into the Norwegian planning system that is built around the Norwegian Planning and Building Act.To reiterate from last year:These two points represent an ongoing critique of the course setup that remains difficult to address in a course that is open to such a wide range of students with different backgrounds and that is taught in English language. From the perspective of the course leader, it is partly unjustified from a professional and didactic perspective. Of 10 Lectures, 2 focus directly on the Norwegian planning system and the third part of the semester project requires working in the environments of the Norwegian Planning and Building Act. The majority of lectures focus on challenges and principles that are required to understand the principles that need to be addressed in planning in Norway. Even though these lectures have no direct, visible, link to the Norwegian Planning and Building Act for students, their content is rooted in the proceedings that are defined by the law.For more on this matter – see previous year’s evaluation.Regarding the final exam –We were not able to pursue the form of exam done previously i.e. a design and drawing exercise. The reason for this being the defaulting of the system to category ‘D’ after the covid restrictions were lifted. Unfortunately, this was only picked up about a month before the exam. We tried to change the restricted ‘D’ category to an open exam category, but without success. We therefore had to change the nature of the exam to a written exam, rather than a design and drawing exercise, without access to the internet or lecture notes. This, of course, unsettled many of the students. To compensate, we designed the exam, taking this into account, and focused mainly on a critical reflection on the semesters project work. This worked well. All students obtained an A, B or C grade.

The results show that students achieved the planned learning outcome in the course though the didactic setup of the course. Judging from student expectations, we need to better explain the didactic process of the course and how learning outcomes are achieved more clearly at the beginning of the course. Numerous students had a narrower and more ‘technical’ expectation of the course.As experienced in other subjects where engineers take architectural or planning course, some of them struggle with the concept of there being numerous ‘good’, ‘better’ or ‘less successful’ solutions – as opposed to a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer – which sometimes leads to frustration and insecurity on their part. There possibly needs to be more focus on this in the outline and at the beginning of the course to deal with expectations.Some students complained that the written report was too short. For didactic reasons, we placed more emphasis on visual communication, which we explained to the students. In addition, student numbers and length of time to mark the reports was also a limiting factor.Some students expressed difficulty in dealing with different opinions from different lecturers where we alternated groups every other week. Numerous students struggled with the culture of there being different ‘right’ answers (see also further down). But this is also a factor of too large student numbers for the number of staff, so that there is no space for sufficient joint forums to discuss the different responses to students work.Some students expressed the view that the lectures were not directly enough linked to their project work. Numerous students struggled with the idea that not all the literature is directly correlated to the design project, and that it is a dynamic iterative process - moving between project-based work, lectures, literature and discussion - that produces knowledge acquisition and quality output. In addition, many students did not attend many of the lectures (only about 12 out of 91 came to the lecture on landscape and natural systems) and it is questionable how many read through the prescribed literature.A common understanding that physical presence is important and necessary to achieve learning outcomes appears not yet to be understood by all students. We are probably still also dealing with a ‘hangover’ from the Covid experience. Attendance at guidance was fairly good, but attendance at lectures could have been better.I would support the suggestion from the students for a smaller, less complicated site than this year’s site.In addition, including presentations of case studies dealing with the correlation between design decisions and legal framing could be useful, as was suggested by the students.Despite the last-minute change of the form of the examination, there proved to be a good correlation between the course design and learning intentions and the students’ learning outcomes and results. All students obtained an A, B or C grade.

Regarding communication with students – Communication happened primarily through announcements in the studio and followed up with announcements on Blackboard or just on Blackboard. We generally sent out, on average, 2 messages per week. It seems that many students did not read these messages. When challenged on that, some students complained that they received too many messages from us! It could be that they cannot filter out course emails from an overload of general information.With 91 students and 3 staff for supervision, it was challenging to manage the course and offers little time for in-depth discussion. Students miss out on discussions with more than one lecturer at a time, sometimes leading to confusion from hearing different points of view separated in time, without the opportunity for clarification. With these numbers, there is also not sufficient time for joint reviews.

