1. Most students did not include quantitative suggestions for future engineers. Even when suggestions were made, they did not cover all major building systems – utility access and possible duct provisions were often left out of the analysis.
2. Most students did not explain the information they used for the fire protection program, or why they came to the conclusions they did. Teams also forgot to call out critical information on plans with regard to fire protection, such as maximum distance to exit and fire separation walls between different occupancy types (if more than one).
3. Many teams forgot the basics of presenting plan sets of drawings. North arrows, dimensions, scales, clear section cuts and elevation views are important! As viewers cannot be expected to extract major information from the model themselves, make sure all relevant information is in the finalized presentation/on the website.
4. A few teams forgot to do an in-depth analysis of critical areas in their buildings
5. The majority of the teams did very well on the extra credit.
6. Most teams were able to provide specific information to validate the changes they made to the building programs, but remember that these changes will also affect other building systems and their effects must also be identified and addressed.
7. Many teams included graphics that were of too low resolution to be of any use to the viewer.
8. Only a few teams remembered to label their graphics and cite references if any external sites or graphics were used.
Comments the Graders Made to the Instructors
The average was 96.5 with a median of 97 and a range of 12 - this indicates most teams did well on the assignment and scored within a tight range. Also encouraging was the fact that the median grade for the teamwork part of the assignment was 5, indicating that most students completed and did well on the evaluations.
Still, however, nearly a quarter of the students did not even attempt the teamwork evaluation assignment.
No comments:
Post a Comment