2005 Quality Assurance Feedback
Chemistry 2
CHE21FND - Aromatic Chemistry
(Dr Andrew Hughes)Approximately 73% of the class passed the aromatic section (which includes the Chemical Hazards material). This is a significant increase from last year. Last year some students indicated they wanted all the notes on the web and summaries of the notes as well. The full set of notes has now been provided. These "full" notes still require students to read, digest and add special points during lectures and as part of a normal course of study. As such they are not COMPLETE notes. Summaries are not going to be provided as that is a good learning activity for students to do themselves. Several students wanted more detailed notes. It is the student's responsibility to develop their own "detailed" notes including extra examples and answers to questions they have asked that address the material in the way they come to understand it. Resources that help do this include the textbook and its associated website. Numerous students indicated they would like tutorials for the aromatic section. I am not convinced this is a good idea particularly as attendance at the Spectroscopy tutorials was only about half the class. And only about 29 out of 73 students bothered to do both the revisionary assignments. But given so many students want tutorials I will look into trialling a tutorial for next year. Several students commented in the surveys that the lectures were too fast and they could not keep up (even though notes did not need to be taken) and so did not understand the material. This is hard to accept given no-one asked a question in the lectures and very few people asked questions after the lectures. I reiterate that if students have questions about lecture material I am happy to discuss and advise. Those students that did make an effort to ask a question I believe found I was more than willing to explain topics in other ways or expand on points that were not clear at the time. Some students commented favourably on my helpfulness and support. Questions that test understanding are available through the assignments set during semester and through the past exam papers (with answers) available on the web. A couple of students wanted "better explanations" or a "better format". Unfortunately, they have not indicated what sort of change they would regard as an improvement so it is hard to respond. I am providing in lectures the best explanation in the most logical format I can. It is not the case that I am keeping the good explanation a secret. One student was clear that the lectures were useless and was highly critical of the course structure. I cannot please everyone. That same student went on to say they learnt more from the text, to which I say well done, you took some responsibility for your own studies. Hopefully you passed.
CHE21FND - Chemistry of Important Elements in the Periodic Table
(Dr Bruce James)This component continues to be well received by students. While there were many gratifying comments from the 52 respondents, 19 did make some suggestions for its improvement. Within this 19, there were suggestions for some web-based notes (8), tutorials (8), or a stated, clearly defined syllabus (3). These comments seemed motivated by some perceived fragmentation of the course material, or an unclear pathway linking the topics discussed, leading to some uncertainty in the aims of the component. This perception is acknowledged, but it is difficult to counteract. While the course is fun to give, the obvious fact of having over 105 elements other than carbon in the Periodic Table makes a sharply defined pathway very difficult to achieve. Each Group of elements, and those elements within each Group, are all individualists (like the lecturer!) The provision of an extra slot for tutorials in the 2006 timetable should help with guidance in this area. Some syllabus material on the Chemistry web site will be provided in future, but I am very wary of anything that is written down being regarded as a restrictive "definition" or "contract" for the component, which should evolve, not stagnate. The same holds true for any web-based notes, which are also being sought too often by students, and are frequently an excuse for laziness.
CHE21FND - Spectroscopy and Stereochemistry
(Dr Andrew Hughes)The Spectroscopy and Stereochemistry lecture topic is historically perceived to be difficult. In recognition of this the department and the lecturers involved review the material periodically, run tutorials in problem solving, make available past exam papers (with answers), provide a very substantial practice problem set (with answers) and set spectroscopic unknowns as part of the 1st semester laboratory program. In addition, this year due to timetabling problems, a second tutorial was provided. Through this high level of support most students can learn and practice the skills required for the exam if they make some effort. The pass rate for this topic was 66% this year. Not very good. This result was also surprising as 11 out of 70 candidates earned a mark of 80% or better for the topic. Thus the low pass rate would seem to be a lack of application by students rather than some problem with the lectures. The overriding point made by respondents to the survey was wanting the pace of lectures to be slower. In previous years the syllabus did not have webnotes and I could not go slower or I would not have finished. Webnotes are now available and I confess I miscalculated how fast to go in lectures now that much less time is consumed writing down the notes from the overhead projector. I will be able to go slower next year but I would also reiterate that if students want another explanation or expansion on some point or some point was explained too quickly for good understanding they have only to ask... but very few did. Some students wanted more notes. I repeat that the notes are not the only resource for this topic and advice about this fact was provided at the start of the notes. There is a substantial handout at the start of the course, which includes the syllabus. Students can use that to locate the relevant topics in the textbook as a means of augmenting and improving their own lecture notes. There was some interest in more tutorials for this topic. Attendance at the tutorials was less than half the class, thus there will not be extra tutorials. There were a couple of requests for assessed worksheets like those in first year. This is not very easy to do as the University places limits on the amount of and time devoted to assessment tasks. There was also some comment that there was too much assumed knowledge. The handout at the start of the notes specifies what is expected of students at the conclusion of the topic and also states what knowledge is assumed and should therefore be revised. The assumed knowledge was simply material covered in 1st year. Given the full syllabus, there is no time for repeating what was covered in 1st year. Students feeling they need revision should do so themselves, other students are ready for 2nd year study and want the new material without time devoted to revisionary summaries.
CHE22DEV/RWD - Carbonyl Chemistry
(Dr Andrew Hughes)The topic was attempted by 38 students this year and the pass rate was 55%. This is a disappointing performance for several reasons. Firstly, the pass rate is 10% down on last years rate of 65% for the same material. Secondly, it is noticeable that only 4 out of 38 students attempted all three of the revisionary assignments that were designed to help students focus on the core material in the topic. Three of those students passed the topic well. Of the 38 candidates, 7 obtained marks of 80% or better which is a good outcome. To then have so many students failing (17) would indicate students were not making much effort. Thus it is clear the growing correlation from last year of attempting the revisionary assignments and then passing the topic is again breaking down as it did in 2003. Students taking this topic in the future would be well advised to commit to working on the material during semester (that includes doing the voluntary revisionary assignments).