NTNU:TIA:REST

Institutt for arkitektur og planlegging

Department of Architecture and Planning

Ingen trykte eller håndskrevne hjelpemidler tillatt. Bestemt, enkel kalkulator tillatt.

Engelsk

Mer om vurdering

Øvingen teller 50% av den endelige karakteren i emnet. Det kreves bestått på både øving og eksamen for å få bestått sluttkarakter. Utsatt eksamen legges normalt til neste ordinære eksamensperiode. Både øvinger og skriftlig eksamen må være bestått for å få karakter i emnet. Karakter på øvingsarbeid kan inngå i karaktergrunnlaget ved utsatt eksamen eller gjentak, i inntil 1,5 år etter beståtte øvinger.

Anbefalte forkunnskaper

Noe GIS-kunnskap er anbefalt. Emnet AAR4215 Reguleringsplanlegging bør ses i sammenheng med emnet AAR4220 Region og kommuneplanlegging og FP4100 Arkitektur og stedsforming

Forkunnskapskrav

Faglig innhold

Emnet gir innføring i utarbeiding av reguleringsplaner etter med Plan- og bygningsloven. Det blir lagt vekt på stedsanalyse, utforming av bebyggelse og offentlige rom, infrastruktur for transport og planprosessen med ulike aktørers roller i samarbeids- og medvirkningsprosesser.

Kursmateriell

Læringsutbytte

KunnskapKandidaten har inngående kunnskap om hvilke krav som inngår i reguleringsplanlegging etter Plan- og bygningsloven. FerdigheterKandidaten - kan utarbeide analyser og underlagsmateriale for reguleringsplaner og håndtere planleggingsverktøy for utarbeiding og presetasjon av reguleringsplaner - kan samarbeide om og gjennomføre tverrfaglige planleggingsprosesser Generell kompetanseKandidaten kan løse reguleringsplanleggingsoppgaver i ulike situasjoner og under ulike forutsetninger og kommunisere godt i tverrfaglige medvirknings- og samarbeidsprosesser

Læringsformer og aktiviteter

Øvingsarbeid i grupper, forelesinger og befaringer.

Reguleringsplanlegging

Planfag

Eiendomsutvikling og -forvaltning - masterstudium

Bygg- og miljøteknikk - masterstudium (5-årig)

Arkitektur - masterstudium (5-årig)

Fysisk planlegging - masterstudium

Urban Ecological Planning (Master's Programme)

Geografi - masterstudium

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(21644)/FieldValuesAsText

We followed up developing the somewhat unusual form of the final exam that requires students to draw. The feedback from the survey on the exam shows that students are satisfied with this form of exam, even though they experience this as challenging. We communicated more clearly this semester the relationship between the exam and the semester project. This apparently worked well in stimulating engagement during the semester project. Equally as the last years, feedback from students show some dissatisfaction with two points:<ol><li>The course appears partly repetitive to the course FP4100 that is taught one semester earlier for students. </li><li>Students wish a deeper insight in the Norwegian planning system that is built around the Norwegian Planning and Building Act.</li></ol>These two points represent an ongoing critique to the course setup that remains difficult to address in a course that is open to such a wide range of students with different backgrounds and that is taught in English language. From the course leader perspective, it is partly unjustified from a professional and didactic perspective. Of 10 Lectures, 2 focus directly on the Norwegian planning system and the third part of the semester project requires working in the environments of the Norwegian Planning and Building Act. The majority of lectures focuses on challenges and principles that are required to understand the principles that need to be addressed in planning in Norway. Even though these lectures have no direct, visible, link to the Norwegian Planning and Building Act for students, their content is routed in the proceedings that are defined by the law. There is a significant difference between the subject FP4100 and this course AAR2415 from a professional perspective. Different from the course FP4100, students in this course are required to draw in scale and to understand dimensions of all elements that are relevant in a plan, streets, roads, buildings and so on in the semester project. The more general principles that are taught in FP4100 are followed up in AAR4215 more concrete and in detail tin teaching and the semester project. Planning is a complex matter that is not possible to be taught by remembering rules and norms in from our didactic perspective. The learning outcomes are achieved through students engagement in practical tasks, exposed to multidisciplinary perspectives. We will address and explain the didactic setup for the course, and its differences to FP4100 more clearly in the next course. From the perspective of staff capacity and rules for a just teaching setup in courses, it is not possible to split the course in Norwegian and non Norwegian speaking parts.

