Dr. Amnon Gonen Dr. Sigal Koral-Kordova November מדדי איכות בפרויקט Tempus IDEA והצגתן באופן ממוחשב

2 The questionnaire was distributed at the end of the different aboard courses. The questionnaire presents the students approach towards different subjects regarding the course’s contents and examined the participants’ satisfaction with the course. The answers are in an ordinal scale: 1 represents the lowest rank, 5 represents the highest rank.

3 The questionnaire included four parts: Course Expectations Course Organization Course Performance Post Course The analysis will be presented in three stages: Stage 1: Analysis of the results of each institute separately. Stage 2: Presentation of the weighted average of each part of the questionnaire for all the institutes together. Stage 3: Summary and conclusions.

4 Percentag e Students DistributionThe Institute 26%11NBSD 21%9SAPIR 32%14HIT 21%9SHENKAR 100%43Total

11 NBSD students answered the questionnaire: 7 design students and 4 photography students. Only one student attended an interdisciplinary collaboration activity in the past. Course ExpectationsAverage Score (out of 5) The material of the course4.54 Collaboration with the industry3.63 Fulfillment of expectations in general4.9 Total Average Score4.36 Course OrganizationAverage Score (out of 5) Organization of this course in general4.9 Academic preparations before the course4.36 Logistic preparations4.54 Accommodation preparations5.0 Flights arrangements4.81 Total Average Score4.72

Course PerformanceAverage Score The capability of interacting with the other participants4.63 The course topics4.63 The way the course was delivered and the materials used on the course4.81 The communication tools that were used during the course (Computers, Internet etc.) 4.09 The course improvement of general knowledge, competences and skills4.72 The overall quality of the course was high5.0 Total Average Score4.65 Post CourseAverage Score Interdisciplinary collaboration4.63 Participation in others interdisciplinary courses5.0 The course is useful4.72 Recommendation of the course5.0 Total Average Score4.83

The greatest strengths of the course were: Learning by doing Working in teams Professional lectures Relevant content for design education Working with real client Very respectful and worm hospitality The course could be improved by: Working in heterogenic teams Combine the course in the design curriculum More collaborative courses Continuity Relevant issues for art photography Other comments: Very special atmosphere for study Great course Thinking out of the box

9 SAPIR students answered the questionnaire: 3 Management students and 6 Marketing/Technology Marketing students. Only one student attended an interdisciplinary collaboration activity in the past. Course ExpectationsAverage Score The material of the course4.2 Collaboration with the industry4.4 Fulfillment of expectations in general4.2 Total Average Score4.26 Course OrganizationAverage Score Organization of this course in general4.4 Academic preparations before the course4.0 Logistic preparations4.2 Accommodation preparations3.6 Flights arrangements4.2 Total Average Score4.08

Course PerformanceAverage Score The capability of interacting with the other participants4.9 The course topics4.4 The way the course was delivered and the materials used on the course4.1 The communication tools that were used during the course (Computers, Internet etc.) 4.7 The course improvement of general knowledge, competences and skills4.0 The overall quality of the course was high4.4 Total Average Score4.41 Post CourseAverage Score Interdisciplinary collaboration4.8 Participation in others interdisciplinary courses5.0 The course is useful4.4 Recommendation of the course5.0 Total Average Score4.8

The greatest strengths of the course were: The interaction among the students The possibility to collaborate with the industry and work with a different university. Interesting lectures. The possibility to collaborate with the industry and work with a different university. Common learning with people from different places. The course could be improved by: Being more specific with the explanations and the missions that were given. More practical aspects during the lessons in Israel. Better accommodations and more industry visits. The course in Israel-needed more collaboration with the industry. The course in Valencia-the final project needed to be more challenge. The schedule was very loaded. Other comments: The flights weren’t convenient. Great experience, Thank you!

14 HIT students answered the questionnaire: All the students were from the faculty of design. 8 students attended an interdisciplinary collaboration activity in the past. Course ExpectationsAverage Score The material of the course3.9 Collaboration with the industry4.3 Fulfillment of expectations in general4.1 Total Average Score4.1 Course OrganizationAverage Score Organization of this course in general4.3 Academic preparations before the course4.6 Logistic preparations4.0 Accommodation preparations3.6 Flights arrangements4.6 Total Average Score4.22

Course PerformanceAverage Score The capability of interacting with the other participants3.6 The course topics4.4 The way the course was delivered and the materials used on the course4.1 The communication tools that were used during the course (Computers, Internet etc.) 4.6 The course improvement of general knowledge, competences and skills3.9 The overall quality of the course was high4.3 Total Average Score4.15 Post CourseAverage Score Interdisciplinary collaboration4.6 Participation in others interdisciplinary courses4.9 The course is useful4.1 Recommendation of the course4.7 Total Average Score4.58

The greatest strengths of the course were: Dealing with global problems Interdisciplinary collaboration, new methodology Great experience, great hospitality, Very interesting and important subject Great professors, Different learning approach, Learning from people with a different perspective Team working in a wonderful surrounding The course could be improved by: Having someone to arrange the logistics of the expedition Collaboration with students from Brighton or from others universities More exercises Design workshop Other comments: Excellent program Encouraging integration with the local students The course opens your mind Thank you!

9 SHENKAR students answered the questionnaire: 1 management student, 5 engineering students and 3 design students. 6 students attended an interdisciplinary collaboration activity in the past. Course ExpectationsAverage Score The material of the course3.4 Collaboration with the industry3.4 Fulfillment of expectations in general4.1 Total Average Score3.63 Course OrganizationAverage Score Organization of this course in general3.3 Academic preparations before the course3.1 Logistic preparations2.8 Accommodation preparations1.6 Flights arrangements1.6 Total Average Score2.48

Course PerformanceAverage Score The capability of interacting with the other participants4.2 The course topics3.9 The way the course was delivered and the materials used on the course3.4 The communication tools that were used during the course (Computers, Internet etc.) 3.8 The course improvement of general knowledge, competences and skills4.0 The overall quality of the course was high3.7 Total Average Score3.83 Post CourseAverage Score Interdisciplinary collaboration4.4 Participation in others interdisciplinary courses4.4 The course is useful3.9 Recommendation of the course4.3 Total Average Score4.25

The greatest strengths of the course were: Collaboration with students from design and engineering and with students from foreign institutes. Extra curricula activities such as visiting the design week in Nederland. Working in multidisciplinary teams. Different thinking methods. The course could be improved by: Giving detailed schedule in advanced. Coordination of expectations. Changing the accommodation. Not enough issues for engineers. Better preparations. The course arrangement. Other comments: A contact person for the group. Relevant topics for engineering students. Improving the accommodation.

Presentation of the weighted average of each part of the questionnaire for all the institutes together. 17 Weighted AverageSHENKARHITSAPIRNBSDPart Expectations Organization Performance Post Course

Most of the students from all the institutes were satisfied with the course activities. Engineering topics should be combined in the course. Most of the students will recommend this course to others. According to many students the organization of the course should be improved, especially the logistic preparations and accommodation arrangements. The students were satisfied with the Interdisciplinary collaboration and the new methodology of learning. For most of the students the course was an enrichment experience.

Effectiveness: Doing the right things Efficiency: Doing things right Quality means: Doing the right things: Right The first time Always For every process Last but not least: Two central concepts were examined in the questionnaire:

20 And Many Thanks to Ayelet Calaf From Sapir