From the surveys it is clear that students were generally happy to very happy with the presentation of the topic and the various resources offered to assist study. Several students made comments congratulatory of the use of revisionary assignments, the introduction of board examples, the availability of webnotes, the existence of topic-related practicals and the inclusion of organic reaction mechanisms. Five students indicated they wanted tutorials. Several individuals made comments that indicated they wanted the lecturer to do more work such as; 1. one student wanted better lecture notes, more explanations and examples and exercises – these activities are student responsibilities; 2. one student wanted more time (out of my control), more detail in notes (students can make additions themselves using the text or library reference books) and more summaries (an excellent study activity and one I used myself to great effect when I was a student); 3. one student found the homework time consuming and wanted the assignment questions to tell students where the answers were – which is contrary to the University principle of private inquiry and the assignments are voluntary so if they are too time consuming don’t do them; 4. one student wanted more revision in lectures because they did not understand – to which I say ask some questions, I can not slow the class down for one student but I am happy to answer questions at the end of lectures (even during lectures) and I am available in my office most days and ready to answer any questions then too.
CHE22DEV/RWD - Applied Spectroscopy and Reaction Mechanisms
(Dr Graeme Nyberg and Dr John Traeger)The great majority of the numerical responses were on the 'positive' side, and particularly so for workload manageable and lectures well prepared. The least favourable responses were for volume of work, new ideas introduced at understandable rate and gained good understanding of field.
With respect to best thing, there was no common theme; for how improve, the most common was 'more fully-worked answers'.
Proposed changes: Re-emphasise that fully-worked answers are given in the tutes.
CHE22DEV/RWD - Biological Chemistry
(Dr Bruce James and Dr Bob Brownlee)This course was generally well received by the students with an overall rating of 4.3 The students who made comments on the course found Dr James' lectures were very entertaining and appreciated his "stories". The availability of Dr Brownlee's notes on the web was appreciated but some commented that he stuck too closely to the notes, and suggested that the lectures should deviate from the material provided.
Several students would like more assignments, tutorials and answers to previous exams. We believe that students should be able to answer the exams from material in the course, but we will endeavour to provide more written assignments and provide answers.
CHE22DEV/RWD/CWQ - Environmental Analytical Chemistry
(Dr Conor Hogan)Student satisfaction levels with this topic and the way in which it is delivered remain very high. The survey results indicated 92% of students rated the topic as good or very good and 96 % rated the quality of the lecturing as high all of the time or most of the time. All of the survey questions showed a similar level of approval, the average response to a series of 15 questions (ranked 5 to 1) being 4.1 ± 0.2.
41 students sat the exam and the pass rate, at 73 % was somewhat lower than in previous years, but I note that the level of absenteeism from lectures was correspondingly higher. Surprising, a small minority of students expected to pass the exam without attending lectures! I will take greater pains to impress upon students the insufficiency of simply downloading the online lecture notes. Some survey respondents suggested that more tutorial questions be introduced at an earlier stage in the topic. In future, I will round off each separate section with appropriate tutorial questions. The response to one of the survey questions suggests that the aims of the topic could be made clearer. This will also be addressed.
CHE22DEV/RWD - Solid State and Materials Chemistry
(Dr Graeme Nyberg and Dr Bruce James)All the numerical responses were on the 'positive' side, and particularly so for things explained well, lectures well prepared and overall teaching quality. The least favourable responses were for aims made clear, assessment appropriate, appropriate help, and gained good understanding.
With respect to best thing, there were a variety of comments, but without any common theme; for how improve, there were also a variety of comments, some conflicting, but with 'more notes (online)' being the most common.
Proposed changes: An attempt will be made to further clarify the aims and assessment requirements, and the web-availability of some of the handout notes considered.
CHE22DEV/RWD/CWQ - Water Quality
(Dr Ian Potter)49 students doing CHE22DEV and/or CHE22RWD and another 13 students doing CHE22CWQ did this topic. Overall, the Quality Assurance of Unit responses were positive and students were satisfied with the content and delivery of the unit as indicated by ratings of 4.3/5 for the unit and 4.4/5 for the quality of the teaching.
A number of areas of student concern as indicated in the QAU will be addressed. These include:
- More demonstrations in lectures. This is difficult to organize due to OHS requirements and having to move equipment across campus to lecture location. The use of small equipment will be investigated as well as on-line material.
- A minority of students indicated that there was too much information for 13 lectures. The course content with regard to the amount of information and the order of presentation will continue be reviewed.
- Too many questions on tutorial sheets. The tutorial sheets are designed as a review of the topic and, as such, it is intended that students will apply a problem based approach to learning of this material. This is best done during and immediately at the completion of each topic rather than leaving all the revision to just before the exam.
- Solutions to tutorial problems to be more accessible. Answers to problems involving calculations were supplied in tutorials. The benefits of supplying these worked solutions on the web will be investigated. Answers to descriptive questions are readily found in the topic notes. Although, it is preferable that students attend tutorials to seek help with difficulties, it is recognised that due to a crowded timetable this is not always possible. Those students that had a genuine reason for missing tutorials were able to seek assistance at a convenient time.
The overall examination result for the unit was below expectations with a pass rate of 28/49 and an average mark of 21/40 for DEV and RWD, while, for CWQ a pass rate of 12/13 and an average mark of 36/60. Both groups of students had prepared well for the compulsory exam question. Unfortunately, the responses to some of the other questions were not as good. Tutorials were not well attended. Different methods will be investigated to encourage students to attend and complete tutorial sheets.