The results show that students achieve the planned learning outcome in the course though the didactic setup of the course. We will need to explain better the didactic process of the course and how learning outcomes are achieved.

We introduced a new form of an exam three years ago that appears to work well. 70% of students desire digital home exams. But for some students this setup appeared more challenging and these voices need to be heard, even though they are not the majority. We still receive questions of students that desire to study the course from a distance in a digital manner. A common understanding that physical presence is important and necessary to achieve learning outcomes appears not yet to be understood by all students. The number of students in the course has constantly grown during the last years. With over 100 enrolled students and 88 that took the exam, it becomes increasingly challenging to manage the course. Supervision and evaluation requires at least three staff. Since two years, the Master course Physical Planning hosts 2-6 students that have a bachelor background that appears overlapping with this course and also FP4100. These students appear dissatisfied with the course as they experience a reduced learning outcome due to their former education. Also here, the size of the course makes it difficult to respond to individual backgrounds of students. How students that have a bachelor in planning can be accommodated in the master course Physical Planning that is targeted towards students from many different professional directions is a challenge and cannot be solved within this course.

Øvingen teller 50% av den endelige karakteren i emnet. Det kreves bestått på både øving og eksamen for å få bestått sluttkarakter. Utsatt eksamen legges normalt til neste ordinære eksamensperiode. Både øvinger og skriftlig eksamen må være bestått for å få karakter i emnet. Karakter på øvingsarbeid kan inngå i karaktergrunnlaget ved utsatt eksamen eller gjentak, i inntil 1,5 år etter beståtte øvinger. 

Noe GIS-kunnskap er anbefalt.  Emnet AAR4215 Reguleringsplanlegging bør ses i sammenheng med emnet AAR4220 Region og kommuneplanlegging og FP4100 Arkitektur og stedsforming

Emnet gir innføring i utarbeiding av reguleringsplaner etter med Plan- og bygningsloven. Det blir lagt vekt på stedsanalyse, utforming av bebyggelse og offentlige rom, infrastruktur for transport og planprosessen med ulike aktørers roller i samarbeids- og medvirkningsprosesser. 

Kunnskap Kandidaten har inngående kunnskap om hvilke krav som inngår i reguleringsplanlegging etter Plan- og bygningsloven. Ferdigheter Kandidaten - kan utarbeide analyser og underlagsmateriale for reguleringsplaner og håndtere planleggingsverktøy for utarbeiding og presetasjon av reguleringsplaner - kan samarbeide om og gjennomføre tverrfaglige planleggingsprosesser Generell kompetanse Kandidaten kan løse reguleringsplanleggingsoppgaver i ulike situasjoner og under ulike forutsetninger og kommunisere godt i tverrfaglige medvirknings- og samarbeidsprosesser 

Øvingsarbeid i grupper, forelesinger og befaringer.  

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(16157)/FieldValuesAsText

The course was taught 100% digital with digital lectures and seminar, digital supervision of group work in the semester project, and a synchronous digital home exam.

Students have access to the program for the course that is relevant and up to date. We have an introductory lecture that presents the course program, the goals for the course, and how the curriculum aims to achieve learning outcomes. We do not see that the learning outcomes of the course diverged substantially from earlier courses, even though the course was taught 100% digital.

Students have access to the program for the course that is relevant and up to date. We have an introductory lecture that presents the course program, the goals for the course, and how the curriculum aims to achieve learning outcomes. We do not see that the learning outcomes of the course diverged substantially from earlier courses, even though the course was taught 100% digital.The main pillars of the course are lectures and a semester project, supported by some seminars. Lectures establish a theoretical background that aim to inform the practical work within the semester project. Seminars focus on developing practical skills. A core element of the course are group supervisions where students have the possibility to discuss the development of the semester project with teaching personnel. Even though this has been 100% digital this semester, the results of the group work remained at a high standard compared to the previous semesters. The results of the group work among the 15 groups where all of high quality with a surprisingly low variation between groups. On average, semester project from groups received the character B. This indicates that all groups managed well to achieve learning outcomes. The final exam was conducted as digital, synchronous home exam. The exam was setup to test the learning achievements that students developed during the group work. In this manner, the exam supported learning that supported the semester project instead of learning for a good exam. The average result for exam was C+, slightly lower as the evaluation for the semester project.  It is difficult to evaluate the learning environment for students as we did not meet students physically during the semester. Challenges in student cooperation for group work has not been reported to an extent that is unusual. Some groups meet physically to work jointly on the project. In other groups, not all group members where physically present in Norway, and cooperation had to take place digital as wall. This was certainly challenging, but to our impression, groups managed well.  Digital supervision was technically challenging as the functionality of the tool colaborate is underdeveloped on possibilities to communicate graphically. During the digital home exam, students had to use a digital drawing tool. The results of the exam illustrated that this worked out very well, and the majority of students managed to deliver very well plan graphics that they prepared with a digital drawing tool. However, an investigation of students experiences with the digital exam showed that many students considered the use of the drawing tool technically as challenging.  It was not as easy as in earlier years to setup a reference group for the course and to receive feedback.

Evaluation is divided into a graded semester project and a final exam. The final exam was this semester adjusted to test students individual learning outcome from the work with the semester project. This worked well and should be developed further in future courses. From our experience, most students appreciate to be evaluated through the group work that they preform through the semester project. Our survey on student perceptions on the new form of our exam indicates that students appreciate an exam that is designed to address a practical challenge in a manner that is comparable to the semester project. Students point to the practical relevance of such exams and that this form of exam increases their understanding. However, students also point out that the new form of exam is complex and challenging. This is not surprising as our exam questions higher forms of learning rather than the memory and repetition. The results of both exam and semester project indicate that students understood the relationship between the setup for the curriculum and the form of evaluation in the course.

Noko GIS-kunnskap er tilrådd.  Emnet AAR4215 Reguleringsplanlegging bør sjåast i saman med emnet AAR4220 Region og kommuneplanlegging.

Øvingane må vere leverte og godkjende før eksamen og tel i den endelige karakteren.

Endelig karakter gis ut ifra arbeider og eksamen.

Utsatt eksamen og ikke bestått eksamen legges normalt til neste ordinære eksamensperiode.

Både arbeider og skriftlig eksamen må være bestått for å få karakter i emnet. Karakter på arbeid kan inngå i karaktergrunnlaget ved utsett eksamen eller gjentak, i inntil 1,5 år etter beståtte øvinger.

Emnet gir innføring i utarbeiding og handsaming av reguleringsplanar i samsvar med Plan- og bygningslova. Det blir lagt vekt på  planprosessen med aktørane sine ulike roller i samarbeid og medverknad, ulike arealformål, omsynssoner, reguleringsvedtekter og reguleringsplanens rettsverknad. 

Kompendium og anna materiale - blir opplyst ved semesterstart.

Øvingsarbeid i grupper, forelesingar, synfaringar.  

Kunnskap
Kandidaten
- har inngåande kunnskap om kva krav som inngår i reguleringsplanlegging etter Plan- og bygningslova og andre relevante lover og regelverk 

Ferdigheiter
Kandidaten
- kan samarbeide om og gjennomføre  tverrfaglege planleggingsprosessar og handtere planleggingsverktøy til utarbeiding og framstilling av reguleringsplanar. 

Generell kompetanse
Kandidaten
- kan løyse planleggingsoppgåver i ulike situasjonar og under ulike føresetnader og kommunisere godt i medverknads- og samarbeidsprosessar 


Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(3850)/FieldValuesAsText

Reguleringsplanlegging - AAR4215